MARINE DIATOMS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 69 



COSCINODISCUS NITIDUS Gregory 



(Gregory, Diat., Clyde, p. 27, pi. 10, fig. 45; Schmidt, Atlas, pi. 58, fig. 18.) 



COSCINODISCUS NOBILIS Grunow 



(Grunow, Diat., Casp. See (Kitton's Translation) in Journ. Roy. Mic. Soc, 

 1879, pi. 1, fig. 1; Janisch, Gaz. Exp., pi. 2, fig. 6; pi. 6, fig. 13.) 



COSCINODISCUS NODULIFER Janisch 



(Schmidt, Atlas, pi. 59, figs. 20-23.) 



COSCINODISCUS NORMANII Gregory 



(Micro. Journ., 1859, p. 80, pi. 6, fig. 3; Schmidt, Atlas, pi. 57, figs 9-10, 

 misnamed.) 



COSCINODISCUS OCULUS-IRIDIS Ehrenberg 



(Ehrenberg, Mikrogeologie, pi. 18, fig. 42; pi. 19, fig. 2; Schmidt, Atlas, pi. 

 63, figs. 6, 7, 9; pi. 113, figs. 1, 3-5, 20.) 



Ehrenberg's C. centralis, figured in Mikrogeologie, plate 18, figure 

 30, and plate 22, figure 1, is quite distinct from this; but what he 

 calls by that name in plate 21, figure 3 is probably this species. The 

 same is true of what Castracane misnames C. centralis in the Reports 

 of the Challenger Expedition, plate 2, figure 3. 



COSCINODISCUS PRAETEXTUS Janisch 



(Janisch, Gaz. Exp., pi. 3, fig. 4.) 



Rattray is wrong in maming this the same as C. gigas Ehrenberg. 

 See Ehrenberg's Mikrogeologie, plate 18, figure 34. 



COSCINODISCUS PUSTULATUS Mann 



(Mann, Diat., Albatross Voyages, p. 257, pi. 48, fig. 3.) 



COSCINODISCUS RADIATUS Ehrenburg 



(Ehrenberg, Mikrogeologie, pi. 19, fig. 1; pi. 22, fig. 3; Schmidt, Atlas, pi. 60, 

 figs.* 5, 6, 9; pi. 62, fig. 18.) 



I do not agree with De Toni (Syl. Alg., p. 1246) that G. devius 

 A. Schmidt in his atlas, plate 60, figures 1-4, is a small variety of 

 this species 



COSCINODISCUS RADIOSUS Grunow 



(Van Heurck, Synopsis, pi. 132, fig. 7.) 



As noted under C. micans A. Schmidt, it and this species are 

 similar. 



COSCINODISCUS RENIFORMIS Castracane 



(Castracane, Chall. Exp., p. 160. pi. 12, fig. 12. See Janisch, Gaz. Exp., pi. 1, 

 figs. 1-5, and Schmidt, Atlas, pi. 140, fig. 17, misnamed.) 



This strangely shaped diatom is rather widely distributed and, 

 though varying somewhat in contour and fineness of network, keeps 

 closely to its type. It is a radically distinct species in the genus 



