50 BULLETIN 100, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



makes G. incerlus A. Schmidt a synonym under C. samoensis Grunow 

 (Schmidt, Atlas, pi. 15, ligs. IS — 20) although Schmidt's name pre- 

 cedes the latter. De Toni (Syl. Alg., p. 609) follows these opinions. 



CAMPYLODISCUS COCCONEIFORMIS Grunow 



(Cleve, Vega, p. 502, pi. 38, fig. 78; Deby, Campy., pi. 9, fig. 51.) 

 Although this diatom is here placed under Campylodiscus for con- 

 venience, there is much doubt of its belonging here. De Toni also 

 follows the generic name with a question mark. I have found this 

 puzzling form also at Georgetown, British Guiana. 



CAMPYLODISCUS COMPTUS Janisch 



(Janisch, Gaz. Exp., pi. 19, fig. 16.) 



C. macassarensis (Grove) Deby (Deby, Campy., pi. 14, fig. 71) is 

 rather close to this, as is also C. crebrecostatus Greville; see below. 



CAMPYLODISCUS CONCINNUS Greville 



(Schmidt, Atlas, pi. 53, fig. 9; also Schmidt, Atlas, pi. 18, fig. 18.) 

 My specimen corresponds exactly with the var. lineata Grunow of 

 the above reference. I do not agree with Deby in making this and 

 the type form (Micro. Journ., 1860, p. 30, pi. 1, fig. 2) synonymous 

 with C. imperialis Grunow (compare H. L. Smith, Types, No. 626.) 



CAMPYLODISCUS CONTIGUUS A. Schmidt 



(Schmidt, Atlas, pi. 18, figs. 19-20.) 



Judging by the figures Schmidt's form is sufficiently unlike C. latus 

 Shadbolt to warrant its apologetic name. If the actual diatoms have 

 been seen to be alike by Deby he is justified in uniting them. 



CAMPYLODISCUS CREBRECOSTATUS Greville 



(Micro. Journ., 1864, pi. 1, fig. 6; Schmidt, Atlas, pi. 14, fig. 28.) 



Janisch 's C. comptus (see above) runs close to this, as does also C. 

 intermedins Grunow. 



CAMPYLODISCUS DECORUS Brebisson 



(BrSbisson, Diat., Cherb., p. 14, pi. 1, fig. 2; Van Heurck, Synopsis, pi. 72, fig. 

 3; Deby, Campy., pi. 2, fig. 15.) 



De Toni (Syl. Alg., p. 612) groups this with C. ralfsii W. Smith and 

 says, "0. decorus vix a C. ralfsii differt nisi pseudorhaphe distincta." 

 This is not quite true; but even so, it is a more satisfactory mark of 

 distinction than many species can boast. 



CAMPYLODISCUS DAEMELIANUS Grunow 



(Schmidt, Atlas, pi. 17, fig. 11; pi. 54, figs. 1-2; Deby, Campy., pi. 12, fig. 53.) 



Among the large number of specimens found considerable difference 

 exists, not in the plan of ornamentation but in the degree to which 

 it is carried out. 



