MARINE DIATOMS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 49 



CAMPYLODISCUS ANCEPS Castracane 



(Castracane, Chall. Exp., pi. 16, fig. 20; Deby, Campy., pi. 5, fig. 1; see also 

 Janisch, Gaz. Exp., pi. 19, fig. 8.) 



See discussion of this form under Surirella scMeinitzii Janisch. 



CAMPYLODISCUS BELLUS A. Schmidt 



(Schmidt, Atlas, pi. 207, fig. 4.) 



CAMPYLODISCUS BIANGULATUS Greville 



(Micro. Journ., vol. 10, pi. 4, fig. 1; Schmidt, Atlas, pi. 14, figs. 18-22; Deby, 

 Campy, pi. 2, fig. 12.) 



Here are included C. lorenzianus Grunow and C. zebuanus Castra- 

 cane. Greville's type specimen came from Manila, Philippine 

 Islands. 



CAMPYLODISCUS BILATERALIS, new species 



Plate 11, fig. 4 



Valve slightly longer than wide, having along either side a strong 

 band about one-tenth the cross diameter of the valve in width, until 

 near the ends or poles of the valve it rapidly narrows to a mere line 

 running around the ends; this band is transversely marked with 

 wide evenly spaced lines, each of which terminates in a bead at the 

 margin; the rest of the valve surface is covered with closely spaced 

 lines that extend inward to the narrow hyaline median line connect- 

 ing the two valve ends, these inner and finer lines being progressively 

 radial and curved as they approach the ends, and showing a tendency 

 to bifurcate where they join the bands on each side. 



Diameter (between ends), 0.107 mm. 



Type.— Cat. No. 43602, U.S.N.M. 



CAMPYLODISCUS BRIGHTWELLII Grunow 



(Wien. Verh. Zoo-Bot. Gesell., 1862, pi. 9, fig. 5; Schmidt, Atlas, pi. 15 

 figs. 6-7.) 



This can not be distinguished from C.grevillei Leuduger-Fortmorel 

 (Diat. CeyL, pi. 5, figs. 54-56, 1879) or from C. Mnkerii A. Schmidt 

 (Atlas, pi. 207, fig. 16.) 



CAMPYLODISCUS BROWNEANUS Greville 



(Micro. Journ., 1862, p. 89, pi. 9, fig. 2; Deby, Campy., pi. 5, fig. 24A.) 



CAMPYLODISCUS CASTRACANEI Janisch 



(Janisch, Gaz. Exp., pi. 19, fig. 15.) 



Deby claims the true figure of this species to be the one in the 

 Report of the Gazelle Expedition, plate 20, figure 1, while the above he 

 unites with C. incertus A. vSchmidt (Schmidt, Atlas, pi. 15, figs. 13-15). 

 I consider this to be a weak distinction, a specific demarcation be- 

 tween the two figures of Janisch being impossible. Furthermore he 



