G5 



SOME RECENTLY PUBLISHED DESMIDIE^. 

 By W. West, F.L.S., and G. S. West, A.R.C.S. 



GoNATozYGON KETicuLATUM Tum. [Fresliw. Alff. of E. India, p. 24, 

 t. XX. f, 3). This is a form of Q^dofjonium punctato-striatum De Bary, 

 the cells of which are very often rough on the margin, and dilated 

 at each end. G. leiodermum Turn. [L c. p. 24, t. xx. f. 5) is also 

 very probably an (Edogonium. 



Sph.erozosma neglectum Schmidle (Algen ans dem Gebiete des 

 Oberrheins, Bericht. der Deutsch. Botnn. Geselhch. 1893, p. 546, 

 t. xxviii. f. 13). This is not a Sphcerozosma, but belongs to the 

 genus Spondylosium on account of the cells cohering by their apical 

 surfaces, and not being joined by connecting structures. Hence we 

 propose to call it Spondylosium neglectum. 



Li the paper on the Freshw. Alg. of W. Ireland, Journ. Linn. 

 Soc. 1892, p. 116, the printer altered " Spondi/losium pyf/mcBum nob. 

 [SphcBvozosma pygmmum Cooke)" to '^ Spharozosma pyymcBum nob. 

 (Sphfsrozosma pyymceum Cooke)," on account of its coming near the 

 top of a fresh page. This has caused a good deal of confusion (vide 

 Schmidle, Alg. aus dem Geb. d. Oberrh., Bericht. d. Deutsch. Bot. 

 Gesell. p. 547^ Borge, Unters. der neu ersch. Desmid. Litter., 

 Nuova Notarisia, 1894). The real name of this species is Spondy- 

 losium pygmmum (Cooke) West [vide West, Alg. of Eng. Lake 

 District, Journ. R. M. S. 1892, p. 718). Cooke was the original 

 describer of this species (Brit. Desm. p. 5, pi. ii. f. 5), and placed it 

 under the genus Spharozosma ; whereas it is a Spondylosium, under 

 which genus we placed it in the Irish paper, though this was 

 frustrated by the printers. It has nothing whatever to do with 

 Sphcerozosma pygmcBum Eabh. {Fl. Europ. Alg. iii. p. 150), which is 

 a Cosmarium — C. pygmanm Arch. 



Sph^kozosma sp. Heimerl (Desmidiaceae alpinas, Verhand. Zool.- 

 Bot. Gesellsch. Wien, 1891, p. 589, taf. v. f. 1). This is a narrower 

 form of Spondylosium tetragonum West [Freshw. Alg. of W. Ireland, 

 1892, p. 115, pi. xix. f. 2), and has no connection whatever with 

 Sphcerozosma hamhusinoides Wittr. ( = Spondylosium puJchellum Arch, 

 var. bamhusinoides (Wittr.) Lund.). Heimerl in his text has 

 **/ Spharozosma bamhusinoides Wittr." 



DociDiuM baculum Breb. The forms of D. haculum figured by 

 Liitkemiiller (Beobacht. iiber die Chlorophyllkorper einig. Desmid., 

 Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschrift, 1893, Nr. i, u. 2, taf. ii. f. 9-15) are but 

 forms of Penium mimitum (Ralfs) Cleve. The chlorophyll of the 

 latter is even more variable than figured by him, and is often 

 arranged in a somewhat irregular and loose spiral band passing 

 through the whole cell, whereas the chlorophyll of Docidium baculum 

 consists of a band containing an axile row of large pyrenoids. Dr. 

 J. Lutkemiiller bases a number of remarks on the genera Pleuro- 

 tanium and Docidium on the supposition that the examples which he 

 figures belong to Docidium baculum, whereas his figures only repre- 

 sent Penium minutum ! 



Journal of Botany. — Vol. 32. [March, 1895..] f 



