SOME EECENTLY PUBLISHED DESMIDIE/E, 69 



chusetts, Journ. R. M. S., Jan. 1889, p. 19, pi. ii. f. 1-4, pi. iii. f. 14). 

 This species was published by Hastings in 1 he Antimonojwlist and 

 Local Record (Rochester, N. H.) for Oct. 20th, 1888, as X. antilopmoii 

 (Breb.) Kiitz., var. truncatxun Hastings. Since then he has described 

 it as X. truncatum "spec.nov." in the Amer. Month. Micr. Journ., 

 July, 1892, p. 154. Mr. Hastings' claim for priority must neces- 

 sarily be disregarded, as his plant was only described in a local 

 American newspaper! Hence X. truncatum, cannot stand, as this 

 was published three years after X. Tylerianum. Nevertheless Mr. 

 Hastings designated his X. truncatum. as "spec, nov." In con- 

 nection with this Dr. Nordstedt {in litt.) justly remarks that "only 

 once can a species be 'spec, nov.' " 



Staurastkum ecorne Turn., var. podlachicum Eichler & Gutw. 

 (Nonn. Alg. Nov., Krak. Akad., 1894, p. 13, t. v. f. 47). This is 

 much nearer to S. suhpyqmanm West (Freshw. AUj. of W. Ireland, 

 1892, p. 178, pi. xxiii. f. 8 ; et f. glabra West, New Brit. Freshw. 

 Alg., Journ. R. M. S., Feb. 1894, p. 11. pi. ii. f. 43) than to S. ecorne 

 Turn. We should place it under iS'. snhpygmmiw as var. podlachicum. 

 It agrees with S. subpijgmmiw in its large body and broad isthmus, 

 and the angles are but a little more produced (and not capitate, as 

 iu S. ecorne). 



Staurastrum Borgesenii Turn. [Freslnv. Alg. of E. India, 1892, 

 p. 110, t. xiii. f. 23). Before Mr. Turner's Indian paper appeared, 

 Eaciborski {Desmidga w podrozy na okolo ziemi, p. 29) gave the name 

 S. Borgesenii to a plant previously called S. steUatum by Borgesen 

 {Desm. Bras. p. 953, t. v. f. 53). Raciborski did this, as Eeinsch 

 had described a S. steUatum-. We therefore propose to call Turner's 

 above-named species S. Turneei. 



Staurastrum De Tonh Eichler & Gutw. (Nonn. Alg. Nov., Krak. 

 Akad., 1894, p. 18, t. v. f. 51). This is merely a common four- 

 ended form of S.furcatiun (Ehrnb.) Breb. 



Staurastrum pseudopisciforme Eichler & Gutw. (Nonn. Alg. 

 Nov., Krak. Akad., 1894, p. 14, t. v. fig. 50). This is very much 

 nearer S. arcuatum Nordst. in every particular than S. pisciforme 

 Turn., and in fact chiefly differs from the former in the dorsal 

 bifurcate processes being relatively larger. Hence we propose to 

 call this form S. arcuatum Nordst., var. pseudopisciforme (Eich. & 

 Gutw.). 



Staurastrum crescentum Hastings (Wolle, Desm. U.S., new and 

 enlarged edit., p. 153, pi. xlii. figs. 8-11). This is only a form of 

 (S'. forficulatum Lund., var. enoplon West (Freshw. Alg. of Maine, 

 Journ. Bat., Dec. 1891, t. 315, f. 15). The Staurastrum. figured by 

 Wolle as S. forficulatum, pi. Ii. figs. 16-19, certainly does not belong 

 to ^'. forficulatum Lund. It is probable that Mr. Hastings had 

 never seen Lundell's figure of the latter species, and had been 

 unable to identify the plant he was examining by Wolle's figures 

 supposed to represent this species. 



Staurastrum dubium Eichler & Gutw. (Nonn. Alg. Nov., Krak, 

 Akad., 1894, p. xv. t. v. f. 52). This name has already been ap- 

 propriated, a Staurastrum from Capel Curig being described as 

 S. dubium West (Freshw. Alg. of N. Wales, Journ. E.M. S., 1890, 



