161 



NOTES ON BEYOPSIS. 



By Ethel S. Barton. 



(Plate 349.) 



Among the numerous genera of alg^e at the Cape of Good Hope 

 which have been added to and commented upon lately, no remark 

 has been made about Bnjopsis. Species-making in this variable 

 genus is dangerous ; nevertheless I have ventured to do this in one 

 instance, and, while hoping to make a further study of Bri/opsis, 

 I propose now to note here one or two points which may be of 

 interest. "''' 



Among tlie specimens of Bri/opsis collected by Mr. Boodle near 

 Cape Town in 1889-90 are some plants of B. cupressina Lam., a 

 species new to the Cape. At first sight it has the appearance of 

 being much branched, but a closer inspection shows that the 

 supposed branches are in reality separate plants, which are clinging 

 by means of haptera (fig. 6) to the stem of an older plant. These 

 haptera interlace with each other, and the separate plants grow in 

 some cases densely matted together. I know of no other instance 

 of this form of growth in other species of Bryopsis, but it is 

 interesting to observe that Solier, in his account of Derhesia 

 Laiiiouroiixii (Ann. Set. Nat. Bot. ser. 3, vii. 163), says, speaking 

 of the zoospores : — " Ces fruits se developpent souvent sur la 

 plante, et forment un fascicule de rameaux semblable a la plaute 

 primitive. Le poids de ces rameaux fait couch er le fil qui les 

 porte ; ils s'attachent au sol, et bientot il y a une succession de 

 petites plantes liees entre elles, qui imite une plante tra9ante." No 

 mention, however, is made of the haptera, which are so obvious in 

 B. cupressina, and, so far as I caa see, the haptera cling only to 

 the stem of the supporting plant, and do not afterwards attach 

 themselves to the ground. 



While speaking of B. cupressina, I would remark that while 

 De Toni in his SyUof/e Alganim has placed under this the B. 

 adriatica of Meneghini, M. Bornet in his list of the Schousboean 

 algaB has entered both B. cupressina and B. adriatica as distinct 

 species. A comparison of authentic specimens of B. adriatica in the 

 British Museum with Lamouroux's figure of B. cupressina [Jonrn. 

 de But. 1809, t. 1, fig. 3) would point to their being regarded as 

 separate species. I would also suggest that B. Gasparrinii Menegh. 

 be again raised to specific rank. 



A comparison of the type-specimens of B. vujosuroides Kiitz. 

 and B. setacea Hering shows the two plants to be identical. B. 

 mynsuroides must therefore give way to the earlier name of Hering. 

 Since B. setacea has apparently never been figured, a drawing is 

 here given of the type-specimen collected by Krauss at Natal, 



* I have already seen a large series of specimens (including many types), 

 and should be glad to work out any material of this genus entrusted to me. 

 I wish to thank Mevrouw Weber van Bosse, Prof. J. G. Agardh, and Prof. 

 Suringar, for their kindness in lending me valuable specimens. 



Journal of Botany. — Vol. 33. [June, 1895.] m 



