340 W. M Bale: 



in company Avith fertile specimens of L. phoeniceus. That the type 

 ^specimen is similar is evident from the statement of Dr. Kirkpatrick, 

 who writes, " A. aurita seems to me to be a variety of A. yhfenicea. 

 The hydrothecae are identical, but the hydrocladia more separated 

 and at a wider angle." . 



I have a sketch by Mr. Busk, showing the ramification only. It 

 represents a colony an inch and a half high, which divides just 

 above the base into three ascending stems, each of which gives 

 'Origin to two or three branches on each side, the branches being, as 

 Busk describes, " not opposite nor regularly alternate, divaricate at 

 right angles." (The " right-angled " condition is only approxi- 

 mate). Pictet's figure of his A. disjuncta agrees perfectly with 

 Busk's account and sketch. 



As to the form of the hydrotheca Billard finds that Busk's speci- 

 men resembles most closely the form of L. phoetiiceux figured by me 

 on plate xv., fig. 5, of the " Catalogue," but with the median tooth 

 -less developed. My specimen differs from this in having the crena- 

 tion or plication of the hydrotheca-margin much feebler, also in 

 having the lateral sarcothecae of the erect type, while those of the 

 figure cited are directed downward. Some at least of Busk's sj^eci- 

 mens must have agreed with mine, since he descril)es the lateral 

 sarcothecae as rising above the hydrotheca. Pictet's specimen also 

 agrees in this particular, as well as in the feeble plication of the 

 liydrotheca-margin. It seems, therefore, that the wide range of 

 variation found in the hydrothecae of L. plifrnirtuii is paralleled 

 in L. auritus, and that Billard's suggestion to establish oiirifi/s as 

 •a variety based on a particular form of hydrotheca will scarcely be 

 applicable. The variety or species should be founded on the peculiar 

 habit, by which L. auritus is distinguished from all the forms of 

 L. p/ioenicetis. 



Pictet's description and figure of his A. disjv/irfn agiee so closely 

 with L. auritus that I think there can be little doul)t of their 

 identity. The only points in which a distinction is iiKlicated are 

 the position of the hydrocladia in the same plane, and of the hydro- 

 thecae, which are said to face the front exactly. Both these de.scrip- 

 tions as applied to my specimen are only approximately loiii^l . luit 

 the differences are negligeable. The (Hstauce apart of tlie hydio- 

 thecae, which is the feature i-egarded by Pictet as of }>rinii})al 

 importance, is not greater than in one or two foi-nis of L. 

 phoeniceus in my possession. 



