OF ARTS AND SCIENCES. 53 



lY. 



CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE CRYPTOGAMIC LABORATORY 

 OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY. 



XII. — CONCERNING THE STRUCTURE AND DEVEL- 

 OPMENT OF TUOMEYA FLUVIATILIS, Harv* 



By William Albert Setchell. 



Presented by W. Q. Farlow, April 9, 1890. 



The generic name Tuomeya, bestowed by Harvey upon a rare and 

 curious fresh- water alga sent him from the United States, commemo- 

 rates a diligent collector and contributor to the work on the Nereis, 

 Professor Tuomey of Alabama. Harvey mentions that Tuomeya Jiu- 

 viatilis, as the species was named, had been collected in a river in Ala- 

 ba^na by Professor Tuomey, and near Fredericksburg, Virginia, by 

 Professor J. W. Bailey. In his general remarks on the suborder 

 Batrachospei-mece, however, Harvey mentions New York and Alabama 

 as " distant localities " in which the species had been found. As New 

 York does not appear in the formal list of localities under the species, 



* The following statement should be made with regard to the name of the 

 alga whose structure is described in the present paper. The specimens collected 

 by Professor Tuomey were sent originally to Harvey, who described them under 

 the name of Tiwmei/n fluviatilis in the third part of his Nereis Boreali Americana, 

 which was accepted for publication in September, 1857, and issued in March, 

 1858. Meanwhile Harvey had apparently sent a specimen of his plant to Kuet- 

 zing, who described and figured it, under the name of Bai/ei/a Americana, in his 

 Tabula Phycologicce, VII. 35, Plate LXXXVII. Fig. 3, of which the title-page 

 bears the date 1857. The generic name given by Kuetzing cannot stand, since 

 tliere was a genus of Composite of the same name described by A. Graj' in 1848. 

 Whether the specific name of Kuetzing should have preference over that of 

 Harvey may be questioned, considering that, while the date of Volume VII. of 

 the Tahulce is given as 1857, it may not have been distributed until early in 1858 ; 

 so that the date of Kuetzing's publication and that of Harvey's, so far as the 

 botanical public were concerned, were almost identical. Certainly Harvey could 

 liave had no knowledge that Kuetzing was about to describe the specimens origi- 

 nally sent to himself, and, if there seem to be any doubt as to date of publica- 

 tion, under the circumstances Harvey should have the benefit of the doubt. — 

 W. G. F. 



