(J8 A SYSTEMATIC AND STRUCTURAL ACCOUNT OF AVEAINVILLEA. 



Ill the same year M. Cbauviii described the genus FradeJia [F. 

 fuliilinosit) in his ' Eechcrches sur rorganisatiou, &c., de plusieiirs 

 genres d'Algues,' Caen, on an Alga found by M. Fradel at Peruam- 

 buco. We have the authority of the MM. Crouan for regarding 

 these as the same plant, and the descriptions themselves bear 

 ample evidence of it. Nothing further is heard of the genus until 

 1858, when three more generic synonyms were added to it. These 

 were Chlorojiln/ma of Zanardini (Plant, in mari rubro, &c., Enume- 

 ratio, p. 290), llliijiilia of Kiitzing (Tab. Pliyc. Bd. viii.), and 

 C/ilorodi'bViis of Jjailey & Harvey (Ner. Bor. Am. iii.). The 

 abundance of this synonymy is not to be wondered at, since the 

 descriptions of Arrai)irille(( and Fradelia (though, as has just been 

 said, sufficient for proving their identity with each other) are by no 

 means eloquent as to the appearance and structure of the genus. 

 Moreover, there was no figure published of either. Zanardini's 

 L'ldorojdiyma came from Eastern seas, Kiitzing's lihipUut from the 

 Antilles (same region as AvrainviUea), and Bailey & Harvey's Lhloro- 

 dcsnns from the Pacific ; all three have been figured. CJdoyoplcgnm was 

 figured very poorly, and, except that Zanardini himself subsequently 

 added another species to it, this genus also departed into the waste of 

 synonymy. llJiiidlia of Kiitzing, on the other hand, was carefully 

 figured in the ' Tabulae,' and thus became widely known to phy- 

 cologists. He described two species of it, B. knujicaidis and Fi. 

 tumcntosa. The latter, however, is a species of Udotea, as we have 

 been able to satisfy ourselves from an examination of the type- 

 specimen Idndly lent to us by M. Suringar. FJiipilia, however, 

 gained a recognition in systematic phycology, and Prof. Dickie 

 added to it iu ilausoni from Barbadoes (Journ. Linn. Soc. vol. xiv.). 

 The type is with his herbarium in the British Museum, and is 

 identical with Avraiucillca nigricans Decne., according to specimens 

 so named by MM. Crouan from Guadeloupe (Maze & Schramm), also 

 in the British Museum. In 1886 Mr. Murray described (Trans. 

 Liun. Soc.) aiiotlier species of FJiipilia [11. Andcrsonii), from the 

 Mergui Archipelago, where it was collected by Dr. Anderson. This 

 is, beyond doubt:, identical with the Chluroplet/ina papuanwii Zanard. 

 collected by Beecari, since we have been able to examine the types 

 of both in the British Museum, to which institution Dr. Beecari 

 recently presented a specimen of C. papuanuni. It is now Aivain- 

 villea jiapuana. 



MM. Crouan, in Maze et Schramm's ' Algues de la Guadeloupe,' 

 first pointed out the identity of FJiipilia with ArrainviUea, though it 

 is only fair to claim for one of us that he had independently come to 

 the same conclusion. As for Chlowdesniis of Bailey & Harvey, its 

 identity with Arraincillca has never been suspected until now. The 

 abundant authentic material from Harvey in the British Museum, 

 as well as the specimens of Cldorudesmis i>aclii/])us Kjellin., and the 

 rich material collected by Ferguson in Ceylon (No. 290), leave no 

 doubt ill our minds ; fir.sdi/, that CJilorodcsinis comosa is merely an 

 Anainiillea with the filaments free, instead of interwoven, and the 

 rhizoid mass piobably broken ofi' short ; and, secondhj, that other 

 forms exactly resembling ('hlurodisniis (Ferguson's No. 290) are 



