128 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANT 



of a branchlet, and his remarks rather infer the contrary. In a 

 specimen collected in 1898 b}^ Mr. F. M. Reader at Polkemmet, in 

 the Wimmera River Valley, Victoria, my late brother found an 

 instance of an antheridium and an oogonium at the same free node, 

 and although produced side-by-side proceeding from the same peri- 

 pheral cell, corresponding therefore with LamprotJiamnium rather 

 than with Lychnothammts. The coronula of L. macroj^ogon more- 

 over closely resembles that of L. j)api(losum, and is quite unlike the 

 diminutive coronulas of L. barbafus and Nitellopsis obfitsa, which in 

 size approach more nearly to those of the Nitellece. If the evidence 

 ended here I should feel little hesitation in proposing the transfer 

 of L. macro-poqon to LamprotJiamnium. but in a specimen collected 

 by Mr. S. T. i)unn in a freshwater lagoon, at Shebo, Hong Kong in 

 ibO'j (No. 178-i), which in other respects closely resembled L. macro- 

 poqon, and which we came to the conclusion must be referred to that 

 species, we found two instances where an oogonium and an antheri- 

 dium were produced at the same free branchlet-node, both organs in 

 each case proceeding from the same peripheral cell, but the antheri- 

 dium being below the oogonium. This position would, according to 

 the recognized characters, necessitate the plant being placed under 

 Char a. 



In view of these facts it is difficult to decide where the species is 

 best located. Four alternatives j^resent themselves, to all of which 

 there are objections. To take first that of allowing it to remain in 

 Lychnothamnus, this must, I think, be rejected, considering the pohit 

 of origin of the antheridium when produced in compan}^ with an 

 oogonium at a free node in Reader's and Dunn's specimens. This 

 character, as well as the size of the connula, appears to me conclusively 

 to separate it from L. barbatns, which must be regarded as the type 

 of the genus. The second alternative, that of placing it under 

 Lamprotliamnium on accoimt of its great resemblance to L. papu- 

 losnm, would, if our determination of Dunn's plant is correct, mean 

 setting aside the one distinguishing character of that genus. 



A third alternative is that proposed by Dr. Migula, who placed 

 L. macropogon in a separate genus and named it Macropogon aus- 

 iralicum {Die Characeen, 1. c. p. 273, 1891). He did not, however, 

 diagnose his genus, and I am at a loss to discover any character or 

 set of characters upon which such a genus could be based. The pro- 

 duction of oogonia in the axils of the branchlets, evidently their 

 normal position in L. macropogon, is not peculiar to that species, 

 several of the Charce, sect, liaplostepliance producing them in the 

 same position, and the presence of a single stipulode opposite the base 

 of each branchlet is also common to more than one Cliara of the same 

 section, while the great length of the stipulodes, apart from its not 

 being a satisfactory generic character, is as already stated, by no 

 means constant. 



For the present — at any rate until more evidence is forthcoming — 

 the most satisfactory course seems to be to adopt the fourth alternative 

 of reinstating the species in the genus Cliara, placing it next to 

 C. succinct a, with which it has much in common, the main differences 



