strong rescmblance to species of llaly mania (llaìarachnion) in stru- 

 cture and except for the apparently compound nucleus of the cystocarp 

 might reasonably he supposed, as suggestcd by D.' Agardh. to belong to 

 llaìymenia. The frond however is in such bad condition that a se- 

 ction of the cystocarp is not easily obtaincd and although there is no 

 doubt of the plant being ncw, its position in the one genus or the 

 other depends upon the view takcn of the structure of the cystocarp, 

 which is not easily made out, but which so far as I can see, appears to 

 bave a compound nucleus. 



4. Microcoelia kallymenioides. D/ Schmitz is quite correct in 

 saying that I had not seen the lypc specimens of the plant. Indeed I 

 expressly state that the internai structure of the frond agrees well 

 with that of Mìcroccelìa n as described by Agardh». The occurrence 

 of tripartite tetraspores does not prevent its belonging to Mìcroccelìa, 

 since in the Rljodymeuìecc there are ali these kinds of tetraspores 

 prcsent in the genera. Since reading D.'' Schmitz remarks I bave been 

 favoured with a fragment of D.' Agardh's typc specimen and fìnd 

 that there is as much difference in the behaviour of the frond with 

 fresh water as there is between Grateloupìa and Vachymenìa as 

 between Gìgartina and Gymnogongrus. In Mìcroccelìa it is hardly pos- 

 sible to see the structure of the frond, so rapidly does dissolution 

 of the larger cells take place, whilst in my plant this is not the case. 

 But although I am willing to agree that myplant is more probably 

 referable to Hynienocladìa, yet the remarkably kallymenioid form 

 (which led me to suppose that it was rightly referred in Mìcroccelìa 

 by Agardh) and the orbicular or reniform shape of the proliferations 

 of the frond render it quite distinct from the II. Kowiensis of 

 Schmitz. of which I bave a cystocarpic specimen from D.'' Becker 

 and which I refer to M. polvmorpha as a South African form, viz. 

 var. Kowiensis (Schmitz). The proliferations of the variety Kowiensis 

 are linear or oblong. lanceolate and the colour and consistence of 

 the plant are quite different from those of K. ìiallymenìoìdes. 



5. Pachymenìa rugosa. 1 cannot agree with D.*" Schmitz in placing 

 this plant near Graleloupia liìeroglyphica. The hard, horny consistence, 

 hardly affected by fresh water is quite different to that of Grateloupia. 

 The crossthreads amongst the cortical cells, which form so distinct 

 a feature in Pachymenìa, I bave had no diljiculty in finding by careful 

 focussing. but owing to the greater dcnsity of the cortical larger they 

 are not easily seen. It is quite true I bave not seen a series of su-, 

 perimposed cystocarps as is described to bc the case in Pachymenìa, 



