116 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



thavmia, and that with regard to this group of algee he accepted 

 Foshe's naming practically without question. 



Foslie's opinions may be summarised as follows : — In the first 

 place, it should be noted that he does not attempt to interpret 

 Lamarck's Millepora fasciculata, wdiich was probably composed of 

 several species, but that he regards Harvey's account and illustra- 

 tion as the first satisfactory description of the plant. 



In his " List of Species of Lithothamnion " published in 1898, 

 he keeps Litliopliyllimi fasciculatum and L. Bacevms distinct. 

 But with a view to a clearer understanding of Harvey's species 

 he visited Eoundstone in April, 1899, whence the specimens of 

 L. fasciculatum figured by Harvey were obtained. An account of 

 his visit to this well-known collecting-ground in Co. Galway is 

 given in the Irish Naturalist (vol. viii. 1899, p. 175). Amongst 

 the calcareous algae obtained was a plant which he says "fully 

 agreed with the typical L. fasciculatum Harv.," and also a num- 

 ber of other specimens which he considers forms or varieties of 

 the same species. The latter are dealt with in detail in his paper 

 " New or Critical Calcareous Algae " (1899), in which the affinities 

 of the plant are discussed and five distinct forms described, 

 including f. eunana and f. compressa. 



Although from these papers it is evident that Foslie somewhat 

 modified his views as to L. fasciculatum after his Eoundstone 

 visit, he says nothing whatever about uniting it with L. Bacemus. 

 With regard to the latter plant he states that it is a Mediterranean 

 species, and that the only British specimens he had seen were 

 dead examples from Falmouth {Flora of Koh Chang, Algae, 1901), 

 whilst his concluding statement as to L. fasciculatum is: "I have 

 hitherto but seen certain specimens of this species from the west 

 coast of Ireland " (" New or Critical Calcareous Algae," p. 31)." 



In 1902 Batters published his Catalogue; he entirely omits 

 the name L. fasciculatum, but includes the varieties eunana and 

 compressa under L. Bacemus, and gives their distribution as the 

 West of Ireland. If Batters were following any changeof opinion 

 by Foslie, the latter must have taken place during the years 1901 

 or 1902. There is no evidence that Foshe changed >his mind, 

 nor that Batters for reasons of priority employed a different 

 nomenclature. With regard to the latter there is direct evidence 

 to the contrary, as in the list of changes of nomenclature given by 

 Batters at the end of the Catalogue neither species is referred to. 

 There would appear, therefore, to be no doubt that the two 

 species were unintentionally united. 



The distribution of the species according to Foslie is as under: — 

 L. Eacemus Fosl. North Atlantic : Mediterranean, Adriatic, 

 English Channel (Falmouth, only dead specimens known), 

 Bahamas, Eed Sea. Indian Ocean : Mauritius, Eodriguez. 



* At the same time Foslie records L. fasciculatum var. eunana from Larne 

 Lough, on the east of Ireland. The writer has seen the Larne Lough specimens, 

 and they are sterile, and he cannot help thinking that Foslie's earlier deter- 

 mination of the material is the more correct, namely that it is a form of 

 Litliothamniou calcamon and not a form of L. fasciculatum. 



