240 
that immature specimens of Glossophora Harveyi have been con- 
fused with D. dichotoma.” In1901 he recorded, however, D. ocellata 
on the authority of J. Agardh. 
he presence of a fragment of a true Dictyota in a collection of 
Algae from the Chatham Islands, and also of several New Zealand 
specimens referred to that genus in the Kew Herbarium, suggested 
the desirability of an examination of the material available. The 
result of this examination is given below, from which it will be 
seen that two, if not three, species are found to be represented in 
the Kew Herbarium, though at the same time Laing’s opinion with 
regard to Glossophora was found to be correct. 
Dictyota dichotoma is mentioned by Harvey in the Flora New 
Zealand as collected by Lyall and Colenso. Liyall’s specimens 
(dredged in 8 fathoms, Queen Charlotte Sound, Nov., 1850) repre- 
sent a fine large plant with broad segments which branch in a sub- 
regular dichotomous manner. The structure is that of a typical 
Dictyota, but the fronds are unfortunately sterile. The plant does 
not appear to agree with any of the known broad-fronded Australian 
species, and it probably represents an undescribed species. Colenso’s 
gathering (Hawke's Bay) consist of two species, one is Dictyota 
ocellata, J. Ag., and the other possesses the three-layered frond of 
; ep tarts and doubtless represents young plants of G. Harveyi, 
. Ag, 
In the Hooker collections in the Herbarium there are speci- 
mens collected by Sinclair (Bay of Islands, Sept., 1841). The 
plants are too fragmentary for a definite opinion to be expressed, 
but from the disposition of the tetraspores the spe«ies is evidently 
closely allied to the European D. dichotoma, if indeed it is not 
identical with it, 
Callophyllis Hombroniana, Kiitz., Spec. Alg., p. 746, pro parte 
(1849).  Rhodymenia Hombroniana, Mont., Prod. p. 3 (1842); 
Voy. Pol. Sud., p. 157, tab. 1, fig. 2 (1842-5) ; non Callophyllis 
Hombroniana, Kiitz. in Harv. et Hook. Crypt. Antarct., nec in Flora 
New Zealand. Callophyllis erosa, Harv. Fl. New Zeal., vol. iis, 
p. 250 pro parte, Pl. 118, fig. 1, 3, 4 (1855). 
In New Zealand some uncertainty exists as to the identity of 
Callophyllis Hombroniana. Montague’s beautiful figure (Voy. Pol. 
ud. l.c.) gives an excellent idea of the plant, and the large number 
of specimens that exist in British herbaria indicate that the species 
1s of common occurrence. Harvey’s conception of the plant was 
incorrect, he having confused it with another species, C. callibleph- 
aroides, J. Ag., an error pointed out by J. Agardh (Epic, p. 231). 
arvey, however, as explained below, figures it well in the Flora 
of New Zealand. 
Tt has been already pointed out in the Kew Bulletin (1908, 
p. 162) that the original gathering of Callophyllis erosa consisted 0 
more than one species, a fact which explains the character of the 
published figure and description. Figure 2 of Pl. 118 in the Flora 
of New Zealand has long been known to represent Craspedocarpus 
erosus, Schmitz (= Rhodophyllis erosus, J. Ag.), whilst the remaining 
figures have been either left as depicting Callophyilis erosa, Harv. 
or referred to C. Hombroniana. Considerable uncertainty, however, 
exists, and De Toni omits all reference to the figures. From an 
