AN 
w 
241 
examination of the specimens it is perfectly clear that Callophyllis 
erosa cannot exist as a species, part of the original gathering being 
composed of Craspedocarpus erosus, Schmitz, and the remainder 
(with the exception of an indeterminable fragment) of C. Hom- 
broniana. The specimen depicted in figure 1 is in the Kew 
Herbarium, and is a typical, though somewhat worn, example of 
the last named plant, and figures 3 and 4 refer also to the same 
species. 
The following is a revised description of C. Hombroniana :— 
Fronds narrow, much branched, rather large, deep crimson. Root 
small, discoid. Main branches 5-8 mm. wide, erect or spreading 
20-25 cm. long, irregularly dichotomous, and pinnately beset with 
branched laciniae, or lateral branches. Lateral branches short, 
repeatedly and irregularly dichotomous ; margins laciniate. Laciniae 
short, almost simple or much branched. Cystocarps single in the 
segments of simple or slightly branched laciniae. Tetrasporangia 
in terminal segments of lateral branches and in densely branched 
laciniae, cruciately divided, 40 x 20 
Distinguished from C. calliblepharoides by the longer narrower 
fronds and much branched laciniae. The Tasmanian C. Lambertit, 
Harv. which C. Hombroniana most closely resembles differs in the 
ancipate frond, coarser and thicker lateral branches and absence of 
mbriae ; whilst C. coccinea may be known by the much narrower 
branches, absence of fimbriae and by the long dichotomously 
branched lateral branches. 
Chrysymenia asperata, Cotton, comb. nov. 
Callophyllis asperata, Harv. in Hook., Flora New Zealand, vol. ii., 
p- 250 (1855). Chrysymenia? apiculifera, J. Ag., Epic. p. 320 excl. 
lately recorded. examination of the t specimens in the 
Herbarium shows that the plant is not a Callophyllis, but possesses 
the texture and structure of Chrysymenia ; riking resemblance 
8 — 
Clearly described by Harvey in the Flora of New Zealand, this 
alga was linked by J. Agardh (Epic. p. 320) with his Chrysymenta 
rdh a not seen authentic specimens, but stated 
Ls t the lant named 
unknown to Harvey, and that the p the same as his C. apiculi- 
isappeared from the list of 
