494. HowE: PHYCOLOGICAL STUDIES 
ally show the same character. In this latter connection may be 
mentioned especially Hohenacker’s Meeralgen, no. 497, from Cher- 
bourg, distributed as Codium tomentosum var. proliferum, and 
no. 35 of Mary Wyatt’s Algae Danmonienses. No. 628 of the 
Phycotheca Boreali-Americana, from La Jolla, California, issued 
as Codium Lindenbergii Binder, is, so far as we have seen it, a 
somewhat coarser and less copiously branched plant than those 
from Baja California, and its peripheral utricles are scarcely 
thickened at the apex. If it had been collected in England, we 
suspect that it would have been referred to Codium tomentosum 
without serious question. The plants issued under this number, 
so far as we have seen them, scarcely show evidence of flattening 
beyond that resulting from pressure. They are certainly very 
different in habit from plants of the South African C. Lindenbergu, 
which is conspicuously flattened throughout, with the possible 
exception of the stipe, and has segments often 2-3cm. wide. The 
utricles of the Baja California plants, it may be remarked, are 
clavate, obovoid-clavate, truncate-clavate, or pestle-shaped, 82- 
165u in greatest width, and 380-500 long. 
Codium decorticatum (Woodw.) comb. nov. 
Ulva decorticata Woodw. Trans. Linn. Soc. 3: SS. A707; 
Codium elongatum Ag. Sp. Alg. 1: 454. 1822. 
La Paz, Vives 17. 
The plants reach a length of 5 dm., are sparingly branched, and, 
in the older, are flattened now and then under the dichotomies; 
the peripheral utricles are obovoid or broadly clavate, thin-walled, 
obtuse, 137-520u in maximum width, and 500-700y long. 
The identity of Woodward’s Ulva decorticata with Codium 
elongatum was admitted by C. Agardh himself at the moment of 
proposing the name C. elongatum and has been acknowledged also 
by Kiitzing. We have not seen Woodward's specimen and do 
not know that it exists, but his lengthy and rather detailed descrip- 
tion can leave students of Codium in no reasonable doubt as to 
what he actually had. His failure to recognize its affinity with 
‘“ Fucus tomentosus Huds.’’ and his statement that ‘‘in substance 
it differs from all other known marine Algae”’ appear a little 
strange, yet from Goodenough and Woodward's paper on the 
