104 Mr. Turner's Remarks upon 



C. limosa of Dillwyn : but we have great reason to lament Dille- 

 nius's not having preserved the latter, as Hudson's C. furcata 

 depends* solely upon it. 



7. A very narrow variety of Ulva compressa, quite bleached. Dr. 

 Roth refers to this number for the C. nitcns of his Catakcta Bota- 

 nica; but the plant there intended must, according to his descrip- 

 tion, for I have never seen a specimen, be a M'idely dissimilar 

 species. It may be worth remarking that he, by a typographical 

 error, quotes " II. 6." instead of " II. 7-" 



8. C.fcenkulacea. Fl. Ang. — From the specimens, of which 

 there are three in the Dillenian Herbarium, this is a Fucus, and 

 one that I believe to be not yet described. 



9. C. dichotoma. Linn. 



10. Hudson, the only author who appears to have mentioned 

 this No., has quoted it as the (3. of his C. furcata: there are three 

 specimens, one of which is C. fracta, FL Dan. ; a second C. am- 

 p/tibia; and a third what we suppose to be a small variety of 

 C. dichotoma. 



11. Of this plant, the so much contested C. bullosa, which every 

 botanist believes he knows, but of the existence of which, as a 

 single species, I greatly doubt, there are two papers. The first 

 contains four specimens ; three of them, in an unexpanded state, 

 are so bad that it would be idle to conjecture what they are : the 

 fourth is Dr. Roth's C. divaricata vat. [3. c/ongata. On the other 

 paper are also four specimens, two of which, quite bleached, may 

 be referred to almost any thing; the third is C.jugalis, FL Dan.; 



* Unless, indeed, of which I am not aware, Hudson should have given specimens 

 to any of his friends. What I have hitherto seen and received under the name of C. fur- 

 cata leads me to coincide with a remark made by that able botanist Dr. Goodenough, 

 that it is probably only the first stage of C. dichotoma, or a small variety. 



the 



