the Dillenian Herbarium. 105 



the fourth, a species different from all the rest, and, we believe, 

 not at present described. 



12. C. albida. Fl.Ang.—Dr. Roth, in the 2d volume of his Ca- 

 talecta Botanica, quotes this plant as a variety of his Ceramium 

 tomentosum, for which he refers to the following number; and 

 he observes, that it has at first sight a strong resemblance to his 

 C.nitens (No. 7-) : both which remarks, with all due deference to 

 so truly able a botanist, I must, on the authority of the Herbarium 

 itself, pronounce unfounded. 



13. All authors have agreed in referring to this number as C. to- 

 mentosa, and it appears by the description to be intended for that 

 plant: but the specimens, though bad, seemed evidently, to Mr. 

 Woods and me, to be only C. littoralis, with a somewhat more 

 rusty hue than usual. 



14. C. reticulata. 



15. Of this there are eight specimens, none of them sufficiently 

 good to allow a positive opinion to be passed upon them : they 

 appeared to us nothing more than a short variety of C. amphibia. 

 I need hardly observe that this number is the C. canalicularis of 

 Linnaeus, or that the following number 



If), is C. rigida. Fl. Aug. — This I had expected to find a variety 

 of C.fracta ; but it more resembles C. glomerata, much battered, 

 and incrusted with calcareous matter. 



17- C.f rigida. Roth. — There are three specimens, none of them 

 good, but all the same plant; so that it may be questioned if Dr. 

 Roth was not mistaken in his remark, that Dillenius confounded 

 this plant with C. amphibia, and in consequently referring only 

 IV. 17. A. to C.f rigida, but B. and C. to amphibia. 



18. This appeared to us a minute variety of C.fracta, gathered 

 while growing upon stones; but we beg to be understood as speak- 

 ing with more than usual diffidence on this subject. 



vol. vii. P 19. C. littoralis. 



