Dr. R. K. Greville on some neiv species of Caulerpa. 3 



nata, plnnis obtusis, crassis." I may add in conclusion that the 

 stems and branches of C. asplenioides are comparatively tough a,nd 

 opake, and bear no resemblance to those of C. pinnata, which 

 Turner has so graphically compared to battered plants of Chara 

 flexilis. 



In order to assist in confirming my views regarding these spe- 

 cies, I refer to the illustrations on Plate I., viz. — 



Caulerpa taxifolia. Fig. 1 . A portion of the frond, natural size. Fig. 2. A 



portion magnified. 

 Caulerpa asplenioides. Fig. 1. A portion of the frond, natural size. 



Fig. 2. A pair of the pinnae magnified. 



Caulerpa laxa (nob.) ; frondibus simplicibus, ramentis lineari-clavatis 



apice rotundatis undique laxe imbricatis. 

 Hob. in mari Peninsulse Indise Orieutalis ; Wight. 



This species is allied to Caulerpa clavifera, but is altogether a 

 more slender plant. It has, indeed, a moss-like habit, at least 

 after having been dried, quite unlike C. clavifera, with authentic 

 specimens of which I have compared it ; and still more unlike 

 Fucus Lamourouxii and Fucus uvifer of Turner, which are consi- 

 dered as varieties of that species by Agardh. The ramuli vary 

 considerably in different individuals with regard to their length 

 and in the degree in which they are thickened upwards ; but 

 they are always gradually clavate and rounded at the extremity ; 

 a double character which at once separates it from Caulerpa Se- 

 lago and its allies, including a beautiful new species {C.furci- 

 folia, Harv.) collected in New Zealand by Dr. Sinclair, and pre- 

 sented to me by my friend Mr. WiUiam Gourlie. 

 Plate II. fig. 1. Caulerpa lam, natural size. Fig. 2. Ramuli magnified. 



Caulerpa fissidentoides (nob.); frondibus compacte pinnato-pecti- 

 natis; pinnis adscendentibus, linearibus, obtusis, apiculatis, op- 

 positis. 



Hab. in mari Peninsulee Indise Orieutalis ; Wight. 



It is with very considerable hesitation that I venture to sepa- 

 rate this plant from Caulerpa plumaris. and I confess that I am 

 unable to define it satisfactorily. At the same time the habit is 

 very different, closely resembling that of a gigantic Fissidens. It 

 is more rigid and less slender in all its parts than C. plumaris, 

 the pinnse shorter and much less capillary, and although given 

 off horizontally as in that plant, they immediately assume a more 

 upward direction. The rachis too (if I maybe allowed the term 

 for convenience sake) is relatively broader, so that the pinnae 

 are often not more than equal to twice or thrice the width of 

 that part. I am not disposed, however, to lay much stress upon 

 the length of the pinnae, because this character is extremely va- 



1* 



