255 
Oxsservations on Micrastprias MAHABULESHWARENSIS (Hob- 
son) and Docipium prRistip® (Hobson). By WitiiaM 
ARCHER. 
Havine for some time made the species of Desmidiacez an 
object of study, I naturally take an interest in any literature 
upon that Family of Algze from any part of the world with 
which I may have the pleasure to meet. 
In the ‘ Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science’* Mr. 
Julian Hobson, Bombay Staff Corps, Mahabuleshwar, has 
lately described, and figured by woodcuts,’two species, natives 
of that district, one belonging to the genus Micrasterias (Ag.), 
the other referred to Docidium (Bréb.), both of which, how- 
ever, as It appears to me, have been previously described— 
the former by Dr. Wallich, but, as I venture to conceive, 
with an erroneous view as to its specific claims, and conse- 
quently, as I should be disposed to hold, under an incorrect 
designation ; whilst the latter, I think, is more than likely to 
be identical with a species of the late Professor Bailey’s— 
belonging, however, rather to Triploceras (Bailey) than to 
Docidium (Bréb.). 
It may seem rather premature, and argue somewhat of 
temerity in one who has never seen a specimen of either of 
the forms in question, to venture an opinion; but, as I have 
made myself acquainted with the British species most nearly 
related to the former, and have obtained from my friend Mr. 
William Kaye, of Hong-Kong, a well-executed original draw- 
ing, by Dr. Lauder, R.N., of what I believe to be identical 
with the latter, 1 may be, perhaps, excused if I venture to call 
attention suggestively to, and to contrast the descriptions 
and figures of, what appear to me to be the same two forms, 
each respectively differently designated by Bailey, Wallich, 
and Hobson. 
Dr. Wallich, some time ago, described and figured a Mi- 
crasterias, under the name of M. morsa (Ralfs), var. o+; and 
if those interested in the matter will compare with it the, 
perhaps, a little vague description and figure given by Mr. 
Hobson,t I think it will be admitted that both apply to and 
represent the same identical form. Dr. Wallich, indeed, de- 
picts the end lobes of his plant as serrated, whilst Mr. Hobson 
gives those of his as entire; moreover, the latter, in his de- 
* ©Quart. Journ. Mie. Science,’ N. S., Vol. III, No. 11, July, 1863, pp. 
16S, 169. 
+ ‘Annals of Nat. Hist.,’ 3rd series, vol. v, p. 277, pl. xiii, fig. 10. 
%. Woe) cit., p. 168: 
