FurtJier Notes on Frustulia Saxonica. By W. J. Hickie. 127 



and narrower than the one represented on Herr Seibert's photo- 

 graphs, which he has so thoughtfully, lest we should make a mistake, 

 labelled "Frustulia Sachs.," and some, again, which are much 

 shorter, and, comparatively, twice as plump ; so that an opinion 

 based on an examination of one specimen may be upset by a glance 

 at the next. If now we remove the slide of Frustulia, and substitute 

 a slide of " small Bhomhoides," that is, such a one as that presented 

 to me by Mr. Kitton, the observer will be somewhat puzzled to tell 

 which slide he is looking at ; for there also he will see some as long 

 and as narrow as Herr Seibert's, though — strange to say — the short 

 and plump ones are in a large ma,jority, which is not the case on 

 the slides of Frustulia Saxonica by Kodig and Moller, which I 

 produce. 



On " lar(/e Bhomhoides" however, and especially on that known 

 as " Bennis Lake Bliomhoides," we can, indeed, see a difference ; 

 for here we observe a palpable angle at the broadest part, and the 

 median line seems to run right on to the terminal margin, while the 

 central knot is much more conspicuous. 



But, as regards our " small Bhomhoides" a repeated comparison 

 of Mr. Kitton's slide of this species with indubitable slides of Frus- 

 tulia Saxonica compels me to do that which Dr. Woodward has 

 declined to do, namely, to retract a previous erroneous statement, 

 and to confess that I am unable to state where "Frustulia 

 Saxonica" ends and our "small Bhomhoides" begins, and that, in 

 spite of casual differences here and there in colour and in their 

 resolution, they really are the same thing under different names ; 

 so that, if we call our small Khomboides Frustulia Anglica. and 

 its Saxon congener Frustulia Saxonica, and Dr. Woodward's Frus- 

 tulia, when he finds it, Frustulia Woodwardia, we shall, I suppose, 

 have satisfied all parties. 



I will further remind you of a few simple facts. Dr. Eaben- 

 horst discovered a certain diatom in Saxon Switzerland and named 

 it Frustidia Saxonica. De Brebissou also, as I understand, dis- 

 covered a certain diatom and named it Navicula crassinervis, and did 

 so under the impression that what he so named was something totally 

 difierent from what Dr. Eabenhorst had called Frustulia Saxonica. 

 Dr. Eabenhorst, again, in the letter I read to you, says expressly, 

 that he who identifies these two diatoms, must be ignorant of one 

 or other of them. 



Now, if there be any two greater Continental authorities on 

 this point than Dr. Eabenhorst and the late De Brebisson, I should 

 like to know who they are. 



I have now said all that I intended to say, and have said it at 

 some length, as I do not intend to revert to this subject again, 

 either in reply to any future remarks of Dr. Woodward's, or in 

 reply to any other person who may care to reopen the question. 



