216 ALLAN HANCOCK PACIFIC EXPEDITIONS VOL. 3 



seem to be either Codium anastomosans or juvenile examples of C. sini- 

 cola. Now, it seems remarkable indeed that four species of Codimn should 

 be growing side by side in that very small area. True, at present there is 

 no way by which we can show that they are genetically related, and at 

 least tentatively these specimens must remain separately designated, but it 

 is strongly suspected that at Pond Island, inside and outside the lagoon, 

 there are situations which will, upon investigation, reveal much as to the 

 influence of environment on the growth forms of these Codia. It is prob- 

 ably to be expected that at that time further changes in the present no- 

 menclatorial concepts will become necessary. 



Most of the recent collections of Codium are of young plants, few of 

 them having attained a suflSciently mature stage of development to allow 

 them to be matched satisfactorily with the older specimens collected in 

 the spring and summer. A large number of the author's specimens are 

 small plants resembling the types of either C. cervicorne or C. anasto- 

 mosans. In some instances it is impossible to draw any lines of distinction. 

 C. anastomosans is, however, here left separate, awaiting verification of 

 the permanency of its caespitose, clumping habit which may prove distinc- 

 tive. 



Codium simulans S. & G. 



Setch. & Gard., 1924, p. 706, pi. 14, figs. 21, 22, pi. 31. Codium unilater- 

 ale Setch. & Gard., 1924, p. 710, pi. 15, figs. 30, 31, pi. 36. Codi- 

 um Brandegeei Setch. h Gard., 1924, p. 712, pi. 14, figs. 25, 26, 

 pi. 30. Codium cervicorne Setch. & Gard., 1924, p. 712, pi. 14, 

 figs. 19, 20, pi. 32b. Codium tomentosum, Howe, 1911, p. 493 

 (not of Stackhouse). 

 The species here understood as Codium simulans is probably the com- 

 monest member of this genus in the Gulf, and its growth-forms are re- 

 sponsible for the several names given in synonymy. With regard for sea- 

 sonal and other ecological variation, all of the specimens listed under the 

 several names can reasonably be considered as being of a very close genetic 

 relationship. With the exception of the somewhat larger utricles with 

 thin end-walls in C. unilateralcj a difference perhaps to be expected in 

 such larger specimens, there are no points with which the utricles can be 

 used to distinguish them. From all indications of the collections at hand, 

 C. cervicorne is probably a young form of this plant, not yet having de- 

 veloped the distinctive branching habit of the larger specimens. The type 



