296 ALLAN HANCOCK PACIFIC EXPEDITIONS VOL. 3 



Gracilaria Sjostedtii Kylin 



Kylin, 1930, p. 55, fig. 43; 1941, p. 21. 



D. 381 compares favorably in external morphology with specimens 

 from the coast of California. Cystocarps examined have not exhibited the 

 connecting strands between gonimoblasts and cystocarps wall which char- 

 acterize G. confervoides. Until more collections and accurate field obser- 

 vations on these two plants in the Gulf are made, D. 381 is separated from 

 G. confervoides. It was dredged in 22 meters at Tepoca Bay, February, 

 and is much more robust and less branched than D. 366 from the same 

 haul referred to G. confervoides. 



Gracilaria compressa (Ag.) Grev. 



Greville, 1830, p. 125; Harvey, 1846-51, pi. 205; J. Agardh, 1851, 

 p. 593 ; Kiitzing, Tab. Phyc. XVIII, tab. 78 ; Okamura, Icones 

 V, p. 161, pi. 242, figs. 5-10. 



Specimens of several collections from Guaymas appear to agree in 

 all essential details with this widely distributed species. Correspondence is 

 exceedingly close with the Japanese forms illustrated by Okamura (loc. 

 cit.). 



There is considerable variation in size of the plants and diameter of 

 the branches, but the branching habit and fleshy texture of the fresh speci- 

 mens are ready means of identifying the plant. 



Thus far it has been found only in the vicinity of Guaymas, abundant 

 in shallow water or on shores of quiet bays : D. & R. 3356, 3305, 3284, 

 3148, Dec; D. 59, 67, Guaymas Bay, Jan.; D. 477, Puerto San Carlos, 

 near Guaymas, Feb. ; D. & R. 3246, 3242, floating in brackish water at 

 mouth of Rio Mayo, Dec. 



Gracilaria lichenoides (L.) Harv.? 



Setch. & Gard., 1924, p. 750. 



A single sterile collection from Coyote Bay, Concepcion, J. 14, June, 

 was referred to this species by Setchell and Gardner. The plants show 

 much resemblance to the coarser forms of G. confervoides or G. Sjostedtii. 

 The specimens have the pale, cartilaginous character so commonly associ- 

 ated with G. lichenoides, but this may largely be due to conditions under 

 which the present plants were dried. Since no other collections have been 

 made from that part of the Gulf, this record must remain questionable 

 until confirmed by additional material. 



