— 975 — 
plant is not mentioned. On the other hand Linné after Tourne- 
fort (Institutiones rei herbariæ, Paris 1700, p. 569, tab. 338) gives 
the genus Acetabulum under “Lithopbyta” in “Systema Nature”, 
1735. By reason of this O. Kuntze in his “Revisio generum 
plantarum”, Pars II, 1891, p. 881, has replaced the name Acetabu- 
laria with Acetabulum and M. Howe has later agreed with him 
in his paper “Observations on the algal genera Acicularia and 
Acetabulum” (Bullet. Torr. Bot. Club, 28, 1901). As was resolved 
at the meetings of the International Botanical Congress in Vienna 
1905, Art. 19, p.37, certainly only as regards the vascular plants 
as yet, that the “botanical nomenclature begins with the Species 
Plantarum of Linnaeus ed. 1 (1753)”, I think there is much less 
reason as regards the cryptogams to go back so far even if in 
this special case, where the question is about an easily recognisable 
plant, there can be no doubt as to the figure of Tournefort. 
In his paper “Remarques sur la Nomenclature algologique” 1) le 
Jolis has for the rest already spoken against Kuntze’s algological 
nomenclature and also with respect to Acetabularia. 
A. Caliculus Quoi et Gaimard. 
Quoi et P. Gaimard: Zoologie, Voyage autour du Monde exécuté 
sur les Corvettes l'Oranie et la Physicienne (Freycinet), Paris 1824, 
p. 621, planche 90, fig. 6 et 7; Harvey, Phycologia Australica, Vol. V, 
PI. 249; H. Solms-Laubach, Monograph of the Acetabularieæ, Transactions 
of the Linnean Society, Second Series, Vol. V, Botany, London 1895—1901. 
Acetabularia Suhrii Solms, |. c. p. 25. 
I have referred to this species a smaller Acetabularia which I 
collected in quantities along the shores of St. Croix. It seems in 
the main to agree well with the description of Solms-Laubachand 
at the same time it seems to me to be like specimens of this 
species I have seen in the British Museum of Natural History, London, 
from Fremantle, W. Australia (Bowerbank) and which are regarded 
by Solms-Laubach as correctly named. As Solms points out 
(1. c.) the original specimens of this species seem to be no longer 
in the Paris Museum. As it would have been of great interest to 
have them for comparison I wrote to M.P.Hariot in Paris about 
this matter but got the answer that the specimens were not in 
the Paris Museum. Most fortunately we have a very good figure 
1) Extrait des Mémoires de la Société nationale des Sciences naturelles et 
mathématiques de Cherbourg, Tome XXX, 1896. 
19* 
