жау аі ы М ee a aY ka sb Cas aa 
i 
| 
К 
| 
x 
x 
3 
1 
AHNFELTIA 111 
Plocaria Durvillaei Mont. in C. Gay, Hist. Fis. Pol. Chile Bot. 8: 
295. 1852; pl. 16. f. 2. 1854. 
Ahnfeltia Polyides Aresch. Act. Reg. Soc. Sci. Upsal. III. 1: 355. 
1854. 
Gymnogongrus Polyides Kütz. Tab. Phyc. 19: 26. pl. 70. 1860. 
On tide rocks, Bay of Ferrol, region of Chimbote, Mar. т, 1907, 
Coker 110 р.р. (PLATE 44); "common on surf-beaten rocks," 
Guafiape Islands, Маг. 7, 1907, Coker 121 p.p.; "very abundant 
on surf-washed rocks” (photograph, in situ, PLATE 45, FIGURE А), 
Lobos de Afuera, Mar. 25, 1907, Coker 139 p.p.; “abundant оп 
rocks," Lobos de Tierra, Арг. 2, 1907, Coker 150с and 1508; 
" olive-green, abundant, but less so than corresponding weed in the 
north, i. e., Lobos Islands," Chincha Islands, June 18, 1907, Coker 
193b (PLATE 46); also same locality, July 13, 1908, Coker 492 p.p.; 
" from rocks in the surf," Mollendo, August, 1908, Coker 565 p.p. 
This species was established by Bory on specimens from Paita, 
Peru, and Concepcion, Chile, with incidental mention of a specimen 
from Otaiti [Tahiti]. Тһе Peruvian specimens are not only men- 
tioned first, but are designated “А” in the Bory herbarium, and 
may be fairly considered the type of the species. They differ 
little from the Chincha Islands specimen shown in our photograph, 
but are rather less copiously dichotomous and are slightly more 
proliferous. 
Тһе specimens often bear cystocarps of a Gigartinoid character, 
as described by J. Agardh for his Ahnfeltia concinna (Sp. Alg. 2: 
312. 1851) and by Areschoug for his Ahnfeltia Polyides, and as 
figured by Montagne (loc. cit.) and by Kützing (loc. cit.). Schmitz 
(Flora 77::396. 1893) was apparently of the opinion that such 
plants belong to the genus Gymmogongrus and accordingly in 
Engler & Prantl, “ Die naturlichen Pflanzenfamilien " (12: 366. 
1896) Schmitz and Hauptfleisch have defined Ahnfeltia as having 
"Sporangien, Antheridien und Cystocarpien unbekannt."  Pos- 
sibly certain other phycologists would consider the existence of 
proper cystocarps in these Peruvian plants to be sufficient ground 
for recognizing the species as belonging to Gymmogongrus rather 
than to Ahnfeltia, but we are inclined to agree with Areschoug 
and with J. Agardh in the opinion that in habit and general vege- 
tative structure these Peruvian plants have rather more in common 
with the type of Ahnfeltia than with the type of Gymnogongrus. 
- 
