» 
НЕввтотт.— Morphological Notes on the New Zealand Giant Kelp. 549 
Авт. 38.—Some Morphological Notes on the New Zealand Giant Kelp, 
urvillea antarctica (Chamisso ). 
By Miss E. M. Herriortr, M.A., Biological Laboratory, Canterbury College. 
[Read before the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, 7th December, 1921; received by 
Editor, 15th December, 1921 ; issued separately, 22nd May, 1923.] 
Plates 54, 55. — 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
Page 
Introduction  .. e .. 549 | Morphology and Anatomy—continued. s 
General vx 55 .. 649 (3.) Lamina—continued. 
Historical is 25 .. 049 Air-chambers  .. .. 657 
neral Description — .. .. 550 Coneeptacles — .. .. 658 
Distribution .. CORE .. 650 | Peculiar Morphological Features .. 560 
abi 7 5 551 External Markings s .. 660 
Morphology and Anatomy .. 551 Buds A zt .. 662 
(1.) Holdfast .. a o 001 Bounty Island Specimen 562 
(2.) Stipe 25 a .. 558 Young Plants Ба 563 
(3.) Lamina— Conclusion d a .. 564 
General Structure .. 556 | List of Works referred to .. 564 
INTRODUCTION. 
Durine the past years several references have been made to this fucoid 
in reports of the various Antarctic expeditions. Skottsberg, of the Swedish 
Antarctic Expedition, and Gain, of the second French Antarctic Expedition, 
have both recorded it from the smaller islands of the Southern Hemisphere, 
but have not given any details as to its anatomy. For such a study it is 
almost necessary to work with fresh material collected where the plant is 
growing. Plants that have been washed up and allowed to dry for any 
length of time give unsatisfactory results; the tissues shrink and the cells 
become distorted. Notwithstanding the abundant material available, and 
the interest of the plant as probably representing, in spite of its enormous 
size, one of the lowliest forms of its order, no account of its anatomy has 
been given by any New Zealand botanist. Тһе greater part of this paper, 
including the anatomical sections, was prepared several years ago. 
GENERAL. 
Historical. 
Durvillea antarctica was first recorded under the name Fucus antarcticus 
by Chamisso (Voy. Choris, p. 7, tab. 7). In 1826 Bory redescribed it in 
Later, in 1908, Skottsberg also noted the mistake that had been made 
(1908, p. 140), though evidently he did not then know of Hariot’s correc- 
tion. The plant should now therefore be known as Durvillea antarctica 
(Chamisso) Hariot. For a list of synonyms and references see Gain’s 
account of the plant (1912, p. 51). To these must be added a further 
