80 
F. Ozrmanxs, Morphologie und Biologie der Algen. |, Jena 1904, II 1905. 
F. Scamirz und P. HAuPTFLEIScH, Helminthocladiaceæ. Engler u. Prantl, Naturl. Pflanzenfam. |, 2, 1896 p. 327. 
F. Scumitz, Untersuchungen über die Befruchtung der Florideen. Sitzungsber. d. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1883. 
G. Taurer in Le Jouis, Liste des Algues marines de Cherbourg. Cherbourg 1864, p. 104. 
Fam. Helminthocladiacee. 
Tribe Chantransieæ. 
Chantransia (D.C.). 
As shown by THURET (1864 p.104), Erıas Fries was the first to define the 
genus Chantransia in such a manner that it had a natural limitation, and one 
could clearly see what plants it comprised. It was better characterized in 1864 by 
THURET who emphasized the fact that it has no tetrasporangia but only mono- 
sporangia. He mentioned at the same time the antheridia of Ch. corymbifera, and 
in 1576 (Notes alg. I p.16) he described in conjunction with Bornet the sexual re- 
production in this species, and the genus came thus to comprise species with and 
without sexual reproduction (comp. Murray and BARTON (1891)). In 1904, however, 
BorNET has proposed to separate the species with sexual reproduction from those 
bearing only sporangia, the first being kept in the genus Chantransia, while the 
others are referred to the genus Acrochetium Nægeli (1861), which might otherwise 
be regarded as synonymous with Chantransia. I do not make this distinction in 
what follows, as I have arrived at the view that it would not lead to a natural 
classification of the species. In several cases there is great resemblance and pro- 
bably also relationship between species with and without sexual reproduction, as 
e. g. between Chantransia hallandica and baltica, Ch. efflorescens and Ch. pectinata, 
Ch. Thuretii and Ch. Daviesii, and on the other hand the sexual species are mutu- 
ally very different. That is also evident from BORNET's paper (1904) in which the 
species are divided after the differences in the basal portion of the frond, while in 
every group distinction is made between the asexual species, referred to Acroche- 
tium, and the sexual ones, referred to Chaniransia. There is in reality no other 
difference whatever between the two genera than that of the presence or absence 
of sexual reproduction. It would, in my opinion, be equally justifiable to remove 
from other genera of Florideæ all the species in which only tetrasporangia are 
known. Undoubtedly, sexual organs will later be found in some of the species 
hitherto known as only asexual, as I have succeeded in detecting them in Ch. hal- 
landica, where Kyrın had only described monosporangia, but on the other hand 
there is no doubt that many species are really devoid of sexual organs. 
The great number of species described below will certainly appear surprising 
to many phycologists: it is the result of a careful search through a large material 
of Alge. Many of ihem are very small and inconspicuous and need careful exa- 
mination for determination. It is therefore not to be wondered at that they have 
been overlooked or perhaps so incompletely described that it is impossible to re- 
cognize them. 
