198 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
L. magellanicum Foslie, f. crenulata Fosl. in Kgl. Norske Vidensk. 
Sels. fa 904), New Calcareous Algae, p. 3; op. cit. 1895, p. 8, fig. 8 
= mes 9-20 fathoms, July, 19 1903. 
s plant is mixed with the two following on the same stones, 
but is a least abundant of the three. It differs from the type in 
having a zonate margin and irregular very shallow prominences on 
the surface as in - fecundum, but the surface is less shining than in 
that fies 
Lithophyllum discoideum Foslie, f. equabilis Fosl. in Kgl. Norske 
Vidensk. Sels. (1904), p. 3; Svensk. Exp. Magellanslinderna, Bd. 
ili. No. 4 (1900), p. 73. Scotia Bay, 9-10 fathoms. 
This plant has a smooth ee oid thallus, with the immersed 
receptacles visible. ¢ only when empty, as a number of circular 
depressions crowded on the pect er half of the thallus. The margin 
is minutely cracked or fissured, as in L. incrustans Fosl. 
L. decipiens Fosl. in Svenska Exped. till Magell. Bd. iii. No. 4 
(1900), p. 71. Scotia Bay, 9-10 fathoms. 
hese specimens are in bad condition, all the sporangia being 
empty; they are crowded closely over the whole surface of the 
thallus, giving it a rough or minutely reticulated appearance. 
Distribution. —California and Fuegia 
b remarkable that L. rugosum ‘Fosl., which occurs with 
L. magltanicum my Ee, oe on the co oast of Patagonia, does 
not occur on of the s from the South Orkneys. It is 
characterized ray the prominen ai wart-like excrescences the 
thallus, like those of L. colliculosum Fosl., from which it differs 
in the character of the sporangia 
FRENCH AND GERMAN VIEWS OF BRITISH RUBL 
By W. Moye Rogers, F.L.S., anv E. F. Linton, M.A. 
Tue Rev. E. S. Marshall has done a a service to British 
mee in giving so clear a résumé (p. 78) of Dr. Focke’s mono- 
graph of the Central European Rubi in Ascherson & Graebner’s 
Synopsis, and detailing the changes there made, in nomenclature 
or classification, which affect our British list. It is undoubtedl 
isappointing that Dr. Focke should, contrary to his prevailing 
views in 1890, and in several succeedin ears, consider these 
changes desirable. For it must be remembered that far the greater 
question we hope to show that most of these changes are undesir- 
able, at all events at present; the more so, as by Dr. Focke’s own 
admission his new arrangement is to a great extent provisional 
eo if we pera understand the unsettling postscriptive statement 
at the end r. Marshall’s paper. 
