A NEW SPECIES OF LESSONIA 425 
the great herbaria of Kew and the British Museum, to set this 
right. Ward himself, in his later bstige? = trees and na 
seems to have felt the necessity of a return from the extreme 
position of the present cen! Certainly it re a strange anti- 
thesis to that which he saw when, as a young student, he first 
entered the field of bolany. Lastly, in 1876, Great Britain was 
far behind the Continent in efficiency of laboratory work, and most 
of us continued our education abroad. To-day that accusation will 
not lie, and a visit to a foreign laboratory is not essential now, as 
it was a generation ago. A glance over recent volumes of the 
Annals. of Botany (a journal which Ward had a hand in from the 
first), or over the more august pages of the Philosophical Transac- 
tions, will show that this country j is doing its duty in this sphere. 
Ward’s own teaching and e ee have contributed not a hea Fe 
this end, and it is clear that he left botany in Britain in 
different state from that in which he first found it. 
F. O. Bower. 
A NEW SPECIES OF LESSONIA. 
By A. & E. S. Gepp. 
Wasn treating of ‘Antarctic Alge” in this Journal (April, 
1905, pp. 105-109), we dooguibiedt Lessonia grandifolia, a new species 
characterized by the great length of its fronds and the comparative 
lack of development of its stalk, We had received specimens from 
two stations in the Antarctic region: (1) complete plants of 
sree size from Cape Adare and Coulman Island, cya by 
en 
members of the staff of the ‘Discovery’; (2) fra of a 
apearently similar specimen from the South Orkneys polloced by 
mose Brown, of the ‘ Scotia.’ Our deser n of L. grandt- 
folia (op. cit. p. 105) ea drawn up on the fine eee pean plants 
he ‘ Discovery,’ and not on the ‘ Scotia’ specimen, since the 
type of L. toni is the ‘ Discovery’ plant. The cell-structure 
of the ‘ Scotia’ plant, — being clearer than that of the 
. Discovery” . qeadaieaie , seemed to lend itself better to illustration, 
and was figured (op. cit. tab. 470, fig. 6). At that time we regarded 
the specimens as belonging to one and the same species, well dis- 
tinguished from all -— members of the genus by its habit, its 
large unsplit 1 its proportionally a aR stem, 
which exhibits no Gone of annual thickening. Subsequent investi- 
. has shown us that we were too hasty in forming our —— 
and we are now compelled to limit our description and 
L. grandifolia to the ‘ Discovery’ plants, and to separate “of the 
‘Scotia’ plant as a distinct species on the score of its internal 
structure. To this new species we give the name L. simulans, 
with the following descriptio 
- Planta incompleta. Srons 1 laminarioidea ut in L. grandifolia, 
