No. 3J REMARKS ON NORTHERN LITHOTHAMNIA. 31 



a typical Lithoth. glaciate well developed, which seems to have 

 come from an arctic area. On my question Professor Farlow 

 kindly communicated to me as follows: „ln regard to the L. 

 glaciale supposed to have come from Bermuda, I can only say 

 that it was a part of the collection belonging to the Agassiz Mu- 

 seum, which was given to me by Mr. Agassiz, and the label 

 stated that it came from Bermuda. As I did not collect the spe- 

 cimen myself, I cannot of course be sure that the label was correct, 

 but I have to assume that the labels were correct." — ■ I will add 

 that the specimen bears a considerable resemblance to specimens 

 in the same collection from Labrador. This seems to suggest that 

 there is some mistake or other as to the statement of place of 

 collection, and that the specimen actually has come from arctic 

 North America. Besides it is quite improbable that a typical L. 

 glaciale should occur at Bermuda. 



Lithoth. glaciale is stated also to have been found at Fuegia. 

 Cp. Hey d rich, Lithoth. Mus. Paris in Engler's cot. Jahrb. 1901 

 p. 540. The specimen on which this statement is based is sterile. 

 It is, however, likely belonging to L. glaciale and must be sup- 

 posed to have come from an arctic area. Cp. Foslie, Melob. 

 Arb. Heydr. (1901) p. 27. There is certainly a mistake due to 

 a confusion of labels. 1 ) 



I do not venture at present to consider any of the three spe- 

 cimens I have seen from the northwest coast of America as surely 



J ) In this connection I will mention another case in which labels are likely to 

 have been confounded. In the pamphlet quoted Mr. H e y d r i c h describes 

 p. 538 a new sterile species under the name of Lithothamnion labradorense 

 Heydr. from Labrador. I think it quite unquestionable that, this uncertain 

 species is not from an arctic area. It must have risen almost as far from 

 Labrador as, I except, Mr. H e y d r i c h himself. The alga does not re- 

 semble Lithoth. fornicatum, as Mr. Heydrich remarks. On the con- 

 trary, its habit as well as structure go to show decidedly that it is tropical 

 or subtropical. Nor does it seem to be referable to the genus Lithotham- 

 nion. It might be an obvious conclusion that owing to a confusion of 

 labels the alga has been mistaken for the LJthoth. glaciale mentioned 

 above, which is stated to be from Fuegia; but even this I think not very 

 probable. In the material treated by Mr. Heydrich 1. c. also other 

 mistakes as to the labels are conceivable than the two mentioned ones. 



