220 Chaetophoraceae 



lower cells, which are characteristic of D. glomerata ; but even in 

 these points, especially toward the end of the branches, it often 

 resembles more closely D. plumosa, while it invariably shows, in 

 common with the latter, a very distinct, long rachis in the fascicles 

 of branchlets. This last character is of greater phylogenetic im- 

 portance than the others. It is very easy to derive the simpler 

 forms of D. plumosa from one of the larger Myxonema species, and 

 then through such an intermediate form as D. acuta, to arrive at 

 D. glomerata. 



Drapamaldia plumosa and D. glomerata as here restricted are 

 very readily distinguished. When D. acuta is made a variety of 

 the latter, the species immediately become confused and separation 

 is at times difficult. The present disposition contributes much to 

 clearness. Repeated observation at the same station has convinced 

 us that D. acuta is, in spite of its variability, a reasonably distinct 

 form. If, however, it is to be reduced from specific rank, it should 

 undoubtedly, in our judgment, be made a variety of D. plumosa 

 rather than of D. glomerata. 



3. Draparnaldia glomerata (Vauch.) Agardh, Disp. Alg. Suec. 



41. 1812; Alg. Dec. 37. 1814; Syst.Alg. 58. 1824. Lyngb. 



Tent. Hyd. Dan. 189. pL 64. 18 19. Hassall, Brit. F. W. Alg. 



i20.pl. ij. f. 1. 1845. Roemer, Die Alg. Deutsch. pi. 2. 



f. 25. 1845. Kiitz. Spec. Alg. 356. 1849; Tab. Phyc. 3 : 



pi. 12. 1853. Harvey, Ner. Bor. Am. 3 : 72. 1857. Rabenh. 



Flor. Eur. Alg. 3 : 381. 1868. Wood, Hist. F. W. Alg. 207. 



1873. Cooke, Brit. F. W. Alg. 191. pi. 76. f. 1, 2. 1883. 



Wolle, F. W. Alg. 108. //. 92. 1887. Saunders, Flora of 



Neb. 1: 6$. pi. 19. f. 2. 1894. 



Batraclwspermum simplex DeCand. Bull. Sci. Soc. Phil. 3 : 21. 

 p.p. 1802.* 



* DeCandolle quotes as synonyms for his Batrachospcrmum simplex. Conferva 

 gelatinosa Girod, Rech. Chim. et Mic. 33. pi. 3. 1802, and Vaucher's Conferva in- 

 edite, Bull. Sci. Soc. Phil. 2 : //. ij. f 4 1802. The former is Batrachospermum, 

 the latter is undoubtedly Draparnaldia glo77ierata, but a specific name founded, in this 

 way, on two diverse elements without sufficient description to be recognizable apart from 

 the synonyms can hardly displace such a well-grounded name as Draparnaldia glom- 

 erata. It is noticeable that under the latter species, Vaucher makes no reference to 

 his earlier figure. 



