waters of Europe, and is more generally dispersed than most 

 others of the genus. Formerly it was confounded with E. litto- 

 ralis, and is still, by many botanists, regarded as merely a state of 

 that species. The branching and general habit of the two plants 

 are very similar. E. siliculosus is, however, usually more slender, 

 more gelatinous, softer, and more feathery in its ramification. 

 A more absolute distinction lies in the difference of the fruit, 

 which is here a lanceolate pod, while in E. littoralis one or more 

 spores are immersed in the branches, where they sometimes 

 form strings. Those who regard the two plants as states of one 

 species, affirm that the pod-like fruit of the present is merely a 

 secondary fruit, proving nothing. This view, after as careful 

 consideration as I can give the subject, 1 am not disposed to 

 adopt, at least, not until some more convincing arguments shall 

 be brought forward, than its advocates have yet offered. 



The specimen of which a magnified portion is represented at 

 fig. 5, and on which our var. $ is founded, was sent to me from 

 Jersey by Miss White. In its general aspect and in ramifica- 

 tion, it resembles the common E. siliculosus, but is remarkable 

 for having its pods raised on very long peduncles, or, in other 

 words, terminating the branches and ramuli. I am not aware 

 that this variety has been previously noticed, nor have I seen a 

 second specimen of it. Whether it be one of the one hundred 

 and thirty new species of Ectocarpus which, I am informed, Prof. 

 Meneghini has proposed, I am unable to say, not having received 

 the Fifth Part of that author's work. 



Fig. 1. Ectocarpus siliculosus : — of the natural size. 2. A branch of var. a. 

 3. Utricles from the same. 4. A branch of var. /3. 5. Utricle from the 

 same : — all more or less highly magnified. 



