MANN- DIATOMS OF CHE ALBATBOSfi ?OYA< 221 



special departments of science, the demand for such literature would 

 be limited. Bui where properly prepared it would be, unlike some 

 forms of scientific literature, permanent l\ authoritative. Many 

 of the w orks referred to in this report date back to a period of lift \ or 

 more years ago, yet remain to-day of the highest value; whei 

 scientific investigations in other fields, prepared at that date with 

 equal care and skill, are to-day antiquated and worthless. 



On account of this scattered and unsatisfactory character of the 

 literature upon this subject, there is some hesitation in publishing 

 the identifications that follow, and in one or two cases in naming 

 the new species here figured and described for the first time. Nearly 

 every work of any merit on this subject has been consulted for this 

 report (see appended list ; but it", as is likely, errors havi crept in, 

 their correction will be gratefully acknowledged by the writer. 



In the following list of genera and species the authors quoted are 

 those who fust formed and applied the name- now given. But in 

 many instances subsequent investigators have so modified and recon- 

 structed thi original conceptions as to entirely change their appli- 

 cation. There are a few instances in which the development of a 

 peculiar genus concept has been the gradual product of many inves- 

 tigators, who have more or less perfected the genus as it now stands. 

 It would be practically impossible to give credit to all these scien- 

 tists without going into the subject of nomenclature beyond the lim- 

 its of .-pace justified in a descriptive report of this kind. In such 

 instance- reference is therefore made to such works as contain an 

 accurate and thorough history of this development. Thus, for exam- 

 ple, the genus Coscinodiscus was formed by Ehrenberg in 1840, but 

 included many forms now classed elsewhere, while it excluded some 

 forms now recognized as members of this genus. Rabenhorst, Greg- 

 ory, Greville, W. Smith, Van Heurck, Grove, Grunow, Rattray, and 

 others have helped to modify and correct the original boundary of 

 Ehrenberg's conception. 



From some genera all the original species have been removed, the 

 name still being retained "emended" for a group of diatom- wholly 

 different from that to which it was originally applied. Tin- method 

 of work will hardly meet with the approval of present systematists. 

 A careful examination of the original publication and application of 

 all genera of Diatomaceae will he necessary before their classification 

 can he placed on an enduring basis. 



A critical study by Mr. Kicker of the literature bearing upon 

 the types of over one hundred genera included in thi- report has 

 demonstrated the impracticability of extending thi- work to include 

 all the generic name- here considered, a- the time required would 

 seriously delay the publication of the report. The traditional appli- 

 cation of the generic name- has therefore been followed in the 



