M \ N N DIATOMS OF THE ALBATROSS VOYAGES. 249 



Endictya oceanica Ehrenb. Bcr. Akad. W\m. Beri. 1845: 76. L846; Mikrog. pl. l 

 XVIII.f.6, 7. L854. Pritch. Hist. [nfus. ed. i. 831. pl. 5.f. 70. Cleve & Moll. 

 type no. L10, 259. II. L. Smith, Sp. Diat.Typ.no. L48. L874. Schmidt, AtlaE 

 pl 65. f. i". i ?, IS, 15. L881. De Toni, Syll. Alg. 2: L189. L894. 



Endictya minor Schmidt, Atlas pl. 65. f. i i. 16. L881. 



In this list Rattray also includes Orthosira oceanica Bright., which is Bynonymous 

 wiih Melosira oceanica Bright.) Leud-Fort.6 T« > this I can no1 agree. Elattray does 

 not take aote of Brightwell'a figure, which is bo unquestionably a Melosira « Orthosira 

 type thai ii is impossible to classify ii in this genus. Ii is true thai Brightwell states 

 his form may be the same as Gregory's above-cited figure of C. concavus. It ie also 

 true thai the valval view resembles Endyctia oceanica Ehrenb. and E. minor Schmidt, 

 classified by Rattray with this species and here admitted into the Bynonymy. Bui 

 if they all are the same as Brightwell's form, then there is nothing to do bul transfer 

 them all l<> the genus Melosira. The same is true of Melosira cribrosa Breb., c if we 

 take Brebisson's statement of its zonal view and mode of growth, rather than thai 

 observed by Smith. I have, therefore, no1 included this in the above Bynonymy, 

 though Rattray treated it as a synonym. There is no question aboul the forms found 

 by me being Coscihodiscus; nor is there any reason to doubl thai the Bimilar speci- 

 mens figured by Ehrenberg^and by Gregory < are also members of this genus. Ehren- 

 berg's example is unfortunately abnormal; bul thai it stands for his C. concavus, 

 rather than the quite different form previously figured, f is proved by the fad thai in 

 his summary of his genera and Bpecies 9 he refers to his figure in plate 21 . bul excludes 

 thai in plate is. It may be added thai the difficulty here broughl oul of placing 

 the above Endictya forms with this species gives emphasis to the doubl expressed 

 by me in discussing the present genus as to the union of Endictya with < loscinodiscus. 



Found at station 2807, (lalapagos Islands. 



Coscinodoscus concinnus \Y. Smith, Synop. Brit. Diat. 2: 85.1856. Roper, Quart. 



Journ. Micr. Sci. 6: 20. pl. S.f. 12. 1858. Pritch. Hist. Infus. ed. 4. 828. pl. 5.f. 



89. 1861. Jan. Diat. Gaz. Exped. pl. .'./. 6. Schmidt. Atlas pl. 114. f s. 9. L888. 



H. L. Smith. Am. Journ. Micr. 2: 102. 1877. Cleve A: Moll, types no. 215, 319. 



Ratt. Proc. Hoy. Soc. Edinb. 16: 531. 1889. De Toni. Syll. Alg. 2: L256. L894. 



H. L. Smith. Sp. Diat. Typ. no. 92. 1874. Grun. Denkschr. Akad. Wien 48-: 



79. 1884. 

 Coscinodiscus moseleyi O'Meara, Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. n. b. 15: 330. L875; Journ. 



Linn. Soc. Bot. 16: 57. pl /../'. 6. 1877. Castr. Rep. Voy. Chall. Bot. 2: L53. 



L886. 

 Coscinodiscus .' tenuis Bail. Bost. Journ. Nat. Hist. 7: 333. pl 7.f. 9. L862. 

 Coscinodiscus centralis Schulze; Grun. Journ. \\<<y Mic. Soc. 2: 688. L879. ILL. 



Smith. Sp. Diat. Typ. 92: L874, nol Ehrenb. 1854. 

 Coscinodiscus papuanus Castr. Rep. Voy. Chall. Bot. 2: L54. pl. S.f. S. I ss »>. 

 Coscinodiscus commutatus Grun. Denkschr. Akad. Wien 48-': 79. L884. 

 Eupodiscus t commutatus Grun. Denkschr. Akad. Wien 48-': 7'.'. L884. 

 Eupodiscus jonesianus Grev. Trans. Micr. Soc. Lond. n. s. 10: 22. pl. './. .;. 1862. 



Cleve, Bih. Sv. Vet Akad. Handl. 1": 5. L873. II. L. Smith, Sp. Diat. Typ. no. 



L63. L874. Moeb. Diat.-taf. pl. ):.(. 3. L890. 



oQuart. Journ. Micr. Sci. 8: 96. pl. 6.f. i, a b. \l 

 6 Mom. Soe. Emul. St. Brieuc 72. L879. 

 •Ann. Mag. Nat. Bist. II. 19: II. pl .'./. 15. 1857. 

 ■i Ehrenb. Mikrog. pl 11. J. [. L854. 

 ' Greg. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 21: pl 10. f, .:. L867 

 ' Ehrenb. Mikrog. pl. 18. f 88. 1864. 

 f/IMiv,. Abh. Akad. Wiss. Berl., 1871: 260. L873. 



