332 ONTRIBUTIONS PROM Mil NATIONAL HERBARIUM. 



They belong, with I ; and ( aliena Schmidt 



Grunow explains a thai he gave the name pt llucida '■ to a specii 

 being misled h 1 1- -•:••-: i ; • 



cited by II. mi 



ind al stat ••ill. Aleutian Islands and B< 



i sdnegalens'a Breb II I Smith, . v j> Dial Typ no 79. l s 7i De 

 11. Alg. 2: 164. 1891. II - 



Though both D Ton and Habirsha* authentic spe 



peel il me other form. I have been, however, unable 1 > find such, 



and ;i- my specimei ritfa Smith's type I am compelled to assign this name 



provisionally. 



Pound at Btations 2680H 2694 H, 15 16H, off central and Lower California. 



b splendid » Trane 9 Edinb. 21: 193. pi. \^~>: 



Pritch. Hist. [nfus. ed. I. 870. 1861. Rabh. II. Eur. Ug. 1: 102. !• 



•1. Reise Novara Bot. 1: 15. l s 7<i Van Heur. 

 nop. pi 18. f. : . L881. I leve, - V~< I Akad. Handl. 27*: 148. 1895 P 

 Bacill. Ung. 2: pi - Truan & Witt, Diat. Hayti 18. p\ 



f. 13. L888. Truan, Anal. Soc. Espan. Hist. Nat. 13: 363. pi 10. f. 



punctatissima Grev . Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. 5: 8. pl.S.f. i. L857. Moeb. 

 Diat.-taf. pi. 11. f. i. r. L890. 

 Orthoneis punctatissima Lagerst. Bih. Sv. Vet. Akad. Handl. 3 15 : 57. I v 7i;. DeToni, 



Syll. Alg. 2: 466. L891. 



M< Grun Verh. Zool. Bot. Ges. Wien 12: 577. pi. 5. f. 10a d. I- 



I is nol perfectly clear that Greville's and Gregory's Bpecies are the same. That 



of Greville would appear from the figures to be much more finely beaded, particularly 



as he says its beading is " very minute," especially toward the median line. The fact 



against their identity that Greville made the drawings for G paper, 



including this very form, yet does not look upon his own publication as a renaming 



of the same diatom. But they are united by Cleve, Grunow, !>«• Toni, and others, 



while Ralfs holds them separate. If admitted to 1"- the same, which seems on the 



whole to be best, the question what name should be assigned presents some difficulties. 



Both names were published in l s "»7.' There is no record in the Proceedings of the 



London Microscopical Society aa i > when Greville's paper was presented, in the records 



either of 1856 oi - paper was read January 19, l s ">7. and appeared 



that year. The preference would, therefore, !><• in favor of Gregory; and as his name 



is tin- better established of the two, I have for all these reasons adopted it. 



Grunow's Mel osa musl be included here. Ii appears to me more nearly 



■ mble the Greville type than that of Gregory, though Grunow and Cleve i ;t k « • 



an < »j »j m .-i i « • \ iew. 1 1 is also rather difficult to see i h<- reasons for assigning only figur< s 



LOa b of t rrunow's figures to this species and placing the other two, figures 1<> c and d, 



in different Bpecies, as < h unow do< 



F( d si Reise Novara Bot. 1: 12. L870. 



rh. Zool. Bot. Ges. Wien 13: I 15. L863. 

 Pritch Hist. [nfus. ed. I. pi. :../'. 39. 1861. 

 Hantzsch in Rabh. Beitr. 1: 21. pi 6.f. 11. 1862. 



ville's paper was published on pages 7 L2 of the Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. for 



I 857, whidi probably appeared before July, if not as early as April oi May, l s ">7 While 



y's paper was read on January 19, L857, it was not published until an appendix 



dated 857, and a corrigenda dated August I. l s ">7. h constituted pages 



j i I Trane Roy. Sec Edinb. 21: 1857, which came at the end of the volume 



which unquestionably was not published until after August I. l s ">7. 



I i n: I R< ise Novara Bot. 1: 16. 1870 



