MANN DIATOMS OF THE ALBATROSS VOYAi 355 



ada smithii I . Ag. Van Heur., and refers to In- former figures.* I ndoubtedly the 

 figures given by Van Heur< k are a Navicula, and undoubtedly all such forms should 

 I).- changed from Schizonema to Navicula. Were this, therefore, a justifiable identifi- 

 cation, N.smithii Breb. would have to give way to .Y. smiti 



Schizonema smithii C. Ag. was published in L824.& There are two early r< ; r< »enta- 

 tions of S. smithii C. Ag ' in the earlier there is uo mention of the markings of th< 

 valve, the description being concerned with the shape of the gelatinous threads 

 inclosing the frustules, as is common in Kutzing. The figures are too small to give 

 any clear idea of the valve. Enough, however, is evidenl to show thai Kutzing's 

 idea of this Bpecies of Agardh is irreconcilable with thai of William Smith. Smith's 

 figure is dear and the description accurate, yel the author quotes Kutzing's entirely 

 discordant figure. Van Beurck's figures are differenl from both the foregoing, and 

 he says'* of this form, •"nee Kin/... Smith, Ac, " and on figure l of the same plate he 

 refers both the figure in Kiitzing and thai in Smith to S. ramosissimum C. Ag. Do 

 Toni< recognizes Van Eeurck's idea of S. smithii C. Ag. to be correct, while Cleve./ 

 make- it a synonym of JVai icula av( nacea Breb. 1 think there can be do doubt that 

 the S. smitlm C. Ag. of Smith's Synopsis*? is the same as S. ramosissimum C. Ag. as 

 thai form is interpreted by Van Eeurck, Cleve, and others. I could extend indefi- 

 nitely the recital "i this muddle over S. smithii C. Ag. wen- ii worth while. Enough 

 has been said to illustrate the fad 1 new wish to mention, namely, thai in dealing with 

 members of the old genus Schizonema we are as a rule confronted with indefinable 

 names, impossible to include in our Bynonymy, if we wish to be at all accurate a- to 

 facts. This arises from the custom in the earlier books of laying stress on tin- l>1;ii- 

 inous envelope t<> the partial or complete negled of the diatoms inclosed, bo that the 

 Bpecies atid in many cases the genus <>i the original form is absolutely obscured. 

 Here and there we find a case where ;( name, originally indefinable, becomes in subse- 

 quenl works repeated and more clearly imaged, and grows t" be widely accepted as 



standing for a diatom of well-marked and generally undersl 1 characteristics. In 



sueli cases it is perhaps well to refer to the original citation and include it in the synon- 

 ymy. But S. smitlm C. Ag. is an example of a hosl of forms with no such history. 

 Nobody knows what Agardh meant by his name. There is no agreement among the 

 various authors as to its structure. We can not even know that ii was a Navicula. 

 To take what, practically speaking, is a noraen nudum, and transfer ii to Navicula 

 on the basis of mere guesswork. I hereby invalidating a Long-established and thoroughly 

 understood name. i> manifestly not justifiable, for it destroys a valid name for an inde- 

 finable one. 



Found at stations 2920H, 3696, 3712H, Hawaiian Islands, Honshu Island, and 

 Okhotsk Sea. 

 Navicula Solaris ( \ reg. Trans. Micr. Soc. Lond. n. s. 4: 13. pi. ■'>./. 10. L856. 



Diat.-taf. pi. lO.f. 10. 1890. Schmidt, Atlas pi. \6.f. 16. 1876. Rabh. Fl. Eur. 



Alg. 1: L81. L864. O'Meara, Proc. Roy. [rish Acad. II. 2:410. pl.84.f. IS. L875 



(poor figure). Pritch. Hist. [nfus. ed. \. 904. L861. Cleve, Sv. Vet. Akad. 



Handl. 27*: 32. L895. Do Toni, Syll. Alg. 2: 53. L891. 

 Schmidt 's doubt of his figure, quoted above, beii \ \ is was shown to be unnec- 



essary by a complete frustule T found in the dredging at station 3607, in which one 



"Van Heur. Synop. pi. 15. f. S3. 1881; Treat. Diat, pi. 5 f .: L89 

 bC. Ag. Syst. Alg. 10. 1824. 



■ Kurtz. Bacill. Vl4.pl. Vt.j.5. L844. W Smith, Synop. Brit. Diat. 2: 75. pi. 57. 

 62. LS56. 

 -'Van Heur. Synop. pi. I-',./. S3. L881. 

 ' s y n. Alg. 2:293. L891. 

 ./Sv. Vet. Akad. Handl. 27 : L5. L895. 

 y\V. Smith. Synop. Brit. Diat. 2: 75. I 



