54 BTK0P8IS OF BBIT18H SEAWEEDS. 



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

 Bpores are immersed in the branches, where they - 

 times form Btrings. 



81. amphibius {The amphibious JSctocarpus) ; tufts Bhort, Loose, 



Boft, pale -olive; filaments subdichotomous j 



ultimate branches alternate, spreading ; articulations two or 

 three times Longer than broad; utricles (?) linear-attenuate, 

 spine-like, mostly Bessile, scattered, Harv. Phyc. r. l.p. 10. 

 (Atlas, PL XX. Fig. 85.) 

 Hah. In muddy ditches of brackish water, near the coast. Tide- 

 ditches, communicating with the Avon, below Bristol. 

 The occurrence of an JSctocarpus in brackish water. 

 though not without precedent, deserves to be recorded, 

 and it is more on that account than because I am certain 

 of the present plant being a good species, that I give it a 

 place in this work. It will be seen that its characters 

 border very closely on those of E. siliculosus, from which 

 the usually sessile fructification and the attenuated form 

 of this part chiefly distinguish it. The resemblance is so 

 striking that one is almost disposed to the belief that our 

 E. amphibius may be only E. siliculosus altered by grow- 

 ing in water which contains a very small quantity of salt. 



82. fenestratus {The windowed JEctocarpus) ; pale green, very 



slender, forming small tufts ; filaments not much branched ; 

 branches distant, alternate, furnished with a few long and 

 simple, alternate ramuli ; articulations of the branches twice 

 or thrice as long as broad, pellucid ; silicules stalked, scat- 

 tered, at first clavate, then elliptic-oblong, obtuse, densely 

 striate transversely, and cross-barred, dark-brown, Berk.; 

 Harv. Man. ed. 2. jp. 58. (Atlas, PL XX. Fig. 86.) 

 Hah. Salcombe. Annual. May. 



The characters by which this plant is distinguished from 

 others of the genus — namely, simplicity in branching and 

 the peculiar form of the sificule — appear sufficiently well 

 marked ; and we may therefore hope that we have here 

 the foundation of a good species which will be detected in 

 other localities, and in greater abundance than has yet 

 been the case. At present I have only seen a single small 

 specimen, or rather half a specimen. In appearance E. fe- 

 nestratus is not unlike many specimens of E. siliculosus, 

 but the form of the silicule is very different ; and in this 

 character there is a much nearer approach to E. tomt ntosus, 

 a species which, in all other respects, is widely different 

 from E. fenestratus. 



