10 



tSuch is the result of my examination, which seems unfortunately quite 

 contradicted with that of Mr. Reinbold. And if I am not mistaken, I wani 

 to say that establishment of the new genus on the ground chosen by him 

 is not preferable. And here a question arises whether this plant should be 



genera already established. To me. this' plant does net seem to be referral 

 to Microcladia as the author had at first inclined to do. The pinnate 



and Carpoblepharis, with the latter of which it is related by the characters 

 being common with Carpoblepharis, as it seems to me, only the slendemess 

 and minuteness of the frond, and its decumbent and root-bearing habit 

 differ from that genus. Of its size, however, some have, as I have described 



From the study of Microcladia, Herpochondria, Gloiothamnion and 

 Carpoblepharis chiefly done with respect to the structure of frond, I have 

 a view about the systematic position ef Microcladia and Carpoblepharis. 

 By consulting with ' Pflanzenfamilien ' the subfamily Co rpoblepharidea- 

 seems to be separated from Ceramiete chiefly by having verticillate cortical 



my consideration "is to he justified, Microcladia and Carpoblepharis (as 

 Herpochondria and Gloiothamnion have been reduced to the respective genera) 

 ought to be placed in one and the same subfamily ; or Carpoblepharis might 

 be classed in Crramie<e together with Microcladia, Ceramium, etc., as Mr. 

 Reinlxdd seems to be inclined to do. But, at the formation of cortex in 

 Ceramium and its allies somewhat differs from that of Carpoblepharis and 

 Microcladia, it will be proper to class the both genera in a subfamily, 

 separating them from Geramiea> which will then contain Ceramium, Can> 

 pytephora, etc. 



Nov. -24, 1899. No. b', Hinoki-cho, Akasaka, 



Tokyo, Japan. 



