— 102 — 



KU 



which only a single one (Fig. Ill) seemed to permit trustworthy 

 conclusions. This specimen is signed Hormoceras fruticulosum written 

 in Kützing's (?) hand ; further the remark Herb.Roemer and a reference 

 to Tab. Phyc. Vol. XII, 73 *) are found. The remark "Herb. Roemer" 

 agrees with a remark "ohne Fundort im Römerschen Herbarium" 

 in the diagnosis of Hormoceras fruticulosum in Linnæa 1841, pag. 734. 



The reference to Tab. 

 T "j?rbar imn K ÜTZING v // Phyc. XII, 73 is probably 



not of long standing but 

 this figure might very well 

 be delineated after the 

 specimen in question. On 

 the whole it might be sup- 

 posed that Hormoceras 

 fruticulosum is based 

 upon this specimen. 



By exact examina- 

 tion it appears to be a 

 somewhat rubroid form 

 of C. fruticulosum sen- 

 tentia mea belonging to 

 my form penicillata. 



In conformity to these 

 facts it is obvious that 

 I am right in regarding 

 C. fruticulosum as I have 

 done. When Kylin rejects 

 this name and proposes 

 C. penicillatum as the ol- 

 der and better, he un- 

 doubtedly is wrong, the 

 latter species being de- 

 scribed in the year 1849 (species Algarum pag. 676) while Hor- 

 moceras fruticulosum already was described 1841 (cf. op. cit.). 

 For the rest the species C. penicillatum cannot be maintained this 

 species being identical with "the original specimen of Hormoceras 

 fruticulosum of Kützing. By a division of this species in more 

 species the forma penicillata is to be named C. fruticulosum, while 



Fig. III. 



C. fruticulosum Kütz. 



x ) „73" has by a mistake been omitted in the reproduction. 



