— 130 — 



larly bent, squeezed into the Bryopsis tuft and in one specimen a 

 rather well-developed creeping rhizome was present (fig. 2) with 

 irregularly branched rhizoids growing downward and the axes up- 

 ward. I may point out, however, that like Caulerpa fastigiata the 

 difference between rhizome and axes seems to be rather slight and 

 the rhizome sometimes bears ramuli. 



From this rather irregular and often indistinct rhizome the 

 erect axes grow up. They are provided with shorter or longer, 

 distichously arranged ramuli, only very seldom a single or few ramuli 

 are found with a different arrangement (comp. fig. 2 and Vickers, 1. c, 

 pl. 37, fig. 3 and 6). The ramuli are opposite or sometimes also alter- 

 nating; they are of varying length, from rather short (2—3 times as 

 long as broad) to long and cylindrical (4—5 times as long as broad); 

 they are not constricted at their base and have a rounded apex. 



The plant shows a very distinct periodical growth, the lower- 

 most ramuli in each section being the longest and most vigorous 

 the uppermost quite small; most often five sets of ramuli are found 

 in each section. The largest and most vigorous ramuli are further- 

 more distinguished from the smaller ones by having their apices 

 bipartite or even tripartite (comp. Vickers, I.e. fig. 6). Finally I may 

 point out that the thickness of the erect axes is about 150 that of 

 the ramuli about 100 ju and the length of the ramuli up to 450 j±. 



As to the relationship of our plant I think it comes rather 

 near to Caulerpa fastigiata with some forms of which (comp. Vi- 

 ckers, 1. c, pl. 36, figs. 3 — 4) it seems to be closely related. 



As already mentioned, it seems to me that our plant bears a 

 great resemblance to the one form referred by Okamura to Cau- 

 lerpa ambigua. namely his figs. 7, 8, 9 and 10, while it is very 

 different from the other form which is figured by Okamura in 

 figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6. The differences I can find between our plant 

 and the first-mentioned of Okamura are restricted to the absence 

 of bipartite ramuli in Okamura's plant and to the fact that our 

 plant seems to be on the whole somewhat stouter. 



Compared with the other form, upon which the description of 

 Caulerpa ambigua seems chiefly to be based, great differences from 

 my plant are present. Of these may be pointed out the following 

 from the original description of Okamura, namely that the dis- 

 position of the ramuli being "typically distichous and opposite" is 

 often "disturbed by the presence of some irregularly inserted ones". 

 As to the form of the ramuli "they are oblong or obovate, being 



