— 137 — 



I can not agree with Dr. Howe in this matter I should like in 

 the following to give my reasons, if we consider the figures illu- 

 strating the two species in Ellis & Solander's work (PL 20, 

 fig. a = Corallina tridens and figs d— d3 and Di — Dß = Corallina 

 incrassata) we will at once see that while the figures illustrating 

 Corallina incrassata give an excellent picture of the typical form 

 of H. incrassata, the fig. a of Corallina tridens only shows a bit of 

 a plant perhaps representing a form of Halimeda incrassata but 

 which with quite the same right might be considered as a form 

 of Halimeda Opuntia. As, furthermore, the descriptions of the 

 plants are such, that without figures, we could not at all know 

 what they refer to and further the original specimens no longer 

 exist and we have only the figures to refer to, then to choose just 

 that figure, about which we cannot without doubt say what it 

 signifies as the type of the species, seems to me very unfortunate 

 and for this reason alone I think we may use the specific name 

 incrassata for this species. Halimeda tridens described in such a 

 way that it can be recognized without doubt is namely of a rather 

 late date. When we namely look through the literature regarding 

 Halimeda tridens (as to Halimeda incrassata no doubt is possible), 

 to find out when this form was first described and figured in such 

 a way that it can clearly be recognized, we come to the descrip- 

 tion and figure of Harvey in "Nereis Bor.-Am.", part III, pag. 24, 

 pi. 44 G (1858). Strictly speaking, therefore, we may write Hali- 

 meda tridens Harv. and not Lamouroux. And that the Americans 

 are inclined to do so is also clearly seen from the fact, that on 

 the label to the specimen of Halimeda tridens distributed in "Phyco- 

 theca Bor. Am.", No. 273 Harvey's Nereis is also first quoted. When 

 Howe therefore continues (1. c.) "In the case in hand, technical 

 priority in the matter of publishing a choice between the two 

 names appears to lie, by a narrow margin, so far as we can dis- 

 cover, with Mr. F. S. Collins, whose choice of Halimeda tridens 

 appeared in print in November, 1901 (Proc. Am. Acad. Arts and 

 Sc. 37 : 246) while Mrs. Gepp's monograph, in which the name 

 Halimeda incrassata is preferred, bears the date of December, 1901", 

 1 think that Collins in the paper quoted is not right in preferring 

 a name so late as 1858 for the species (before this time, as men- 

 tioned above, we have no definite idea of what is meant with 

 H. tridens) and not incrassata of Ellis and So lander, the figure 

 of which leaves no doubt. For the rest judging from the very 



