— 275 — 



plant is not mentioned. On the other hand Linné after Tourne- 

 fort (Institutiones rei herbariæ, Paris 1700, p. 569, tab. 338) gives 

 the genus Acetabulum under "Lithophyta" in "Systema Naturæ", 

 1735. By reason of this O. Kuntze in his "Revisio generum 

 plantarum", Pars II, 1891, p. 881, has replaced the name Acetabu- 

 laria with Acetabulum and M. Howe has later agreed with him 

 in his paper "Observations on the algal genera Acicularia and 

 Acetabulum 5 ' (Bullet. Torr. Bot. Club, 28, 1901). As was resolved 

 at the meetings of the Internationa] Botanical Congress in Vienna 

 1905, Art. 19, p. 37, certainly only as regards the vascular plants 

 as yet, that the "botanical nomenclature begins with the Species 

 Plantarum of Linnaeus ed. 1 (1753)", I think there is much less 

 reason as regards the cryptogams to go back so far even if in 

 this special case, where the question is about an easily recognisable 

 plant, there can be no doubt as to the figure of Tour n efor t. 

 In his paper "Remarques sur la Nomenclature algologique" J ) le 

 Jolis has for the rest already spoken against Kuntze' s algological 

 nomenclature and also with respect to Acetabularia. 



A. Caliculus Quoi et Gaimard. 



Quoi et P. Gaimard: Zoologie, Voyage autour du Monde exécuté 

 sur les Corvettes l'Oranie et la Physicienne (Freycinet) , Paris 1824, 

 p. 621, planche 90, fig. 6 et 7; Harvey, Phycologia Australica, Vol. V, 

 Pl. 249; H. Solms-Laubach, Monograph of the Acetabularieæ, Transactions 

 of the Linnean Society, Second Series, Vol. V, Botany, London 1895 — 1901. 

 Acetabularia Suhrii Solms, 1. c. p. 25. 



I have referred to this species a smaller Acetabularia which I 

 collected in quantities along the shores of St. Croix. It seems in 

 the main to agree well with the description of Solms-Laubach and 

 at the same time it seems to me to be like specimens of this 

 species I have seen in the British Museum of Natural History, London, 

 from Fremantle, W. Australia (Bowerbank) and which are regarded 

 by Solms-Laubach as correctly named. As Solms points out 

 (1. c.) the original specimens of this species seem to be no longer 

 in the Paris Museum. As it would have been of great interest to 

 have them for comparison I wrote to M. P. Hariot in Paris about 

 this matter but got the answer that the specimens were not in 

 the Paris Museum. Most fortunately we have a very good figure 



*) Extrait des Mémoires de la Société nationale des Sciences naturelles et 

 mathématiques de Cherbourg, Tome XXX, 1896. 



19* 



