Notes . 
521 
Iratus, and indeed when we were preparing the f Revised List ’ we 
did not know that it was accessible for examination : we therefore 
willingly bow to the decision of Dr. Bornet, that E . fenestratus is the 
same species that is known in France under the name of E. Lebelii , 
Crn. At the same time we venture to think that few algologists 
would have come to this conclusion from an examination of Harvey’s 
figure and description. The Elachista- like epiphytic tuft, ‘rameuse 
des la base ' of Ectocarpus Lebelii \ only one centimetre in height, bears 
but a small resemblance to the sparingly branched alga ‘ one or two 
inches high’ figured by Harvey under the name of E. fenestratus, and 
which he remarks is not * unlike many specimens of Ectocarpus 
siliculosus 1 (E. confervoides , Le Job). 
Granting, however, that the two plants belong to the same species, 
the name fenestratus is certainly the older of the two, having being 
published in 1849 * n Harvey’s second edition of the ‘Manual’ of 
British Algae ; it was also figured in the Phycologia Britannica before 
1851 \ 
On the other hand Ectocarpus Lebelii was apparently described for 
the first time in 1867 by Crouan freres in their Florule du Finistere, 
where they quote their ‘Liste des AlgueS Marines du Finistere/ 
which was published in May and November, i860, in the Bulletin de 
la Soci&d Botanique de France. On referring to that work (vol. vii. 
p. 836), Ectocarpus Lebelii (Aresch. MS.), Crn. is given as the new 
name for Elachista Lebelii , Aresch. MS., but no description of the plant 
is appended. We have not been able to find any mention of the plant 
in any of Areschoug’s published writings previous to the date of the 
Florule, and are therefore compelled to consider the description of the 
species in that work as the earliest one. In the list given in vol. i. of 
Crouan’ s * Algues Marines du Finistere/ which contains the Ectocar- 
paceae, we find that no mention is made either of Elachista Lebelii or 
of Ectocarpus Lebelii ; and as it does not occur in the list given in the 
Bulletin de la Societe Bot. de France in May, i860, but in that 
published in the following November, it would appear that the plant 
was not identified by the brothers Crouan until that year. Conse- 
quently the name given by Berkeley has a priority of eleven years, and 
the species must therefore be retained under the name of E. fenestratus, 
Berk. : but as the plant described by the brothers Crouan differs in 
1 The Phycologia Britannica was published in monthly parts, all of which had 
been issued before 1851. 
