97 ' 
Algological Notes. 1—4. 
By 0. Nordstedt. 
t 
1. The starting point of the nomenclature 
of Desmids. 
Upon careful consideration as to whether the^ 
nomenclature of the Desmids should begin any later 
than the year 1753, it appears that no other works 
can be taken into consideration except such, as treat 
on all the species known at the time of publication. 
The work which has figures of the greater part of 
the species ought then to be preferred to other works. 
The starting from one of the earlierst works, Systema; 
Algarum by Agardh 1824, is not advantageous, the- 
number of species being so small; Closterium f. inst. 
is not mentioned there. 
But before I. propose that 1848 should be the star¬ 
ting point, I will give an historical view of the ge¬ 
nera established before that year and of some works 
published before the British Desmidieæ of Balfs. 
(Complete references are to be seen in my ”Index 
Desmidiacearum, 1896.) 
The first known Desmids were some big Closte- 
riUj at that time included in the genus Vibrio. The 
genus Echinella was established 1810 by Acharius 
on a plant, which in my opinion belongs to Closte¬ 
rium {Lunula). That Arthrodia Bafin. 1813 cannot 
be a Closterium I have already shown in Hedwigia 
1893. 
Le clere’s Mullerina 1816 without description 
{Miilleria Led. sec. Ehrenb. Inf. Muellerina Kuntze 
in Bev. Gen. pi. 3.2 in indice p. 567, non van Tiegh. 
1895, nec Muellera L. f. 1781 — Mullera Juss. 1789) 
was established on Vibrio Lunula Bory. 
The first name of a genus, which was approved 
by most people, was Closterium Nitzsch 1817. 
Bot. Not. me. 7 
