Ill 
latter name was published without description (only 
fig.) Splicer, vertebratum has been the only name used. 
Micrasterias. Euastrum Bota Ehrenberg included 
far too many species, for which reason Ralfs did 
not adopt it, but Mier. denticulata Bréb. as well as 
M. rotata Grev. are in ”Brit. Desm.” not made clear, 
but they became so first by Archer’s investigations. 
It seems evident that Ehrenberg 1843 with 
his figure of Euastrum Sol in Verbr. t. 10 f. I. 16 
had in view the same species as Micr. radiosa in 
Ralfs Brit. Desin., but his idea of his species was 
quite different, as he 1. c. p. 334 says that Bailey’s 
fig. 22 in Amer. Bacill. 1841 t. 3 belongs to Eu. 
Sol^ although this figure cannot at all be united 
with Micr. radiosa Ralfs, but can perhaps be com¬ 
prised in Ehrenberg’ s bad description. Therefore 
necessity for the resurrection of Eu. Sol does not 
exist, in my opinion. — In Flora 1827 Agardh 
says on Micrasterias : ”Zu dieser Gattung gehört wohl 
auch die Echinella radiosa Lyngb? Then, he is not 
quite sure about it and alludes certainly not to Lyng¬ 
by e’s fig. E 2, but only to fig. Es, which fig. already 
in 1825 had been separated and became the type of 
Helierella Lynghyi. Cfr HeliereUa 1823 above! 
Because the description of Micr. furcata Ag. in 
Flora 1827 is inapplicable as a species-diagnosis 
(”radiis pluries furcatis obtusis”) and the original spe¬ 
cimen belongs to Micr. rotata Ralfs, and as Küt- 
zing’s name "''furcata'''' in Linnæa, 1833 belongs to 
Pediastrum radiaUini^ so Micr. furcata Ag. has no 
priority above M. radiata Hass. 1845. Hassall’s 
figure, a copy of Ralfs’ fig. 1844 (”bad” Ralfs 1848), 
is certainly bad, but both this fig. and the descrip¬ 
tion show sufficiently enough, the difference from the 
allied Micr. Crux-melitcnsis. Every one, who did not 
approve of Hassall’s name — and the}^ are probably 
