115 
I think that ’^hisenarmm Ehrenb.” ought not to re¬ 
place ^uncinatimi^. Ralfs quotation of ^hisenarium’^ 
at X. Brehissonii shows his view to be the same. 
The description of Xanth. hirsutum Ehrenb. is 
too short and the figure in Inf. t. 12 f. 22 is bad 
and in oblique view, so as not to show the real shape 
of the semicell. The spines are too few and to large 
for identification with any forms of Staurastrmn hir¬ 
sutum in Ralfs Br. Desm.; perhaps it may belong 
to Staur, teliferum. 
There have been different views as to the range 
of Staurastrum hexaceros and tricorne. Wittrock 
1872 takes up {Desm.) hexaceros Ehrenb. 1834 as 
the earlier name and most authors have followed him. 
As Staur, tricorne Ralfs 1848 included two forms, 
with processes terminated by spines or without, the 
name ^tricorne^ could be kept for 
Closterium Lihellula Focke 1847 is an earlier 
name than Benium closterioides Ralfs 1848 and as 
Lütkemüller has shown that it belongs really to 
Closterium., and as the name Closterium closterioides 
is not acceptable and must be avoided, Focke’s name 
ought to be kept, even when we start from 1848. 
Reinsch 1867 calls it Clost. (^Netrium) Benium, but 
it is no Netrium. 
As pointed out above under Docidium, Brébisson 
did not give any description of Dodd. Ehrenhergii, 
he only said it to form a part of Clost. Trabecula Eh¬ 
renb. Inf. t. 6 fig. II, but he did not mention, which 
of the special figures 1—8 belong really to Doc. 
Ehrenhergii. And Ralfs 1848 did not at all remem¬ 
ber Brébisson. He quotes Clost. Trdhecida Ehrenb., 
but as Ehrenberg’s species is very much collective. 
Nä gel i 1849 must be regarded as the author of 
Bleurotcenium Trabecula. 
Closterium Lunula seems already from the begin¬ 
ning to include several large species and probably 
