PDF file (text) - Cryptogamic Botany Company

Recommendations

Info

166 THE MARINE ALGÆ OF NEW ENGLAND. abandoned altogether. The habit of the species of the present genus is much like that of Laurencia, but the polysiphonous character of the fronds is more evident, the substance more delicate, and the branchlets more distinctly club-shaped than in that genus. As in Laurencia, the apices are all depressed, the growing point being sunk in a hollow concavity, from which, as well as from the younger part of the fronds, project numerous tufts of hyaline, dichotomous, monosiphonous filaments. C. DASYPHILA, Ag. (Laurencia dasyphila, Phyc. Brit., Pl. 152.) Fronds diœcious, four to eight inches high, broadly pyramidal in outline, cylindrical, robust, densely branched, generally with a percurrent axis and alternate, spreading, pinnately decompound branches, ultimate divisions short, club-shaped of topshaped, very obtuse at apex and much constricted at base; cystocarps sessile on very short branchlets. Var. SEDIFOLIA, Ag. (Chondria sedifolia, Ner. Am. Bor., Part II, Pl. 18 g.) Branches fasciculate, approximate, branchlets obovate-oblong. On rocks and stones at low-water mark, and on Zostera. Common from New York to Cape Cod; Europe. A rather coarse species which does not collapse when removed from: the water, but which glistens on account of the water held by the tufts of hyaline filaments at the tips of the branches. The species is recognized by its coarseness and broadly pyramidal outline and by its club-shaped ultimate divisions. The variety has rather less obtuse tips and is not uncommon. In spite of its coarseness, the species quickly decays in fresh water. C. TENUISSIMA, Ag. (Laurencia tenuissima, Phyc. Brit., Pl. 198.—Chondria tenuissima, Ner. Am. Bor., Part II, Pl. 18 f; Études Phycol., Pls. 43-48.) Fronds diœcious, four to eight inches high, narrowly pyramidal in outline, cylindrical, slender, rather loosely branched, with a percurrent axis and long, suberect, alternate, virgate, pinnately decompound branches, ultimate branchlets narrowly fusiform, attenuated at both extremities. Var. BAILEYANA. (Laurencia Baileyana, Mont., Ann. Sci. Nat., Ser. 3, Vol. II, p. 63.— Chondria Baileyana, Harv., Ner. Am. Bor., Vol. II, Pl. 18 a.—Chondria striolata, Farlow, List of Marine Algæ.) Branches erect, subsimple, beset with slender curved branchlets, which are much attenuated at base and blunt at the apex. On stones at low-water mark. Squam, Mass., and common in Long Island Sound; Europe. A variable species, distinguished from the last by its lighter yellowish color, less dense branching, and slender fusiform branchlets. The typical form is common with us, but not so common as variety Baileyana, which was considered by Agardh to be the same as C. striolata Ag. The species seems to us rather to be a form of C. tenuissima,
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 167 but it must be confessed approaching C. dasyphylla. Bailey was inclined to refer it to C. dasyphylla. He quotes Montagne, who first described the species, as Laurencia dasyphylla, as follows: “Notwithstanding the close affinity of this alga to Laurencia tenuissima and to L. dasyphylla, it cannot be confounded with either of them. The absence of ramification distinguishes it sufficiently from the first, and the form of the ramenta does not permit it to be referred to the second, from which it is in other respects quite distinct.” Just what is meant by the “absence of ramification,” by which L. Baileyana is to be distingished [sic] from L. tenuissima, is not easy to see. C. LITTORALIS, (Harv.) J. Ag. (Chondria littoralis, Ner. Am. Bor.‚ Part II, p. 22.) “Fronds robust, elongate, subdichotomous or irregularly much branched, branches flexuous, attenuated, with rounded axils, ramuli scattered or crowded, fusiform, attenuated at the base and apex, simple or pinnulated, acute. ” (Harvey, l. c.) Wood’s Holl, Mass., W. G. F. The description taken from the Nereis applies pretty well to a specimen collected at Wood’s Holl. We have seen several specimens of the species collected at Key West. It is dark colored and coarse, but has the branching and habit of C. tenuissima. The Key West specimens are reddish yellow, perhaps owing to exposure to the sun. Species of the present genus vary so much in appearance, according as they are more or less thoroughly “squashed” in pressing, that the determination of dried specimens frequently has but little value. C. ATROPURPUREA, (Harv.) J. Ag. (Chondria atropurpurea, Harv., Ner. Am. Bor., Part II, Pl. 18 e.) Fronds four to six inches high, robust, very densely branched; branches patent, secondary branches tapering at the base and apex, beset with scattered fusiform ramuli. Var. FASCICULATA, Farlow. Secondary branches borne in clusters; cystocarps broadly ovate, sessile on short lateral branchlets. From Charleston, S. C., southward, Harvey. Var. fasciculata, Fort Hamilton, N. Y. The characters of the present species are not well defined. Specimens from Charleston, determined by Harvey himself, are robust and have the ultimate branches scattered, but unfortunately they are without fruit. What has been supposed to be a variety of the same species occurs rather commonly on the coast of California, and was distributed in the Alg. Am. Bor., No. 57. It is, however, not beyond question whether the form distributed should not rather have been referred to C. nidifica, Harv., described in the Supplement to the Nereis The plant which is here described as var. fasciculata is lessrobust than specimens from California and Charleston, but resembles them in the dark color and secondary branches which taper at both extremities. It differs from Charleston specimens in having the branches in tufts, in which respect it resembles some Californian specimens. Whether the New York form should be considered a variety of C. atropurpurea rather than C. nidifica is perhaps doubtful.
Page 1 and 2:
I.-THE MARINE ALGÆ OF NEW ENGLAND.
Page 3 and 4:
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISH
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116: REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISH
Page 165: REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISH
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
show all

PDF file (text) - Cryptogamic Botany Company

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?