PDF file (text) - Cryptogamic Botany Company

REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 81
E. FUCICOLA, Fries; Phyc. Brit, Pl. 240; Ner. Am. Bor., Vol. I, Pl. 11 b. (Phycophila
fucorum and P. Agardhii, Kütz., Tab. Phyc., Vol. VIII, Pl. 95, Fig. 2, and Pl. 96, Fig.
1.) Pl. 7, Fig. 3.
Fronds tufted, half an inch to an inch in thickness, basal portion distinct,
subglobose, exserted filaments about .05 mm broad, attenuated at base, obtuse at
apex, cells of lower portion broader than long, becoming longer in the upper portion;
paraphyses recurved, clavate, submoniliform; unilocular sporangia .07-8 mm broad by
.15-20 mm long, pyriform or obovate-rhombic.
Common on Fuci along the whole coast.
On submerged wood work, Eastport, Peak’s Island, Maine.
A common parasite, forming small tufts on Fuci. There seems to be but one species on the coast of New
England, although E. lubrica, Rupr., may be expected on Halosaccion. According to Areschoug, E.
lubrica differs from E. fucicola in the shorter cells and the decidedly elongated base of the free
filaments, but in these respects European specimens of E. fucicola vary greatly. Possibly the form
occurring on wood at Eastport may be rather referred to E. lubrica. Ruprecht, in Phycologia Ochotensis,
mentions an Elachistea from Canada parasitic on Halosaccion, which he considers distinct from both E.
lubrica and E. fucicola, to which he gives the provisional name of E. canadensis. It is distinguished,
from E. fucicola “by the thicker filaments, which never give off free branches at the base, by the dense,
indistinctly filamentous structure of the basal layer, and by the greater number of short filaments and
few long filaments.” From Ruprecht’s description it is hardly likely that the species will ever be
recognized by American collectors. The views of Ruprecht with regard to development in algæ are
curiously shown in his remarks on Elachista, Myrionema, and Leathesia. He thinks it very probable
that the genera named were “originally organs of fructification of Halidrys, Cystoseira, &c., which in
course of time have not developed, and have in this way formed what appear to be stereotyped species.”
Although the fact is not as Ruprecht supposed, this pronounced tendency to Darwinism is remarkable
when we think that Ruprecht wrote in 1850.
MYRIACTIS, Kütz., emend.
(From µυριος [myrios], countless, and ακτις [aktis], a ray.)
Fronds as in Elachistea, but destitute of exserted colored filaments.
A comparison of the two admirable plates of Elachistea scutulata and Elachistea (Myriactis) pulvinata
in the Études Phycologiques of Thuret and Bornet will give a clear notion of the difference of the two
genera.
M. PULVINATA, Kütz. Var. MINOR. (Elachistea pulvinata, Harv., in Études
Phycologiques, p. 18, Pl. 7—Elachistea attenuata, Harv., Phyc. Brit., Pl. 28.)
Fronds forming minute tufts, basal portion slightly developed, giving off lateral
filaments, which penetrate the substratum; paraphyses slightly curved, fusiform,
attenuated at base, somewhat moniliform; cells .0075-180 mm broad, two or three
times as long; plurilocular sporangia very numerous, clustered at the base of the
paraphyses, cylindrical,
S. Miss. 59——6