Catalog of the Benthic Marine Algae of the ... - SeaweedAfrica

128 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE MARINE SCIENCES
genus. Chromastrum was re-established by Stegenga and
Mulder (1979) to include species with one axile, stellate,
pyrenoid-bearing chloroplast in each cell and a life history
involving an alternation of heteromorphic phases—the gametophyte
with a unicellular base and the tetrasporophyte
with a multicellular base that develops from a septately
germinating carpospore. Acrochaetium was circumscribed to
include species with one to several parietal pyrenoid-bearing
chloroplasts in each cell and a life history involving an
alternation of isomorphic phases. Audouinella was retained
for species with one to several parietal chloroplasts of spiral
or irregular shape, without pyrenoids.
The nomenclature of acrochaetioid algae was muddled
long ago by the selection of Acrochaetium daviesii (Dillwyn)
Nageli (1862:405, 412), based on Conferva daviesii Dillwyn
(1809 [1802-1809]:73, pi. F), as the lectotype of its genus
by Drew (1928:147), who erroneously believed (along with
all other authors) that the genus was first described by
Nageli in 1862. In fact, it was described in 1858, and A.
daviesii was not among the original species. Accordingly,
Woelkerling (1983a:65) set aside the lectotype that, although
untenable, had been accepted for more than a halfcentury,
replacing it with A. secundatum (Lyngbye) Nageli
(1858:532, footnote), based on Callithamnion daviesii (Dillwyn)
Lyngbye var. secundatum Lyngbye (1819:129, pi. 41B:
figs. 4-6). Although in both species each cell contains a
single chloroplast with a pyrenoid, in A. daviesii the chloroplast
is laminate and parietal, while in A. secundatum it is
stellate and axile. Those schemes that are based on vegetative
features, either wholly or partly, are thus severely
affected. Chromastrum falls into synonymy under Acrochaetium,
while some name other than Acrochaetium must be
applied to those species considered by many workers
through many decades to be congeneric with A. daviesii.
Stegenga (1985) applied Colaconema to the latter circumscription.
The coining of numerous binomials as a consequence
of changing the lectotype of Acrochaetium could be
precluded by the conservation of that generic name using
the 1862 publication as protologue and A. daviesii as type.
Any proposal for conservation, however, should await further
clarification of the taxonomy of acrochaetioid algae.
Because any classification of acrochaetioid algae used at
present either would be admittedly artificial (based on a
single character) or, if allegedly natural (based on morphological,
ontogenetic, and life history characters), would be
criticized as being premature, I have employed a scheme
that at least has the merit of not requiring new binomials,
namely that of Feldmann (1962). According to this classification,
all records of acrochaetioid algae for the Philippines
are encompassed by Acrochaetium.
Galaxauraceae as a Replacement for Chaetangiaceae
When Chaetangium was established, Kutzing (1843b:392)
misidentified his material with Fucus ornatus Linnaeus,
which has turned out to be representative of Suhria in the
Gelidiaceae (see Papenfuss, 1952:173). For many decades
the name Chaetangium has been applied on the basis of
Kiitzing's material, but a decision made at the International
Botanical Congress at Sydney in 1981 makes it clear that
the name must remain with Suhria unless conservation is
invoked.
Parkinson (1983), after reviewing the nomenclatural history
of Chaetangium, decided against conservation of that
generic name, choosing instead to propose Suhria for conservation
against Chaetangium and to resurrect Nothogenia
Montagne (1843a:302) as a replacement for Chaetangium.
[Nothogenia variolosa (Montagne) Montagne, the type of its
genus, was placed in the synonymy of Chaetangium fastigiatum
(Bory de Saint-Vincent) J. Agardh by Kylin (in Kylin
and Skottsberg, 1919:6)]. Because the name Chaetangiaceae
must be considered a synonym of Gelidiaceae, Parkinson
simultaneously established the family Galaxauraceae.
Portieria as a Replacement for Chondrococcus
The genus of Rhizophyllidaceae currently called Desmia
Lyngbye (1819) emend. J. Agardh (1852 [1851-1863]) or
Chondrococcus Kutzing (1847) has a troubled nomenclatural
history. I have discussed it in detail previously (Silva,
1952a:304-306), but it is necessary to return to it in light
of changes in the, ICBN made at Sydney pertaining to the
typification of generic names.
Desmia was established by Lyngbye (1819:XXIX, 33) to
receive three species with narrow, compressed branches.
One species is the type of Herbacea Stackhouse (1809) and
another is the type of Hippurina Stackhouse (1809). Both
of these genera are referable to Desmarestia Lamouroux
(1813), but the name Desmarestia has been conserved against
the Stackhouse names. Desmia is thus a superfluous name
for Desmarestia and illegitimate in accordance with Article
63.1 of the ICBN. Although Lyngbye did not give a reason
for abandoning the name Desmarestia, which he cited in
synonymy, he may have considered Desmia a better name
because of its brevity or because it was descriptive (derived
from the Greek word desmos, "band") rather than commemorative
(Desmarestia being named for Anselm Gaetan Desmarest,
a French zoologist). The sharing of the first four
letters by the two names perhaps is not purely coincidental.
The third species assigned by Lyngbye to Desmia was D.
hornemannii ("hornemanni"), based on a specimen sent to
him by Mertens under the name Fucus hornemanni. Mertens
found this specimen among Forsskal's collections and indicated
that it came from Helsing$r on the