Glumes ovate-lanceolate, acute, entire, membranous, pale at the top and edges with prominent green midrib, slightly larger than the utricles.

Utricles ovate-lanceolate, plane-convex or concave-convex, sub-stipitate, many-nerved, with recurved wings and tapering, bifid, serrate beak.

Branches of the style, 2, long.

Hab. Mount Pisa Range, at the head-waters of the Luggate Creek, 4,000 to 5,000 feet. Male flowers are sometimes absent in the lowermost spikelet. The foliage, though somewhat harsh, is readily eaten by sheep.

This species is allied to C. muelleri, mihi, C. viridis, mihi, and C. kaloides (mihi). Named in honour of Mr. T. Kirk, F.L.S., a veteran worker in the Flora of New Zealand.

Carex thomsoni, n. sp.

Small, tufted, pale-green.

Culms very short, - inch long, much shorter than the leaves, and invested by thin sheathing bases.

Leaves 12 inches long, linear, tapering upwards, acute, flat, deeply striate, finely serrate towards the top, their bases membranous, sheathing, and twice as broad as the blade.

Spikelets 3, crowded, female below, male above, forming a compact head-inch long; bract short, ovate, mucronate. Glumes ovate, acute, 3-nerved at the middle, membranous, entire, dark-brown at the margin, as long as the utricle.

Utricles lenticular, ovate or elliptical, broadly winged, shortly stipitate, nerved, with bifid beak, the upper half finely serrate. Arms of the style, 2.

one.

Hab. Mount Pisa Range, 5,500 to 6,200 feet.

The male flowers occur chiefly at the top of the uppermost spikelet; they are rare on the lowermost, less so on the middle The plant forms small low tufts, 3-5 inches in diameter. Flowering or fruiting specimens are not by any means easy to find. It is very common in the most exposed situations on the very crown of this wind-swept range.

Named in honour of Mr. G. M. Thomson, F.L.S., of Dunedin.

Carex muelleri = C. viridis, mihi.

My friend Sir Ferdinand von Mueller has pointed out to me that the specific name viridis, which I attached to a species of Carex described in vol. xiii. of the "Transactions of the New Zealand Institute," has been already used to designate a plant from Mexico. I have now very great pleasure in associating the name of that distinguished botanist with this interesting plant, in recognition of his great services to the science and of many kindnesses to myself.

ART. XLVIII.-On the Classification of the Algo.

By R. M. LAING, M.A.

[Read before the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, 6th August, 1885.] Plate XA.

MANY attempts to classify the Alga have been made, and though of late years our knowledge of this division of plants has greatly increased, yet it cannot be said that their relationships to each other have been satisfactorily made out. The older botanists were content with dividing them into two genera, Conferva including all fresh, and Fucus including all salt water forms. Harvey was the first to divide them into three groups, according to the supposed colour of their spores, thus: Chlorospermea (green-spored), Melanospermea (olive-spored), Rhodospermea (redspored). In these divisions he has been followed by Sir J. D. Hooker, up to the present day.

Decaisne divided the Alya into Synsporea (united spores, the modern Conjugatea), Aplosporea (spores simple, not motile, green or brown), Choristosporea (separated spores, motionless, red, developed in fours). The next classification was that of Thuret; his divisions are well known: (1.) Zoosporea, (2.) Chlorosporea, (3.) Phaosporea, (4.) Fucacea, and (5.) Floridea. In 1872, Cohn proposed to abolish the distinction between Alga and Fungi, and form them into parallel lines. In 1875, Sachs said the classification of the Alga was in the utmost confusion. He gave a new classification, improved upon in 1882, grouping the different divisions of the Alga thus:

Class A.-PROTOPHYTA.

I. Cyanophycacea.

(Phycochromacea, Prantl.

II. Palmellacea (in part).

Class B.-ZYGOSPOREÆ.

I. Pandorineæ.

II. Conjugatea.

Class C.-OOSPOREÆ.

I. Sphæroplea
II. Caloblastea
III. Edogoniea
IV. Fucoideæ {

Class D.-CARPOSPOREÆ.

I. Coleochatea.

II. Floridea.

III. Characea,

Product of fertilization,
a resting spore.

Product of fertilization,
a new individual.

In 1880, Mr. A. W. Bennett, in a paper read at the Swansea meeting of the British Association, proposed the following classification :

Then he proposes to subdivide the Zygophycea, the Oophycea, and the Carpophycea thus:

A. ZYGOPHYCEÆ.

1. Pandorineæ.
2. Hydrodictyeæ.
3. Confervacea.

4. Ulotrichacea.

5. Ulvacea.

6. Botrydiacea.
7. Conjugatea.

В. ООРНУСЕЕ.

1. Volvocineæ.

2. Siphonea.
3. Sphæro-pleaceæ.
4. Edogoniacea.

5. Fucacea.

6. Phaosporea.

C. CARPOPHYCEÆ.

1. Coleochatea.

2. Floridea.

The earlier classifications need not be considered, as they will doubtless be superseded by those of Sachs and Bennett. But even the systems of these two last mentioned botanists appear to me to be open to several objections.

(1st.) By both, the Phaosporea are placed amongst Oosporea, though probably nearly all of them are reproduced by conjugation. (2nd.) Again, by both the Hydrodictyea are separated from their nearest allies, the Volvocineæ. (3rd.) Sachs places the Botrydiacea under the Oosporea, but conjugation alone is known in them; while Mr. Bennett separates them widely from the Siphonea, which are undeniably their nearest relations,