ALBERT

Description: INTRODUCTION\nIn the past, many authors emphasized the great variability in the morphology of the members of the genus Gammarus. At the same time, such "varieties" were distributed in waters ranging from entirely fresh to purely marine. Both ideas, the morphological variability and the great salinity tolerance, have not been substantiated by more modern investigations. The descriptive and experimental work, first of all that of Sexton, has shown that the morphological characters of the various forms are very stable, at least at a given stage of maturity, and that very slight details suffice for their characterization. These closely related forms are intersterile (Spooner, 1947, 1951 ; Kinne, 1954; Wautier & Roux, 1959) and behave ecologically different (e.g. Spooner, 1947; Segerstr\xc3\xa5le, 1947; Kinne, 1954). Because of their intersterility and since the distribution areas overlap (cf. Segerstr\xc3\xa5le, 1947, fig. 6; Nijssen, 1963), most authors now follow Kinne, 1954, in considering the "forms" of Gammarus good species. The idea that the specific characters (more in particular, the "hairiness") would be brought forward through environmental factors, such as salinity, was disproved by Spooner (1947), who showed that the characteristic formation of the cuticular structures was independent of the salinity, and genetically determined.\nSexton (many papers), but especially Spooner (1947), Segerstr\xc3\xa5le (1947), and Kinne (1954) have done excellent work in straightening the taxonomic status of the marine and brackish water species of Gammarus of the Atlantic coasts of Europe. Their work chiefly, clarified the morphology and ecology of Gammarus duebeni Lilljeborg, 1851 and of a number of forms previously confused under the name of G. locusta (Linnaeus, 1758). The

Description: Sous le nom de Neevea repens, Batters (1900) d\xc3\xa9crivit une petite Algue rouge microscopique et endozo\xc3\xafque r\xc3\xa9colt\xc3\xa9e par J. T. Neeve \xc3\xa0 Deal (Kent). Cette Algue vivait dans un Bryozoaire ( (Flustra foliacea) formant, associ\xc3\xa9e \xc3\xa0 1\xe2\x80\x99 Erythropeltis discigera Schmitz var. flustrae Batt., de petites taches roses \xc3\xa0 peine perceptibles.\nBatters consid\xc3\xa9ra cette algue comme le repr\xc3\xa9sentant d\xe2\x80\x99un genre nouveau qu\xe2\x80\x99il rapprocha d\xe2\x80\x99une part des Goniotrichum et d\xe2\x80\x99autre part des Erythropeltis. S\xe2\x80\x99il ressemble au premier par sa reproduction, qui se manifeste par la lib\xc3\xa9ration de cellules isol\xc3\xa9es hors de l\xe2\x80\x99enveloppe g\xc3\xa9latineuse du thalle, il en diff\xc3\xa8re par sa morphologie et sa situation endozo\xc3\xafque. La disposition des cellules en disque tr\xc3\xa8s irr\xc3\xa9gulier \xc3\xa9loigne \xc3\xa9galement le genre Neevea des Erythropeltis.

Description: The following notes refer to the typification of the two oldest species names applied in the genus Gelidium, including also comments on other related topics. Gelidium is probably the most confused genus, both nomenclaturally and taxonomically, of the Rhodophyta. This investigation began in an attempt to determine the correct names to be applied to the British species of the genus, but it was soon discovered that a much wider geographical consideration was necessary. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the help and assistance which has been afforded by Dr. J. Th. Koster in this and other investigations, over a period of many years.\nExtreme ecological and seasonal polymorphism are the principal causes of the present situation in the genus Gelidium. Extensive fieldwork over the past seventeen years has given some indication of the limits of taxa (Dixon, 1958, 1966), in so far as the European representatives are concerned. The nomenclatural problems are, however, still largely untouched. The purpose of the present paper is to examine critically the typification of the two oldest epithets referred to the genus Gelidium. These are: 1. cartilagineum, based on Fucus cartilagineus Linnaeus (1753), 2. corneum, based on Fucus corneus Hudson (1762).

Description: In the course of a revision of the Malesian genera included by Radlkofer (Pfl. Reich Heft 98, 1932) in the Sapindaceae-Aphanieae and Lepisantheae, attention had to be paid to the genus Phoenicimon Ridl. Ridley described it in the Sapindaceae and expressed its supposed relationships more precisely by giving it the number 7A, between 7 Lepisanthes and 8 Otophora, and by adding the note \xe2\x80\x98Apparently most nearly allied to Otophora .... \xe2\x80\x99 A study of both syntypes of Phoenicimon rubiginosus Ridl., the only species, and of some more specimens revealed its true identity as a species of Glycosmis in the Rutaceae. This identification was confirmed by Dr. C. G. G. J. van Steenis and by Dr. R. C. Bakhuizen van den Brink.

Description: In the Flora Malesiana area recent authors have distinguished the following genera in the Lindsaea group of ferns: Isoloma J. Smith, Lindsaea Dryander (often misspelled \xe2\x80\x9cLindsaya\xe2\x80\x9d; see Copeland 1947, p. 53, and Kramer 1957a, p. 156), Odontosoria Fee, Protolindsaya Copeland, Schizoloma Gaudichaud (or Schizolegnia Alston), Sphenomeris Maxon, Tapeinidium (Presl) C. Christensen, and Xyropteris Kramer. In my account of the American species (Kramer 1957a) I included the Asiatic genus Schizolepton Fee in the Lindsaea group, on Copeland\xe2\x80\x99s authority, without sufficiently looking into the matter. Holttum (1958) has shown since that its affinities are with Syngramma and has subsequently (1960) combined it with Taenitis, although Pichi-Sermolli (1966) denies any close affinity of the two last-named genera.\nAs stated before (Kramer 1957a, 1967) I am convinced that Schizoloma cannot be maintained as a distinct genus and prefer to treat it as a section of Lindsaea. With regard to Isoloma I have reached the same conclusion, as explained below. Odontosoria sensu stricto does not occur in Asia. Xyropteris is still monotypical, as originally described (Kramer 1957b), and Tapeinidium, including Protolindsaya, as correctly stated by Christensen (1934), forms the subject of a separate paper (Kramer 1968). The notes in the present paper can thus be restricted to Lindsaea and Sphenomeris.

Description: Although the Indonesian Archipelago is phycologically rather well-known, information about the freshwater algae in New Guinea is very scanty. There are only a few papers, e.g. by Bernard (1910) and Cholnoky (1963), but these give only a glimpse of the phycocoenoses of the New Guinea lakes, especially those of the high mountains. Many of these lakes have been mentioned in travel books, and some seem to be promising localities for freshwater algae.\nThe biogeographical relations between Malesian and Australian regions have been much discussed. A number of biogeographers have attempted to unravel the complex of transition in this part of the world. Phytogeographers often accept the Torres Strait as a boundary between the Malesian and the Australian floras. This is only true in a general statistical way; the flora of the dry savannahs of the southern lowland shows a great similarity to that of northern Australia, while the high-mountain flora shows distinct affinities with both the northern temperate Asiatic flora and the temperate South Pacific flora. Zoogeographers, however, include New Guinea mostly in the Australian region because of the existence of a land-bridge between Australia and New Guinea during past geological epochs (see fig. 11\xe2\x80\x945, in Knight, 1965). In this connection the character and relations of the freshwater algal flora of New Guinea is of some interest. It has been shown by Scott & Prescott (1958) that the freshwater algal flora of northern Australia is closely related to that of the Indo-Malayan region.

Description: In the eyes of most aquarists plants have merely a decorative function in the aquarium. Several aquarists, however, have made the plants the subject of their special interest, and it is for these people that Professor De Wit actually wrote his book. In order to make it easier for them he has not followed the usual systematic arrangement of the species but has arranged the species according to their habit. The following growthforms are dealt with successively: 1. Plants freely floating on the surface; 2. Submerged but freely floating plants; 3. Rooting plants with rosettes of filiform, linear, or ribbon-shaped leaves; 4. Plants with leaf-rosettes on the bottom; 5. Rooting plants with floating leaves; 6. Plants with creeping stems and erect leaves; and 7. Plants with erect leaf-bearing stems.\nThere are, however, many species that can be classified in more than one of these vague categories, e.g. Elisma natans, Potamogeton octandrus, many species of Sagittaria and Echinodorus, and all Ceratophyllum species. Two species, Wolffiella floridana and Riccia fluitans, are erroneously classified as plants floating on the surface; they are submerged pleustophytes.

Description: Fimbristylis ovata (Burm .\xc6\x92.) Kern, comb. nov. \xe2\x80\x94 Carex ovata Burm. \xc6\x92. Fl. Ind. (1768) 194; K\xc3\xbck., Pfl. Reich, Heft 38 (1909) 103. \xe2\x80\x94 Cyperus monostachyos L., Mant. 2 (1771) 180. \xe2\x80\x94 Abildgaardia monostachya (L.) Vahl, En. Plant. 2 (1806) 296. \xe2\x80\x94 Fimbristylis monostachya (L.) Hassk., Pl. Jav. Rar. (1848; 61. \xe2\x80\x94 Iriha monostachya (L.) O. Kuntze, Rev. Gen. Pl. 2 (1891) 751.\nBurman\xe2\x80\x99s description of his Carex ovata is very short: \xe2\x80\x98Spica terminali ovata feminea. Missa ex Java\xe2\x80\x99. Raymond, M\xc3\xa9m. Jard. Bot. Montr\xc3\xa9al no 23 (1959) 78, suggested that the neglected name might be the correct one for Carex tricephala Boeck. (1875), the only Carex species of the area that would fit Burman\xe2\x80\x99s description. To me this supposition seemed unlikely, as Carex tricephala is a very rare species not known to occur in Java. Merrill, Philip. J. Sc. 19 (1921) 341, already suspected that Burman\xe2\x80\x99s plant does not belong in Carex, but perhaps in Eleocharis or possibly in Fimbristylis.

Description: The genus Epilobium (Onagraceae) comprises about 200 species, but is best represented at relatively high latitudes. Only eight species of the genus occur in Malesia, but they are interesting phytogeographically and shed considerable light on the overall patterns of differentiation in the genus. Further, it is of particular interest to review this assemblage of species for the following reasons. The only comprehensive treatment of the genus Epilobium is that of Carl Haussknecht, who in 1884 published his Monographie der Gattung Epilobium. At the time Haussknecht wrote, not a single collection of the genus had been made in Malesia, although three of the eight species in the area had been described from material obtained elsewhere. There has been no attempt to review the species of Epilobium found in Malesia as a whole or in any of its subdivisions, although of course new species have been described from the area from time to time.\nOf the eight species of Epilobium found in Malesia, four are endemic to the area. All of these endemic species are found in New Guinea, but one (E. prostratum) also occurs in Celebes and Central Ceram. As might be expected, this is the species which occurs at the lowest elevations in New Guinea, and is the least restricted to alpine grasslands, occurring also in moist, disturbed areas that are moderately shaded, as on roadbanks and along streams. This group of four New Guinea species shows evident affinities with some of those found in the Australasian region. Thus there are four groups of the genus currently recognized as occurring in New Zealand and Australia, all essentially endemic to the Australasian area [Allan, Fl. N. Zealand 1 (1961) 254\xe2\x80\x94281]. Three of the New Guinea species \xe2\x80\x94 E. detznerianum, E. hooglandii, and E. prostratum \xe2\x80\x94 belong to the group Microphyllae, the fourth \xe2\x80\x94 E. keysseri \xe2\x80\x94 to the group Similes. Another species of Australia and New Zealand, E. cinereum, ranges northward to east Java and the Lesser Sunda Islands (and is also shown in this paper to be introduced in the Hawaiian Islands of Maui and Hawaii).

Description: In chapter I the systematical position of Gaertnera is discussed and arguments are given for its arrangement in the Rubiaceae-Psychotrieae as well as the characters by which it can be distinguished from Psychotria. In chapter 2, section a, the morphology is explained of the various types of inflorescence and their derivation. It appeared that in most species the inflorescence is fairly characteristic. In G. vaginans, however, it gradingly varies from widely paniculate to condensed and from very profuse to depauperate. Section b offers new interesting data on the three types of flowers, bisexual and heterostylic, bisexual and homostylic, and unisexual-dioecious. Each individual plant carries only one kind of flowers. These kinds of flowers have within the genus also a distinct geographical significance: bisexual-heterodistylic flowers are peculiar to all Ceylonese and African species, possibly also to the Madagascan ones, whereas all Indo-Malesian species are dioecious, G. vaginans excepted. G. vaginans possesses in Africa and Ceylon bisexual-heterodistylic flowers, in Indo-Malesia dioecious flowers, and in some local Bornean populations bisexual flowers without heterodistylism. Section b contains further an evaluation of distinctive characters of other floral parts. Section c, on fruit and seed, shows the great uniformity of these in all species, except those of the Madagascan area. Sections d and e deal with the bracts and stipular sheath and their structure. Section f is devoted to the leaf, the size of which is hardly of specific value, but the indument does. On poor sandy soils and on ridges and summits leaves appear smaller and thicker.\nChapter 3 embraces a discussion of the distribution; one species, G. vaginans, is covering the entire range of the genus, from West Africa to Borneo, included Madagascar. The greatest species density is found in Madagascar and the Mascarenes where all species, except G. vaginans, are endemic. Ceylon has 4 endemic species of which two may prove to be races of one. In Malaya and Borneo 7 endemic species occur, whilst G. vaginans covers all this area including also scattered localities in Thailand and Indochina. All Malesian, Ceylonese, and presumably all African species are mutually related and share with the omnipresent G. vaginans the same kind of fruit. Most of the Madagascan species, however, are different in this respect and this leads to the view that the Madagascan area is probably the primary distributional centre. From this centre G. vaginans emanated which must be the ancestral species of all others outside the Madagascan area. The likeliness of this assumption is derived from the fact that its range is enormous and its plasticity greatest among all other species. The fact that its floral dimorphism from Ceylon westward to Africa is opposed to its dioecism in Indo-Malesia, leads to the view that the former part of the area is more ancient than the latter, and that the proportionally youngest extension of the genus was from Ceylon eastward towards continental Asia and Malesia, in which a secondary centre of speciation was formed.\nThe special part comprises the taxonomical treatment with a key to and descriptions of 12 species, among which 2 are new ( G. fractiflexa and G. globigera from Borneo). A fairly large number of names has been reduced, 6 to G. oblanceolata, 14 to G. vaginans among which several from continental Asia and one from Africa; they are both rather variable species and in the first a new variety, in the latter a new subspecies is recognized.\nG. divaricata from Ceylon which was mostly reduced to varietal rank is reinstated as a species. The widest spread and commonest species was mostly called G. koenigii but its proper name is G. vaginans as already recognized by Merrill in 1921.\nAmong the excluded taxa there are several new reductions, mostly to Psychotria: G. australiana C. T. White, G. rufinervis Stapf, and G. violascens Ridl. are all Psychotrias, but pending a revision of the latter genus I have refrained from making recombinations as they may easily appear to be superfluous. G. lasianthoides C. E. C. Fischer is reduced to Psychotria rhinocerotis Bl.; G. hongkongensis Seem, is a Randia.