DashboardCollectionsFAQSign UpSign In

75

OverviewTranscribeVersionsHelp

Here you can see all page revisions and compare the changes have been made in each revision. Left column shows the page title and transcription in the selected revision, right column shows what have been changed. Unchanged text is highlighted in white, deleted text is highlighted in red, and inserted text is highlighted in green color.

6 revisions
Hallie at Aug 11, 2020 07:00 AM
HallieHalliemdierksmdierksArchives & Special CollectionsArchives & Special Collections

75

some are really considerably
larger.

268. paragraph (b) The [?]
are not related to Fucus but
to the Zooporeae. Their zoospores
are well known but no
zoospores have been found. See
also p. 339. Under Zoosporeae
you have placed [Ectocorpeae?],
[?], [?],
& [?], all of which
belong to the Phaeosporeae! In
what sense do you use the
term Phaeosporeae as a
subdomain of [Zoopores?] lower
down? [Liphonaceae?] [?]
included Vaucheria which is
oosporic, but where do
we find any facts to show
that the [Sephonaceae?] as usually
understood at present belong
to the Oosporeae?

p. 277. You might have said
under [?] that [?]

75

some are really considerably
larger.

268. paragraph (b) The [?]
are not related to Fucus but
to the Zooporeae. Their zoospores
are well known but no
zoospores have been found. See
also p. 339. Under Zoosporeae
you have placed [Ectocorpeae?],
[?], [?],
& [?], all of which
belong to the Phaeosporeae! In
what sense do you use the
term Phaeosporeae as a
subdomain of [Zoopores?] lower
down? [Liphonaceae?] [?]
included Vaucheria which is
oosporic, but where do
we find any facts to show
that the [Sephonaceae?] as usually
understood at present belong
to the Oosporeae?

p. 277. You might have said
under [?] that [?]