Fucus crinalis Turner, 1811–1819: 4–5, pl. 198: figs. a–c, e–g (lectotype locality: near Ilfracombe, Devon, England fide Dixon & L. Irvine, 1977a: 140).
Gelidium crinale (Turner) Gaillon, 1828: 362.—Bornet, 1885: 19.— De Wildeman, 1897a: 169.— De Wildeman, 1900: 399.— Reinbold, 1907: 567.— Weber-van Bosse, 1913b: 138.— Delf & Michell, 1921: 104.— Weber-van Bosse, 1921: 225.— Jadin, 1935: 163 (`erinale').— Børgesen, 1939b: 106–107, figs. 27, 28.— Børgesen, 1943: 7.— Isaac, 1967: 79.— S. Dixit, 1970: 118.— Rhyne, 1971: 59.— Hackett, 1977: 17.— Lawson, 1980: 46.— Moorjani, 1980b: 458, 460, fig. 2.— D. Jones, 1986: 33, pl. 9.— Al-Hasan & W. Jones, 1989: 301, pl. 6: fig. 53.— Untawale & Jagtap, 1989: table I.— Basson, 1992: 225.— Huisman, 1993: 15.— Jagtap, 1993: table I.— Womersley & Guiry, 1994: 133.
Gelidium corneum (Hudson) Lamouroux var. crinale (Turner) Greville, 1830: 145.—Dickie, 1874b: 194.— Möbius, 1893: 138.
Acrocarpus crinalis (Turner) Kützing, 1843b: 405.—G. Martens, 1868: 30, 92–93.
Misapplied name (fide Papenfuss notes):
Gelidium corneum.—Delf & Michell, 1921: 104 (Cape Morgan record).
INDIAN OCEAN DISTRIBUTION: Australia, Diego Garcia Atoll, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Kuwait, Madagascar, Maldives, Mauritius, Réunion, Seychelles, South Africa.
Note: Gelidium crinale and G. pusillum are traditionally recognized as two distinct species, the former characterized as being cespitose and having filiform branches, the latter as forming a turf and having flat, oval or lanceolate branches (J. Feldmann & G. Hamel, 1936: 107). They have been merged by Dixon & L. Irvine (1977a; 1977b), however, on the basis of a study that included sequential observations of marked plants. Womersley & Guiry (1994: 133), on the other hand, pointed out that the type of G. crinale appears to be distinct from that of G. pusillum. In the Indian Ocean, as in many other parts of the world, the name G. pusillum has been applied to any very small turf-forming Gelidium. In the absence of critical taxonomic studies of Indian Ocean Gelidium, we have followed traditional species concepts in recognizing both G. crinale and G. pusillum.Fucus crinalis was lectotypified by Dawson (1953: 64), who, however, cited "Rocks at Kilmouth, Cornwall, England'' as the provenance of the lectotype specimen. The error was corrected by Dixon & L. Irvine (1977a: 140). The combining author of the binomial Gelidium crinale is usually considered to be Lamouroux (1825: 191), who, however, gave no clue as to the basionym.