340 DR. SARAH M. BAKER AND MISS M. H. BOHLING ON 
them. In the first place, our marsh Fuci form a single series, in which the 
larger forms are very much spirally twisted, and the tendency to spirality is 
shown in all but the smallest varieties. This spirality is absent from the 
larger forms of all three Baltic series. Secondly, marginal eryptostomata 
are а prominent feature of all the forms of our series, including the filiform 
v. muscoides, which is otherwise very similar to the Baltic Е. nliformis. The 
nearest approach to our series is shown by the smallest of the f. subecostata 
series; but the Baltic forms are at once distinguishable, first, by the radially 
g, due, no doubt, to their unattached habit, 
arranged, very fastigiate branching 
and, secondly, by the considerably tougher consistency of their thallus. The 
comparatively thick thallus with evident notches, in the margins, for the 
insertion of cryptostomata, is wel] shown in Gobi’s figures and also, 
according to Sauvageau (1912, p. 146), in his herbarium specimens. In 
his description he mentions absence of eryptostomata as a feature of his 
plants, so that, apparently, he was dealing with mixed forms. Both the 
radial branching and coarse texture are very evident in Areschoug’s 
specimen of Fucus balticus in the Aloæ Scand. No. 85, at Kew. We have 
also been able, by the great courtesy of Prof. Svedelius who sent us some 
specimens from his own collections, to compare specimens of the smallest 
subecostata and filiformis types from the Baltic with our own Fuci. 
It is evident that the name Fucus balticus, which was originally bestowed 
upon the Baltic forms, is not applicable to any of the British salt-marsh 
Fuci, and the retention of that name can only lead to confusion. On the 
other hand, the name subecostata, which belongs by right of Harvey and 
Greville’s authority to our English Fucus (and definitely, according to 
Harvey's account, to a salt-marsh form), has become attached, by C. Agardh, 
J. G. Agardh, and Svedelius, to one of the Baltie forms, and it would only 
cause more confusion to reshuffle the names. Moreover, except for a 
suggestion from Sauvageau (1912, p. 147), whose illuminating account of 
the continental herbarium material of Fucus balticus has been of very great 
assistance to us, no author Las attempted to separate the marsh forms of these 
coasts from the loose-lying Baltic forms. 
Hence we venture to suggest a new name for the small marsh form, 
commonly called Fucus balticus. As its chief characteristic is а фаг Ке. 
habit, we suggest the name Fucus vesiculosus v. cæspitosus, retaining the names. 
of v. volubilis, Huds. and. v. muscoides, Cotton, for the largest and smallest 
representatives of our series. Further suggestions as to the nomenclature of 
marsh forms in general are more conveniently reserved to a later paragraph 
(see p. 346). 
(c) The Marsh Form of Fucus ceranoides, L. 
Behind Keyhaven, Hants, there is a reclaimed marsh irrigated by a 
channel of fresh water and shut off from the Hurst Castle salt marshes by 
