DR. Е. BÜRGESEN ON FUCUS SPIRALIS, LINNÉ. 111 
To get a clear idea as to Linnés plant, we are of course obliged to 
examine his quotations. In ‘Flora Lapponica, which Linné quotes first, the 
diagnosis of Fucus spiralis is almost the same, but Linné adds: “ Spiralis 
dieitur, quod contorqueat se in spiram, nec facile, si exsiccatur, in planum 
extendi possit," as a further explanation. 
Further, Linné quotes ‘ Flora Suecica, where the diagnosis 18: “ Fucus 
folio dichotomo integro, caule medium folium transcurrente inferne nudo, 
vesiculis verrucosis terminatricibus," Roy. lugdb. 514 (which I have not 
seen), and lastly, Raj. angl. 3. p. 41, where the following description of 
Fucus spiralis maritimus major is written: “ Præcedenti proxime accedit, 
folis angustioribus, dichotomis, intortis, dodrantem aut pedem longis. 
Vesiculis earet, extremitates vero seminales, quam in priori, breviores sunt & 
tumidiores," Тһе previous species to which Ray refers is Fucus vesiculosus. 
Here I do not think there can be any doubt as to the plant intended. 
In my paper I quote * Systema Nature,’ Editio xu. t. ii. p. 715, where 
the diagnosis of Fucus spiralis is: “ Fronde plana dichotoma integerrima 
punctata : inferne lineari canaliculata, fructif. tuberculatis geminis ^; and 
Linné adds: * Frons membranacea, plana, sed inferne angustior, hine 
canaliculata. Fructific. terminales, сетіп, pedunculatz, oblongæ, crassi- 
usculæ. Dum crescit in mari contortus est in spiram." Linné has here 
altogether omitted “ vesiculæ verrucosæ " from the diagnosis, but instead 
he gives a detailed description of the terminal, swollen receptacles. The 
misleading description of the lowest part of the thallus, *inferne lineari 
canaliculata,” which has here been given in the diagnosis, and upon which 
Prof. Sauvageau lays so much stress, seems to me to be only of secondary 
significance, and may easily be explained by the fact that Linné has relied on 
badly prepared plants, which, during the drying process, may easily get the 
margin somewhat upward bent, or folded together (cf. Oeders figure in 
€ Flora Danica,’ pl. 286, about which more will follow later). 
Starting with the diagnosis in * Species Plantarum,’ and the authors quoted 
by Linné, especially Ray, and also with what Linné has added in his other 
works quoted by me, it seems to me that all doubt is at an end with regard 
to the plant which Linné calls Fucus spiralis, and that it cannot possibly 
contain, e. g., forms of Fucus vesiculosus, as Prof, Sauvageau suggests. 
As we have seen, the plant of Linné is not characterized by the two words 
only, “inferne nudo,” but by a series of essential characters, by which the 
plant may easily be known, even if Linné had not emphasized the sexual 
nature of the receptacles (ef. the quotation of Prof. Sauvageau, l. с. p. 16), 
an unreasonable demand of Linné considering the period. This statement is 
well supported by examining the specimens in Linné’s herbarium. 
During a visit to London in October 1907, I had, through the kindness 
of the General Secretary of the Linnean Society, Dr. Daydon Jackson, the 
opportunity of seeing these specimens. Mr. Howe had also seen them earlier, 
