118 DR. Е. BORGESEN ОХ FUCUS SPIRALIS, LINNÉ. 
From what has been said above, it is evident, firstly, that Linné’s name 
for the plant in question has been used up to the present time ; the species of 
Linné being at one time considered as a distinct species, at another as a 
arietv of Fucus vesiculosus. When Prof. Sauvageau writes Le, p. 9: “T est 
intéressant de constater que les auteurs acceptèrent d'abord le А, spiralis, en 
firent ensuite une variété du А. vesiculosus, puis l'incorporérent entièrement à 
celui-ci et enfin l’oublitrent,? I cannot quite agree with him ; true, Greville 
and Harvey refer Fucus spiralis as a synonym to Fucus vesiculosus, but, 
almost at the same time, the brothers Crouan have, as mentioned above, 
CE] 
 Кисих vesiculosus var. spiralis = Fucus spiralis, L." 
[t is, secondly, evident from what has been said that Fucus platycarpus, up 
to the present time, has been by most authors considered аз a species distinct 
from Fucus spiralis, L., or whatever else it be called. But quite recently, 
more thorough investigations, including my own in the Fzeróes, have shown 
that these two forms belong to the same species ; a result which, by the way, 
Dr. Kolderup Rosenvinge arrived at several years ago, relying not only 
upon his examination ш the northern seas, but also on those on the shores of 
Franee. Prof. Sauvageau * also adopted this view in 1897 after corres- 
pondenee with Dr. Rosenvinge, and he maintains it in his latest paper. 
But as the matter now stands, and as furthermore proved above, no 
justifiable doubt can exist asto Linné's Fucus spiralis Y, and we have nothing 
* Sauvageau, C., * Note préliminaire sur Jes algues marines du Golfe de Gascogne," p. 22 
(Journal de Botanique, t. xi, 1897). Аз it seems to me to be of interest what Prof. 
Sauvageau writes here I shall quote the following. Prof. Sauvageau mentions firstly 
Pelvetia canaliculata: “ au niveau supérieur de la marée," and continues: “ Au-dessous, sont 
des Fucus d'un aspect particulier. Les frondes, dénudées à leur partie inférieure, ont au- 
dessus environ un centimètre de largeur et sont d'un brun rougeâtre; chacune se termine 
par un petit réceptacle hermaphrodite, globuleux, moins large qu'elle, sans Ja bordure 
marginale du F. platycarpus. Ces frondes sont tordues, font un ou deux tours de spire; 
elles ne possèdent pas de vésicules, mais des boursouflures, irrégulières dans leur forme et 
leur situation, de chaque côté de la nervure, comparables à celles du F. ceranoides. 
M. Rosenvinge а bien voulu mécrire que ce Fucus de San Vicente correspond tout-à-fait au 
F. platycarpus qui vit à la limite supérieure de la mer sur les cótes de Danemark et dont les 
réceptacles sont tantót un peu comprimés et marginés, tantót presque sphériques et non 
It is evident from this that 
, 
marginés. Ce serait l'ancien ÆFucus spiralis de Linné’ 
Prof, Sauvageau at first was rather unfamiliar with this plant; it being so different from 
Fucus platycarpus, Thur. And furthermore, it also seems to me that Prof. Sauvageau’s 
description of Fucus spiralis has some interest, as it, properly speaking, does not contain so 
very much more than Linné's description including remarks and quotations, with the 
exception that Prof. Sauvageau mentions that it is hermaphrodite. 
+ However, should there still be investigators who do not consider Linné’s description 
sufficiently precise, then we can write, just as we do with Fucus inflatus, L., M. Vahl, Fucus 
spiralis, L., Lightfoot, as the description by Lightfoot is as mentioned above, so good. that 
there is no doubt as to its identity, but this seems to me quite unnecessary. 
That we should be obliged to give up Linné’s name and use Thuret's because this 
investigator has found one important character, not only of the plant in question, but also 
common to other species of Fucus, is really not allowable ; strictly speaking, one could with 
just as good reason urge the impossibility of using the names of the other Fucus-species, 
