Vol. 1] Sftchell-Gardner. — Algic of Northwestern America. 269 



to the latitude of the Pribihif Islands. It is reported from the 

 Pribilof Islands l)y Dall (1875, \). 1(36), hut whether attached or 

 floating is not stated. All along the Alaskan coast hebnv Bering 

 Sea, it is a very common object floating in the watei' in company 

 with ^-1 1(1 fUi fistiilosd, and one is warned of the approach to land by 

 its appearance. It is said by Postels and Ruprecht ( 1S4(), ]). 9) to 

 be abundant at Sitka, rare at Iliuliuk, Unalaska, and to have 

 been collected on the shores of Kamtschatka by Steller. This 

 last is on the authority of Graelin (1768, \). 281). Ruprecht, 

 however, states (18r)2, p. 21) that Steller found the plant near 

 Unalaska or near the Alaskan Peninsula. It has been credited to 

 the Kurile Islands by Captain J. H. Snow (1897, pp. 42, 55, 60, 

 etc.) but the description accompanying the statement shows that 

 the plant observed was Alttrut fistulo.so. The plant has been 

 used for various pui'])oses, by the natives of the Northwest Coast. 

 Ruprecht (1852. j). 21) says that the natives of Sitka i)lace one 

 end of the tube in the ear and the other against a hot stone to 

 generate steam to cure cases of headache. The long solid and 

 slender portion is used for fishlines, and the tube is used as a 

 worm in the process of distilling "Hoochenoo," a dark and 

 ])oisonous sort of whiskey. 



Saunders has Tesurrected the specific name of (xmelin's (Ifo 

 Priapus for this species, stating that "Gmelin's figures and 

 description of Viva Priopiis leave no doubt as to the identity of 

 his plant." We feel that there is very considerable dou))t as to 

 the identity. (Imelin's figure shows nothing characteristic, and 

 while the description is somewhat more explicit, it does not give 

 sutflcient data to determine whether Steller' s plant is to be 

 referred to Nereocystis or Pelagophycus. The locality whence 

 the specimen came is also in doubt as mentioned above. By a 

 process of exclusion, it ma\' be possible to show strong proba- 

 bility that it is this species and not Pelagophycus, which also 

 floats long distances. The doubt is sufficiently great, however, to 

 prevent us from displacing a name which has been in universal 

 use for over seventy years, even did we l)elieve in clioosing names 

 for strict priority. 



The histology and develo])ment of the species has been given 

 in detail by MacMillan (1899). 



