1925] Setchell-Gardner : Melanophyceae 691 



on account of its decidedly more robust habit, the practical absence 

 of cryptostomata, and the much lighter color than that of the other 

 forms within our region which we have placed with f . dendroides. 



11. Fucus evanescens f. dendroides Stroem. 



Fronds distinctly caulescent, dense, coriaceous, 7-15 cm. high, 

 rigid, terete at the base and for some distance among the main 

 branches, tapering upward, the narrow alae having worn away leaving 

 only the much enlarged midrib, flabellate-dichotomous, in part sub- 

 secund, profusely forked, dark olive green to olive brown, brown on 

 drying; segments strict, somewhat contorted, narrow, 5-8 mm. wide 

 in depauperate specimens, cuneate to slightly linear, widest at the 

 truncate apices, growing point slightly depressed, midrib prominent, 

 percurrent ; cryptostomata sparse or entirely absent ; receptacles very 

 abundant, single, retuse to bifurcate, subfusiform to ovoid, consid- 

 erably swollen, 1-3 cm. long; conceptacles numerous, emitting rela- 

 tively long fascicles of paraphyses. 



Growing on rocks exposed to fairly heavy surf, in the upper and 

 middle littoral belts. Agattu Island to Sitka, Alaska. 



Stroemfelt, Om Algenveg. vid Islands Kuster, 1886, pp. 35, 36, 

 pi. 3; De-Toni, Syll. Alg., 1895, p. 203; Setchell and Gardner, Alg. 

 N.W. Amer., 1903, p. 284; Gardner, Genus Fucus, 1922, p. 41, pi. 41. 



Townsend, nos. 5755, 5756 (Herb. Univ. Calif., nos. 99105, 99106), 

 Agattu Island, Alaska; Gardner, no. 2227 (Herb. Univ. Calif., no. 

 201148), Sitka, Alaska; Setchell and Lawson, no. 4052 (Herb. Univ. 

 Calif., no. 99095, sub. Fucus evanescens f. bursiger), Summer Bay, 

 Alaska (cf. Setchell and Gardner, 1903, p. 285). 



Stroemfelt does not mention the height of the type in his diagnosis, 

 but his illustration, natural size, is 14 cm. high. The size of our plants, 

 their narrow contorted segments, the character of the receptacles, the 

 large firm holdfast and dendroid habit, agree so well with the descrip- 

 tion and figures of Stroemfelt as to leave little room for doubt as to the 

 affinity of the two. Comparison with the type material may, however, 

 show that the two sets of plants are distinct, as Stroemfelt does not 

 mention the cryptostomata nor the caecostomata, nor does he mention 

 the color, which is very striking in our plants. As the plants hang on 

 the rocks after the receding tide, the shape, appearance, color, and 

 abundance of receptacles reminds one of settled swarms of Italian bees. 



