10 



Mindeskrift for J. Steenstrup. XXXII. 



contains one well prepared and quite typical specimen; another poorly prepared spe- 

 cimen which most likely belongs to Sargassum natans; finally a third specimen which 

 does not belong to this species and about which Linné himself was in doubt. There- 

 fore I think we are compelled to use Linné's old name natans instead of bacciferum 

 of Turner. 



In respect to the reason why Turner did not accept the Linnean name, the iol- 

 lowing quotation is of interest ("Fuci", p. 107): 



'■It has been observed, and, I must own, not witbout an appearance of justice, that, in- 

 stead of giving the name of F. imtans to the preceding species'), it would have been better 

 to have applied it to the one here figured, which has never yet been foimd except swimming 



about, in which state it appears certain that it con- 

 tinues to live and increase, thus affording the strongest 

 argument in favour of the opinion of those who 

 maintain that the i'oots of Fuci are not organs of 

 nourishment. This observation unfortunately did not 

 reach me till, for reasons already mentioned under 

 the preceding species, I had done other-wise: and 

 I know too well how much botany has sufiered from 

 the multiplication and constant confusion of its sy- 

 nonymy, ever to change without the most decisive 

 cause a name already known and established. It is 

 certainly extraordinary that F. bacciferus should never 

 have been seen with either root or fructification, 

 especially as its congeners seem by no means un- 

 willing to produce their fi-uit. The species may 

 possibly be regarded as in some degree unsettled till 

 this is discovered, but I at the same time feel no 

 doubt in giving it as my opinion, that it is essen- 

 tially distinct from all others, differing in its mode 

 of growth and general habit, and still more in its 

 texture, and cylindrical stem and petioli." 



Fig. 8. Sargassum Hystrix var. fluitans nov. 



var. Part of thailus with vesicles. 



(About Ve magnified). 



And in respect to this question I, also, wish to point out what C. Agardh has 

 to say in "Species Algarum", p. 4. Having given his reason, why he appends to 

 Turner's Fiicus natans the name vulgare, he adds: "Verus F. natans Linnæi est se- 

 quens species-), cujus tamen nomen mutare superfluum fuit. cum nihil eontineat er- 

 ronei & jam omnibus notum." 



Moreover Harvey in "Phycologia Britannica", 1846 — 51, pi. 109, writes: "it is there- 



fore unfortunate that the ancient name natans, has not been preserved for this species, to 



which it is most applicable." 



') The preceding species is Sargassum vulgarc which Turner calls Fucus natans. 

 '-') Sargassum bacciferum. 



