58 ART. 12. K. YENDO. 



rather inadequate and ambiguous. Afterwards an allied plant 

 was found on the Californian coast and was referred by Faelow 

 to the same species. As far as I could judge, the American 

 plant differs from ours in having terete verrucose stems, while 

 ours has compressed and smooth ones: the leaves are generally 

 smaller and more delicate, the receptacles much shorter and 

 more approximate in the American plant than in the Japanese. 

 J. Agardh omits to mention the present species in Anal. Alg. 

 Cont. III. It is rather remarkable that the species which was 

 originally established on Japanese material should be referred to 

 an American plant and its occurrence in the mother country 

 neglected. 



The definitions of Sargassum pinnaiifolium by Agaedh.^^ 

 and by Kützing"^ are at once applicable to Sargassum pihdiferum. 

 The figures, however, delineated by the latter in his Tab. Phyc, 

 1. c, suggest the plant that I mention here in varietal rank. If 

 the determination by the present writer has been correctly done, 

 the plant is by no means a valid sj)ecies but merely a variety 

 of Sargassum pihdiferum Ag. 



J. Agaedh^^ refers Sargassum pinnaiifolium to a variety of 

 Sargassum Henslowianum. Had all the fulcrant leaves in the 

 illustration of the latter species been removed, it might have 

 assumed a shape nearly similar to that of our variety, the young 

 fertile ramulets of Sargassum Henslowianum ■ corresponding, in 

 the illustration, to the much divided upper leaves of this variety. 

 I am compelled to suspect that J. Agardh compared the two 

 plants, by their illustrations, in some such way as has been 



1) AoAKDir: System. I.e. 



2) Ki-rziNG: Spee. Alg. p. Olli. 



3) J. Agardh: Spee. Sarg. p. 12], 



