90 AKT. 12. K. YENDO. 



011 the margin of the lower ancipitous stems are prominent and 

 abundant but, gradually diminish in number on the upper stems. 



Remark on the synonymy. The present species is the most 

 perplexing one in the study of the Saryassum of Japan. Extra- 

 ordinary confusions have occurred in the specific conception of the 

 European herbarists, particularly on account of the divergent 

 opinions of J. Agardh and Kützing. 



J. Agardh discounted the specific value of Halochloa scoparia 

 KÜTZ. and referred it once to Sargassum macrocarpum J. Ag/^ 

 and afterward to Sargassum tortile Ag.-^ He^^ declared that 

 Kützing's plant was different from Fucus scoparius Turn, which 

 he mentions as a distinct species: and he referred Halochloa 

 pachycarpa KÜTZ., though sometimes^^ with doubt, to Turner's 

 species. Judging from the figures of Halochloa scoparia KÜTZ. 

 in Tab. Phyc, 1. c, I have no doubt that it is identical with 

 Sargassum tortile Ag., and the descriptions and figures of Sar- 

 gassum scoparium Ag. or Fucus scoparius Turn, prove no reason- 

 able mark to distinguish the latter from Kützing's. In a similar 

 manner, J. Agardii^^ combined Halochloa siliquastra Kutz. with 

 Sai'gassum tortile Ag., while he''^ mentioned Fucus siliquastrus 

 Turn, as an independent species under the name of Sargassum 

 siliqiiastrum. But the distinction between Kützing's and Turner's 

 plants, as made out from references, is entirely worthless in practice. 



De Toni^^ combined Sargassum siUquastrumf var. pyriferum 

 Harv. with Sargassum macrocarpum J. Ag. The reason for his 



1) Spec. Sarg. Austr. p. GO. 



2) Anal. Alg. Cont. III. p. ö?>. 

 [>) Spec. Sarg. Anstr. p. 60. 



4) Anal. Alg. Cont. III. p. 53. - 



5) Spec. Sarg. Austr. p. GO. , 



6) Anal. Alg. Cont. III. p. 50. 



7) Syll. Alg. III. p. 24. 



