110 AKT. 12. — K. YENDO. 



94, is mtlier referable to Sargassiuii piluliferwn. If Fucus pal- 

 lidus be nothing but the present species, the name Sargassum 

 2)allidum must stand instead of Sargassum confusum according 

 to the rule of priority. 



J. Agardh^^ mentions a plant which he thought probably a 

 young form of Sargassum validum. I can not but suspect, judging 

 from his note, that his plant may have been a basal portion of 

 Sargassum ^?«i6?2S var. Schizophylla. None of the young and 

 sterile specimens of the present species in our collection verifies 

 his remark. 



Sargassum fuliginosiun KiJTZ. seems to me an extremely 

 doubtful Ibrm. It is assigned by Kützing to the coast of Kam- 

 tschatka. We have reason to believe that, in Japan, Sargassum 

 has its northern limit at the southern end of the Kurile Islands. 

 J. Agardh refers, though with doubt, a plant from Jeto (Jeso?) 

 to this species. It is not clear whether the plants of both 

 writers belong to exactly the same species or not; but, as far as 

 the references extend, Kützing's plant seems to come near the 

 present species if not to be a form of it. 



J. Agardh considered as doubtful Sargassum acinaria KÜTz. 

 reported from Korea. The lower portions of the plant are not 

 figured, and the leaves at the base of the lateral branches have 

 the ribs almost quite to the tip. The general appearance of the 

 2)lant, judging from the illustrations in Tab. Phyc. 1. c, suggests 

 a part of the present species. 



Remark on the affinity to other species. J. Agaiîdh added 

 a new section Angidatw to the subgenus Eusargassum, and Sar- 

 gassum validum, S. expansum, etc., were included in it. He 

 ^ 



1) Anal. A]g. Cont. III. p. 59. 



