A Monograph of the Geims Alarki. 115 



Kuriles and southern Kamtschatka after a stormy weather during 

 August' September. 



Again, Rupeecht^ considers Fucus fimhriatus Gmel., Hist, Fnc, 

 PI. XXIXa, to be referrable to A. esculenta ß latifolia P. et R. 

 But judging from the figure, I bcHeve that it may be Cijmathcre 

 triplicata J. Ag. 



The original specimen of A. esculenta f. musœfolia Kjellm. in 

 the Herbariurq of the Botanical Museum of Upsala shows all the 

 characters of A. esculenta Geev., so it is not worth mentioning 

 under a special forma. In Spetz. ThalL, II, p. 12, Kjellman states, 

 " Mellan A. esculenta och musœfolia är skillnaden icke bctydlig." 

 By " musœfolia " Kjellman certainly means A. musœfolia J. Ag. 

 As may be understood from what has been stated on p, 91 and 

 102, A. musœfolia J. Ag. can not be identical with Laminaria 

 musœfolia De la Pyl, and shall be referred to A. dolicliorhachis 

 Kjellm. The limitation of De la Pyl' s species seems to me to 

 vary greatly as the writers differ. This question will be treated 

 under Laminaria musœfolia De la Pyl. 



Harvey mentions A. esculenta from Alaska based on Ratheock's 

 sketches of the a]ga3 of Alaska. Setchell and Gaednee mention 

 this reference under A. esculenta Geev. In the Herbarium of 

 Trinity College, Dublin, there was no specimen which could be 

 supposed as its source. Haevey may have identified it simply by 

 the sketch. It is quite impossible to imagine to which species of 

 Alaria the sketch was referrable. In Haevey's time, botanists had 

 a poor knowledge of the Alaria of the North Pacific. Kjellman 

 hesitatingly referred to the information under A. dolichorhachis, as 

 noted on p. 93. 



Locality. Mototschikin Sharr, Rogatschin Bay, Nova Zembia 

 (Kjellman, under A. musœfolia) ; Maasö (Kjellman), Svärtholfc 



