X22 ^ol. XLin., Art. 1.— K Yendo: 



peculiar to tho latter (Plate XIV). Comparing the original with 

 A. oUonga Kjellm., and judging from observations on the North 

 Pacific species, I am strongly inclined to believe that the latter may 

 represent a young stage of the present plant. The differences 

 between them are merely in substance of bla.de and size of frond, 

 which can never be considered specific. In the Agardhian Herbar- 

 ium, co-types of A. oblonga Kjellm. and A. macroptera (Rupe.) are 

 joined together under the species cover of the latter. But, as 

 above stated, the typical form of A. maeroptcra (Rupk.) is easily 

 separated from A. oblonga Kjellm., and eventually from- the present. 

 It is not to be denied that Rupeecht has distributed under Phasga' 

 non macr opter um Rupe. many specimens not specifically uniform. 

 Its co-type in Trinity College, Dublin, is more referrable to A. 

 dolicJiorhachis Kjellm. than to any other. 



JÖNSSON identified some specimens from the east coast of 

 Greenland with the present species but mentioned them as a 

 variety of A. Fylaii J. Ag. The limitation taken by him for the 

 latter species is the same as by Rosenvenge in Grönlands Hav- 

 alger, p. 838 ; hence, not exactly agreeing with Gee ville or J. 

 Agaedh. Rosenvenge naturally followed the view in arranging 

 his specimens from the north-east coast of the same land. The 

 identifications by tho two botanists appear to be quite correct, but 

 to bring A. grandifolia J. Ag. down to a variety of A. Pijlaii Grev. 

 seems to be open to criticism. The limits of the varieties or the 

 forms of A. Pylaii have so far not been very clear. Yet I can 

 not readily acknowledge that the form within the specific concep- 

 tion of the present species may be directly related with that of 

 A. Pylaii Gee v. A discussion on this matter is a discussion on 

 the specific definition of A. Pylaii Geev. 



The same writer also mentions A. Pylaii ß memhranacea 



