97 

 In these cases, too, the sorai area do not extend clear to the tip of 

 the pinna, while in some species of Maria, the fruiting pinna, or 

 sporophyll, seldom if ever, is completely sporiferous. (cfr. Setchell 

 and Gardner, Algae of NW. America, pi. 21 and 22, 1903). In the 

 fruiting of the sporophylls, then, it seems to me that there are no 

 essential differences between Pterygophora and Maria. In the fruited 

 specimens cast ashore at Duxbury Reef, however, I find that the 

 sorai patches are not confìned to the lateral pinnae or sporophylls, 

 but occur in the same form upon the mid-lamina as well. I observed 

 this in upwards of thirty or more cases, in fact, in every plant 1 

 examined this was the case. Most were well fruited as to the blades, 

 but in some, the sori were just beginning to form. The sorai areas 

 seem to form on the midrib portion of the biade or mid-lamina, 

 and except for the somewhat irregularly lobed tips are very regular 

 and only one on each side of the biade, as is the case in the spo- 

 rophylls. Some of the sori on the biade are as much as 3o cm. in 

 length. 



As to the relationships of Pterygophora, the different authors 

 have suggested variously as has been mentioned by Mac Millan (loc. 

 cit., pp. 723, 73o, 738 and 739). Most of the writers have associated 

 the genus with Alaria, some with Ecklonia, some with Laminaria, 

 and a few with Lessonia. The last association seems absolutely un- 

 warrantable from what we now know of the structure and develop- 

 ment. In the view of the writer, Pterygophora is to be placed with 

 Alaria, because of the development of pinnae as outgrowths on the 

 lower or stipe-side of the transition place. In Ecklonia, the pinnae 

 are developed as outgrowths on the bladeside of the transition place, 

 in Egregia, on both sides of the transition place, while in Laminaria 

 and its relatives, the transition place is unmodified. It certainly seems 

 to me that the separation of the Laminariaceae into tribes and sub- 

 tribes must be made along such lines as I have just indicated and 

 as are set forth in some detail in my paper on the classification 

 and distribution of this family (Trans. Conn. Acad., 1893, as pre- 

 viously cited). Besides the morphological and developmental evidence, 

 there is considerable supporting evidence to be obtained from the 

 main facts of distribution as I have already indicated in the paper 

 just mentioned. Reinke has, (loc. cit. p. 9 et seq.) taken the same 



