163 



ranean Region which they suggest may be the same as the Haly- 

 nienia renifonnis of C. Agardh. 



Endlicher (Genera Plantarum, Suppl. Ili, p. 40, 1843) placed ali 

 three species under the genus Kallymenia, while Kuetzing referred 

 them to the genus Neurocaulon (Species Algarum, p. 744, 1849), 

 but J. G. Agardh, in his various works, keeps the species in the 

 same sensc and with the same limits as Postels and Ruprecht. In 

 i885, BoRNET (Bull. Soc. Bot. de France, voi. 32, p. 18) added a 

 doubtful species from Madagascar to the genus, which he called 

 C. Thiabaiiti, thus making four species assigned to the genus and 

 distributed in widely distant waters of both Northern and Southern 

 hemispheres. 



The first revision of Constantinea carne from Schmitz and 

 Hauptfleisch in their account of the Rhodophyceas in the Engler 

 and Prantl (i Th., Abth. 2, p. 52o, 1897) who placed the genus in 

 the Dumontiaceae and limited it to the two species of the Northern 

 Pacific Oceah, C. rosa marina and C Siichensis. They assigned 

 C. reniformis P. et R. to a position in the Nemastomaceae and re- 

 ferred it to the genus Neurocaulon of Zanardini and they also 

 disregarded altogether the C. Thiebauti Bornet. As to the latter spe- 

 cies, it will be shown later that it differs so much from the typical 

 species that, even in the absence of Information concerning the cy- 

 stocarpic structure and development, it can hardly be associated 

 with the Alaskan and Kamtschatkan species. It is the intention of 

 this article to discuss the genus Constantinea as limited by Schmitz 

 and Hauptfleisch, viz. as consisting only of the two species of the 

 North Pacific Ocean and our first task will be to inquire into the 

 status of the Fucus rosa marina Gmelin, the Constantinea rosa ma- 

 rina P. et R., and the C. Sitchensis P. et R. 



The specimen of Gmelin, the type of Fucus rosa marina has 

 not been examined and the writer is not certain whether it is stili 

 in existence, but the figures of Gmelin when compared with the fi- 

 gures and statements of Postels and Ruprecht make it seem con- 

 clusive that \hQ Fucus rosa marina Gmelin and the Constantinea 

 rosa marina P. et R. are of the same species. Both bave branched 

 stems varying somewhat in stoutness, hearing a succession of orbi- 

 cular and peltate or perfoliate laminae which are produced entire at 



