466 



p. 6 (partim, e specim.); a, robustior J. Ag., Spetsb. Alg., Tillag p. 37; 

 Kjellm., N. I., p. 262 (210). 



f. linearis (Oed.) Rosenv., 1. c. Fucus distichus Lyngb., Hydro- 

 phyt. p. 6 (partim) Kleen, Nordl. Hafsalg. p. 30. 



Fucus inflatus is an extremely variable plant and many of its 

 numerous forms have been regarded and deseribed as distinct 

 species, as already pointed out by Rosen vinge in Grønl. Havalg., 

 (1. c). I have long been in doubt how to classify the Færoese speci- 

 mens of which the accompanying figures may serve to give an idea. 

 Kjell man's »Handbok« certainly contains exhaustive descriptions 

 and a large number of forms are mentioned in it, but as Kjell man 

 has not satisfactorily identified theni with those discribed under older 

 names it is often rather difficult to arrive at any definite conelusion 

 about them. As pointed out by Foslie (1. c), Vahl's description in 

 Flora Danica, tab. 1127 ought to be regarded as the type for Fucus 

 inflatus — and e. g. Kjellman in »Handbok« (p. 11) and Rosen vinge 

 (1. c.) have taken it as such. In >: Handbok« Kjellman divides the 

 species into two main groups « finmarkicus and (i nordlandicus. As 

 the type for the main form of finmarkicus he mentions the species 

 gathered and distributed by him in Areschoug's Exsicc. No. 401, and 

 as he also quotes this example as the type for his formå typica of Fucus 

 edentatus de la Pyl. in N. I., p. 256 (204) then finmarkicus must be 

 regarded as synonymous with f. edentata. But in Grønl. Havalg. 

 Rosen vinge mentions fi nordlandicus as synonymous with Fucus 

 inflatus a edentatus (de la Pyl.); and with reference to Vahl's figure, 

 which Kjellman gives as type for nordlandicus, Foslie (l.c.) writes: 

 — »it is identical with the species met with in Nordland and Fin- 

 marken which later authors have referred to Fucus edentatus de la 

 Pyl«. From which again it follows that both a nordlandicus and 

 P finmarkicus ought to be regarded as synonymous with f. edentata 

 and this view is presumably also the most natural one as it appears 

 to me somewhat doubtful how far we are justified in maintaining 

 two such main groups. As marks of distinction between the two 

 groups Kjellm an properly speaking, only mentions that in nord- 

 landicus the branches are given off at narrow angles and the con- 

 ceptacles are small and placed close together, while in finmarkicus 

 the branches are given off at wide angles and the eoneeptacles are 

 scattered and irregularlv arranged, bul in a large collection these 

 characters will hardly be of any use for purposes of elassification. 



In his work »Om Algvegetationen vid Islands Klister«, pp. 35 



