475 



would point out as particularly characteristic of var. platycarpa that 



its main branches are distinctly continued along its whole length 



and set with short, alternating, lateral branchlets bearing reeeptacles, 



while Fticus spiralis L. tgpica — as I regard it, and to which as I 



said before I refer, e. g. Fucus Areschougii as a synonym — has 



all its branches, even the topmost 



distinctly dichotomous, and the 



latter terminating in reeeptacles, 



which are usually more or less 



swollen and roundish-oval, and 



occur terminally either 2 011 each 



branch, or cordate if the bipartition 



is not complete. On observing a 



well-pressed herbarium specimen 



of a typical Fucus spiralis (e. g. 



Areschoug's Exsicc. No. 54), all the 



reeeptacles will be seen to occur 



along the periphery of the plant, 



while in var. platycarpa they are 



situated along the main branches, beginning from somewhere near 



their base 1 . It is a pity that Kjell man, who in N. I. refers this 



species to Fucus spiralis, does not give any reason for having in 



»Handbok« given it the name F. Areschougii. In his description of 



p borealis Kjell man just writes in a footnote: — "If the name 



Fucus spiralis L. agrees with this species, then it must most pro- 



perly be applied to the northern form 2 .« 



With regard to formå nana (fig. 96), the latter is only a small 

 dwarf form of f. hjpica. I have reported Fucus limitaneus Mont. as 

 synonymous with this form on the strength of some specimens 

 gathered in the Canary Islands by the late Mr. O. Gelert, and also 

 because Thuret, 1. c. piaces it as variety of F. plahjcarpus. Further, 

 Professor Sauvageau kindly sent me specimens of this form from 



Fig. 96. Fucus spiralis I.. f. nana 1:1. 

 H.Westergaard del.) 



1 In connection with this I would call attention to the faet that Rosenvinge 

 is quite of the same opinion, as he not only told me himself when speaking to 

 him on the suhjeet, but as he had also previously written to Sauvageau (cfr. 

 Sauvageau, 1. c. pp. 22 — 23. Journal de Bot., tome 11, p. 211) who, however, partly 

 misunderstood Rosenvinge, for he writes with reference to Fucus plati/carpus: 

 »Ce serait Tanden F. spiralis de Linné, que Mr. Rosenvinge appelle F. platycarpus 

 var. spiralis*, but »var.« is a misreading. Rosenvinge having written »ou«. 



'-' »Om henamningen Fucus spiralis L. afser denna art, så år den nårmast 

 att hånfora till den nordiska formen«. 



