Ibe BritiJ}} Fucr\ with particular Defcriptions of each Species. 91 



depends upon the judgments of the various botanifts who (hall 

 read and ftudy his obfervations. See his plate oiY.ferratus in ASi. 

 Pari/. 1772, part 2d, pi. 3, f. 5 and 9. 



Cryptogamic inveftigation was not Linnasus's excellence— the 

 truth of this appears no where more than in the Algce aquaticce. In 

 the fynoptic table of Syjl. Natura at the head of his clafs Oypto- 

 gamia he defcribes them — 



1'remeUa — A.geJatinofa 



Ulya — A. membranacea 



Fucus — A. cor'iacea 



Conferva — A. capillaris. 



In the body of the work they are defcribed from the frudlifica- 

 tion — 



Tremella — Fru^ifcationes vix mantfejla in corpore gelatinofo. 

 Ulya — Fru^ificationes in membrana diaphand. 



Pucus — Mafc. Feficulce villis intertexta. 



Fcem. Vefculce adfperfce granis immerfis apice promi- 

 nulis. Seminafolitaria. 

 Conferva — Tubercula incequalia infbris capillaribus longijimis. 



The difcrimination in the fynoptic table need not engage our at- 

 tention one moment ; it does not hold true, neither has it any 

 thing to do with the fexual fyftem, by which all ought, and, it 

 fhould be apprehended, may be determined, at leaft to a certain de- 

 gree. 



In refpea to the defcriptions of the fruaification in the body of the 

 workjwe muft objeft to the charafter of Fucus for the fame reafon that 

 Gmelin does to Reaumur's male flowers. They have no appearance 

 of antherce, and the villi appear evidently to be nothing more than 



N 2 . ths 



