the Bi hijl) Fuci^ with parlkular Defer iptions of each Species. 163 



haud dubium eft quin eadem fit ac F. cil/ati— Anne ab illo fatis 

 diflinflus ? 



Whoever will be at the trouble of comparing fpecimens of this 

 Fuciis with thofc of cilia/us will find a very ftriking fimilarity : 

 however, we diftinguidi this by its cilia being very ramofc— in<r//w/«i 

 they are fimple and undivided. The cilia are often round— the 

 root, the fubftance, the colour and habit are nearly alike in both. 



We have not found this common. We gathered a fingle fpeci- 

 men at Weymouth, where the ciliaius is very common. But at II- 

 fracombe in Devoniliire, where this fpecies is very frequent, we 

 did not find one fpecimen of ciliatus. 



We have not feen it in fru6lification ; moft probably it is fimilar 

 in this refpe6l to F. ciliatus ; and it certainly is to be doubted whe- 

 ther it be abfolutely diftindt from that fpecies. 



The figure Fl. Dan. 1066, which is moft unaccountably referred 

 to F. pumilus Ft. Ang. appears to be a reprefentation of this plant ; 

 but it is not fufticicntly exa6l to allow us to quote it as fuch witK 

 certainty. 



Where there is fo much uncertainty concerning a fubjefl:, we 

 wifti to throw out eveiy hint which occurs. Perhaps the ramofity 

 of the cilia iu this plant is in confequence of its not being exhaufted 

 as to its ftrength by the produ£lion of fruftification, and thus the 

 efforts of the plant are diverted in this channel. 



•y^'^. FuCUS PALMATUS. 



F. fronde membranacea varie divisa palmata. Buddie, p. a^' 

 8c p. le^.&cp. 27. n. 3. Petiver, p. 19. «. 4. Uvedate, vol. i^ 

 p. 0. «. 4. Moriforiy Hif. Ox. 646. / 15. /. 8./ I. 



Y 2 Fucus 



