2 -FUCL 
Fuci. 
—_——— 
History. 
almost implicitly adopted by botanists down to the close 
of the 18th century. The celebrated Linneus had too 
much to do in reforming the arrangement of phenoga- 
mous plants, to pay very great attention to the cryptoga- 
mia. His situation at Upsala was certainly not favour- 
able for the investigation of the submersed alge, and his 
herbarium contained but peer a few ies; 
yet he described near 60 species of fuci. In 1768, Gmelin 
published, in 4to, his Historia generalis et specialis Fuco- 
rum, a work in which he not only céllected whatever 
was previously known, but added very considerably to 
the stock of knowledge. Indeed, considering it as the 
first general work on this branch of natural history, the 
author deserves great praise. He divided the plants of 
which he treated into nine orders: Vesiculosi, Globu- 
liferi; Penicilliferi, Corallini, Membranacei, Radicati, 
Agara, Tremelle, and Ulve. He described 101 spe- 
cies ; of which number he considered 37 as new, for he 
gives no synonimes with them. Linneus’s name is gi- 
ven to 27 species only. His notions, in general, con- 
cerning the fructification of fuci, and particularly the 
' supposition of uniserual and asexual plants, were ra- 
ther crude, and have not been adopted. 
The numerous fuci which inhabit our own shores, have 
been gradually illustrated by’a series of writers since 
the days of Ray, who enumerated a many in his 
Nillenius. Synopsis. Those kinds of algee which Dillenius con- 
sidered as entitled to a place in his Historia Muscorum, 
which were chiefly Conferve, he arranged a¢cording 
to general habit and structure. But in the minute 
kinds, the want of a microscope has often led him into 
error; for instance, to describe as jointless, plants in 
whichythe dissepiments are obvious under an ordinary 
Withering, lens, Withering, in his Atrangement of British Plants, 
gives descriptions of a number of’ species. He subdi- 
vides the genus into several sections: those with blad- 
ders ; with pod-like leaves ; necklace-like, or jointed ; 
flat; eylindvical; and capillary: the flat he farther dis- 
tinguishes as either mid-ribbed or ribless ; and these he 
still further separates, as either opake ‘or pellucid : 
both the cylindrical and capillary he likewise subdi- 
vides by the same character of opake and pellucid. 
Hudson, in his Flora Anglica, is remarkable for care 
and accuracy ; in evidence of which it may’ be men- 
tioned, that his nomenclature is seldom altered by 
that most scrupulously exact naturalist Mr Turner 
of Yarmouth, in his writings on this branch: of iia- 
Lightfoot. tural history. The descriptions of Lightfoot, in his 
Flora Scotica, when made from specimens picked up 
by himself, and examined on the spot, are highly cha- 
racteristic and luminous, The Nereis Britannica of 
Stackhouse, Stackhouse, which appeared, in fascictili, between 1795 
and 1802, has very considerable merit. The author had 
good opportunities of examining the English sea-weeds, 
as he resided on the shores ‘of Cornwall. He divided 
the genus Fucus into several genera, chiefly accord- 
ing to the fructification; and although he was but 
imperfectly acquainted with this, his arrangement 
deserves attention, and shall -be afterwards detail- 
Linneus. 
Gmelin. 
Ray. 
Hudson, 
Velley. ed. - Major Velley’s figures, which are highly finish- 
ed, and his dissertation on the propagation of fuci, do 
Goodenough 4iH great credit. In the third volume of the Trans- 
and Wood- “ctions of the Linnean Society, the ‘Bishop of Carlisle 
ward. and Mr Woodward not only gave a most accurate 
summary of the state of knowledge with regard to 
British fuci; but added several new species, and 
amended the specific characters of others. In the 
, course of editing the extensive periodical work English 
abn E. Botany, Sir James Edward Smith likewise added se- 
veral new species to the list. In 1802, Mr Dawson 
Turner, of Yarmouth, produced his Synopsis of British _ Fuci- 
Fuci, a valuable little work, which gave the most en- 
couraging earnest of what might be expected from this 
writer, in his great work on fuci, then only pro- Turner. 
jected, but the publication of which is now consider- 
ably advanced. 
In the Philosophical Transactions for 1796, M. Cor- Corréa da 
réa da Serra, a Portuguese-.naturalist of merit, publish- Serra. 
ed his remarks on the fructification of those fuci which 
are furnished with distinct receptacles. In the fol- 
lowing year, Dr Albert William Roth of Bremen pub- Roth. 
History. 
lished his Bemerkungen iiber das Studium der cryploga- 
mischen Wassergewichse, in which he divided cryptoga- 
mic water plants into new genera, to be afterwards 
mentioned. In the Catalecta Botanica of the same 
writer, considerable additional light has been thrown 
on marine plants, particularly by the communications 
of Professor Mertens of Bremen, characterised by Mr 
Turner as one of the most able algologists of the pre 
sent day. Professor Esper’s [cones Fucorum cum cha- 
racteribus systematicis, §c: in 4to. appeared in 1799. 
It isa useful work, though, as the author described’ 
and figured from dried specimens only, both his de- 
scriptions and representations are. occasionally imper- / 
fect and unsatisfactory. Professor Weber and the late Weber an¢ 
Dr Mohr, in their Beitriige zur Naturkunde, haye-en- Mohr. 
deavoured to subdivide the genus Fucus by the charac~ 
ter and disposition of the seeds ; and in the course of 
this attempt, have made many excellent observations om 
this tribe of plants. In 1803, Baron Xavier du Wulfen: wrutfen, 
published: a little work; entitled Cryptogamia Aquatica, 
containing some useful information concerning fuci: : In 
the Flora Danica, published in folio, at the expence of 
the Danish government, (a lesson to/governments that 
are more rich and powerful,) a number. of fuci, from 
the shores of the Baltic, and likewise from the distant 
settlements of that industrious nation, have been» 
and described by the successive editors, Oeder, | Vahl, 
and Hornemann. Several other foreign writers have, 
at various times, contributed to a general knowledge 
of fuci ;. particularly the Count Ginanni, Ravennate, 
Bishop Gunner in his Flora Nelboailina iE asiegead in 
his History of Amboyna, Seba in his Thesaurus, and 
Forskael in the Flora Aayptiaco-Arabica. 
The French have of late distinguished themselves in 
this branch of natural history. The labours of Des 
eandolle deserve much praise. There is a very good 
general account of fuci given by M. Poiret, in the botani- 
eal part of the Excyclopedie Methodique, The Flora At- 
lantica of Desfontaines is a work of great merit. But 
above all, M. Lamouroux of Agen, now Professor of Na- 
tural History at Caen, has studied the fuci with uncom- 
mon diligence and success.’ He» published, in »1804, 
dissertations on several new or rare species ; and in 
1813 he gave a new arrangementiof the family, in the 
twentieth volume of the Annalesdu Museum d? Histoire 
Naturelle. Of this arrangement we think it-right to 
give a pretty full account, because at present itis the 
best. We must however confess, that in ouropinion 
there has been some precipitaney: in bringing it before 
the public. It would certainly have been .far :bet« 
ter, first to have published descriptions and figures 
of the many species inedite teferred to by the author, 
and to have. left the classification to the last. This 
is the plan wisely adopted by Mr Turner; and cir- 
cumstances seem to intimate, that the French natu- 
ralist has not been entirely free of a wish to anticipate 
our countryman: , But, in any case, it may be deemed 
fortunate for Mr Turner, that M. Lamouroux has ac- 
tually given his views to the world ; for while. the can 
Esper. 
French 
writers. 
Lamou- 
TOUXx. 
