62 



rently understood by different authors than in any other genus of 

 the higher algæ. It is, therefore, in many cases impossible, without 

 having access to original specimens, to determine what an author 

 has meant by a species recorded. In this respect L. fasciculatum 

 (Lam.) affords a striking example. It has been very differently 

 understood, and under this name have been quoted more sharply 

 distinguished species. Even by Areschoug, the monographer of 

 the Corallineæ, this species is tåken in a wide sense probably in- 

 cluding at least 3 — 4 species now separated, for inst. L. glaciale, 

 L. crassum (L. fasciculatum Harv.), L.tophiforme (L. soriferum 

 Kje lim.) and L. apiculatum. Cp. Kje lim. 1. c. and below under 

 the named species. The plant to which this name was originally 

 applied by Lamarck is considered by Kjell man 1. c. to be a 

 species nearly related to L. tophiforme (L. soriferum), but in some 

 respects different. It certainly is impossible to know what has 

 really here been stated. I agree with Kjellman, that the character 

 „ramis . . . apice incrassatis, obtusis" does not in general accord 

 with L. tophiforme, although the last named species includes a 

 form a little thickened towards the apex of the branches, and the 

 latter even truncate or nearly truncate. This form I, however, 

 regard a merely local one, of which I have seen some few speci- 

 mens from Finmarken. The plant that Kjellman from oral infor- 

 mation considers to be identic with L. fasciculatum will be men- 

 tioned under L. climorphum. In my opinion L. (Millepora) fas- 

 ciculatum Lam. is identic with the present plant, the characters 

 quoted on the whole pretty well according with certain forms of 

 this species, and appears to have been apprehended in like manner 

 by Johnston, Harvey and Crouan. 



Mélobesia fasciculata Harv. I suppose most essentially being 

 included in the species in question, and is considered by Harvey 

 himself not unlikely to be the same as L. crassum Phil. It is by 

 Hauck 1. c. referred to his L. fasciculatum (L. fruticulosum), but 

 this i think rather to be a slip of the pen. The figure 1 in Phyc. 

 Brit. 1. c. much reminds one of L. crassum, and flg. 2 appears 

 also to be a form of the same species, if not, perhaps, more nearly 

 related to L. incrustans f. Harvey i. Besides, Harvey remarks 



