KONGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAK. BAND. 20. N:0 5. 203 



Adnot. 1. V. evauescentis f. angustse proxime accedit Fueus micloiiensis J. G. Ag. Spetsb. Alg. Till. p. 35, 

 39 et Gröiil. Lära. ut Fuc. p. 2y, saltem qiioad spuuiraina Spetsbergeiisia et Groenlaiulica. 



Adnot. 2. Ill grege formarum inter f. bursigcram et f. typicam iiiterraediai'uin J. G. Agakdhii Fucus evaiiescens, 

 minor rcceptaoulis inflatis ad F. bursigerura tendens, me jiidioe est aduumeiaudus. 



Syn. Fucus ceranoides Pall. Eeise 3, p. 34. 



» n Post. et Rupr. 111. Alg. p. II; Cfr. Goiii, Algentl. VVeiss. Meer. p. 55. 



» >' SciiRENK, Ural Reise p. 546. 



« evanescens J. G. Ag. Spetsb. Alg. Till. p. 27, 35, 40; Grönl. Alg. p. 110; Cfr. supra. 



» » GoBi 1. c. 



» » Kjellm. Vinteralgv. p. 64; Spetsb. Thall. 2, p. 3; Algcnv. Muini. Meer. p. 26; 



Kariska liaiVets Algv. p. 23. 



» » Quercus Pall. Reise 3, p. 34. Cfr. sub Delesseria siuuosa. 



» vesiculosus J. G. Ag. Spetsb. Alg. Progr. p. 2; Bidr. p. 11. 



u » AsHM. Alg. Hayes, p. 96 (?) Cfr p. 199 sub. F. vesiculoso. 



» « Ckoall, Fl. Disc. p. 457; ex parte. 



» » DlCKiE, Alg. Sutherl. 1, p. 140; ex parte (?); Alg. Cumberl. p. 236; ex parte. 



» » Eaton, List. p. 44. 



)) » LiNDBL. Bot. Not. p. 157. 



» » Martin, Met. Observ. p. 313. 



» » Post. et Rupr. 111. Alg. p. II; saltera ex parte. 



» » ScHiJBELER, in Heuglin Reise p. 317. 



» » Scoresby, Account 1, p. 132. 



» » SoMMERF. Spitsb. Fl. 233. 



Il >> Zeller, Zweite d. Polarf. p. 85. 



« » Cfr. Mårtens Voyage Spitsb. p. 77, t. F, (ig. b. 



Reniark on the deterinination of the forms. Fucus evanescens lias of late bccoiue ever 

 better known, and the algologists who have had an opportunity of studying it have 

 adopted J. G. Agardii's opinion tliat it is to be considered an independent species. It 

 was formerly confounded with F. vesiculosus, although it is probably less closel}' allied 

 to this species than to F. edentatus. It differs from the former species by its branching, 

 the shape of its segments, its colour and consistency, and above all by the difterent 

 structure of its scaphidia. Of F. edentatus I have, on the contrary, seen forms very 

 riearly approaching F. evanescens, and, on the other side, forms of F. evanescens much 

 resembling F. edentatus in the shape and size of the receptacles. Nevertheless I believe 

 the two species can be distinguished by certain differences in the ramitication of the 

 frond, in consistency and in the nature of the costa. I have set dovvn here the same 

 forms that I have before endeavoured to distinguish and to detine. They are certainly 

 connected by numerous intermediate forms, but they deserve however to be mentioned 

 specially, because they show the limits and directions of the variations of the species 

 and differ somewhat with regard to biology and geographical distribution. I have 

 arranged under theni the forms mentioned by J. G. Agardh in his works on the ma- 

 rine Flora of the Arctic Sea. I cannot possibly distinguish Fucus miclonensis J. G. Ag. 

 from Spitzbergen and Greenland, of which I have seen specimens determined by J. G. 

 Agardh, from low-sized F. evanescens f. am/tista and from intermediate forms betweeii 

 this and f. nana. Farlow says of f. miclonensis De la Pyl, »F. miclonensis of De la 



