KONGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR. BAND 20. N:0 5. 241 
Syn. Laminaria digitata Kieen, Nord]. Alg. p. 33; ex parte; excl. f. stenophylla. 
» » LinpBL. Bot. Not. p. 57; ex parte. (?) 
» » Post. et Rupr. Ill. Alg. p. II. (?) 
» » Scurenk, Ural. Reise, p. 546; ex parte. (?) 
» » Scntspever, in Heugl. Reise. p. 317. 
» » Sommerer. Spitsb. Fl. p. 232. (?) 
» » ZELLER, Zweite d. Polarf. p. 85. (?) 
» flexicaulis Fosure, |. c. p. 19; excl. L. digitata var. stenophylla Harv. 
» » Nyl. et Sel. Herb. Fenn. p. 73. 
Remark on the species. After having lately had the opportunity of examining a 
considerable number of Laminaria digitata auct. from different parts of the Scandi- 
navian coast, I cannot but admit unconditionally that there are to be found here at 
least two well marked and easily distinguished species, on the one hand that which 
Scandinavian algologists have been accustomed to call L. digitata and which is the 
commonest, on the other hand that described by Le Joxts under the name of L. Clustoni. 
The former species is partly identical with the L. fleaicaulis of the just-mentioned author, 
which includes however also Harvey's ZL. digitata var. stenophylla. As to the last-named 
alga, I am of opinion, for reasons to be stated afterwards, that it ought as yet to be 
considered a separate species. L. Clustoni has only lately, by the comprehensive re- 
searches of J. E. ArescuouG, been known with certainty as a Scandinavian species. 
Since he has called attention to it by private communications, it has been observed at 
several parts of the Scandinavian coast, in some localities even abundant. It is, however, 
far more rare on the west coast of Sweden than that species which has hitherto passed 
under the name of Z. digitata. This name I think fit to retain for this species, while 
I call the other species by the name of ZL. Clustoni, which it received when it was first 
decidedly discerned as a distinct species. To replace the name of L. Clustoni by L. 
digitata, as Fostie has proposed to do, and rebaptize the plant called L. digitata by 
recent Scandinavian algologists, J. G. AGarpu, J. E. ArrscnouG a. o., by the name of 
L. fleaicaulis, can hardly be justified by the fact of earlier authors having described and 
quoted ZL. Clustont Le Jou. under the name of ZL. digitata. For it certainly is pretty 
probable that these authors have called or at least would have called even L. flevicaulis 
by the name of ZL. digitata, and it is impossible to determine at the present time whether 
Linneus understood by his name of L. digitata both the algx in question or only the 
one of them and in such a case which. The change of names proposed by Fosim 
would scarcely lead to anything but to throw the already entangled nomenclature into 
still greater confusion. 
The introduction of the name jflewicaulis by Le Joris is hardly justifiable. It 
cannot be allowed, by the laws established for names-giving, to reject altogether the 
Linnean name of ZL. digitata, and this should have been done in this case so much the 
less because Epmonston retained that name for the plant which Le Joxis regards as 
identical with his own LZ. flexicaulis, while he employed the name of L. Clustoni adopted 
by Le Joris for the species separated from the old L. digitata. 
K. Vet. Akad. Handl. Bd 20. N:o 5. 31 
