466 
p. 6 (partim, e specim.); a, robustior J. Ag., Spetsb. Alg., Tillag p. 37; 
Kjellm., N. I., p. 262 (210). 
f. linearis (Oed.) Rosenv., 1. c. Fucus distichus Lyngb., Hydro- 
phyt. p. 6 (partim) Kleen, Nordl. Hafsalg. p. 30. 
Fucus in flatus is an extremely variable plant and many of its 
numerous forms have been regarded and described as distinct 
species, as already pointed out by Rosen vinge in Gronl. Havalg., 
(1. c.). I have long been in doubt how to classify the Faeroese speci¬ 
mens of which the accompanying figures may serve to give an idea. 
Kj ell man’s »Handbok« certainly contains exhaustive descriptions 
and a large number of forms are mentioned in it, but as Kj ell man 
has not satisfactorily identified them with those discribed under older 
names it is often rather difficult to arrive at any definite conclusion 
about them. As pointed out by Foslie (1. c.), Vahl’s description in 
Flora Danica, tab. 1127 ought to be regarded as the type for Fucus 
in flatus —and e.g. Kj ell man in »Handbok« (p.ll) and Rosen vinge 
{1. c.) have taken it as such. In > Handbok« Kj ell man divides the 
species into two main groups a finmarkicus and (i nordlandicus. As 
the type for the main form of finmarkicus he mentions the species 
gathered and distributed by him in Areschoug’s Exsicc. No. 401, and 
as he also quotes this example as the type for his forma typica of Fucus 
edentatus de la Pyl. in N. I., p. 256 (204) then finmarkicus must be 
regarded as synonymous with f. edentata. But in Gronl. Havalg. 
Rosen vinge mentions nordlandicus as synonymous with Fucus 
in flatus a edentatus (de la Pyl.); and with reference to Vahl’s figurqj 
which Kjellman gives as type for nordlandicus, Foslie (l.c.) writes: 
— »it is identical with the species met with in Nordland and Fin- 
marken which later authors have referred to Fucus edentatus de la 
/ 3 > j 
Pyl«. From which again it follows that both a nordlandicus and 
finmarkicus ought to be regarded as synonymous with f. edentata 
and this view is presumably also the most natural one as it appears 
to me somewhat doubtful how far we are justified in maintaining 
two such main groups. As marks of distinction between the two 
groups Kjellman properly speaking, only mentions that in nord¬ 
landicus the branches are given off at narrow angles and the con- 
ceptacles are small and placed close together, while in finmarkicus 
the branches are given off at wide angles and the conceptacles are 
scattered and irregularly arranged, but in a large collection these 
characters will hardly be of any use for purposes of classification. 
In his work »Om Algvegetationen vid Islands Kuster«, pp. 35 
