18S 
Simmons, Remarks about tke Relations of tlie Eloras etc. 
follow Setclieil as to tlie specific distinction. Tliere are two 
areas, wliere tlie Alariae are especially numerous, viz., tlie 
nortliern Pacific and tlie border-regions between tlie Polar Sea 
and tlie Atlantic. The type of tlie genns, A. esculenta , is widely 
spread in tlie northern Atlantic, where it reaches down to the 
coast of France, it is liardly arctic anywhere (Spitzbergen?) bnt 
appears again in the northern Pacific (?). 
A. Pylaii comes in within the northern parts of the ränge 
of the former species (Norway, Faeroes, Maine, Bering Sea) but 
is as far as known at present not distributed very far into the 
arctic regions. Three species, A. membranacea, A. grandifolia , and 
A. ßagellaris are northatlantic-arctic. One, A. dolichorhachis, is 
pacific with an arctic ränge in the neighbonrhood of Bering Straft. 
As previously mentioned the two species that stand as arctic- 
endemic probably are to be fonnd also ontside that sound. This 
gives ns 8 species, the ninth, A. linearis , is only fonnd in Ice- 
land (Jönsson (26) has it under A. escidenta ), all the other 9 spe¬ 
cies are nortlipacific. It is apparent that such a distribution 
must doubtless point to a centre of dispersion in the tertiary 
Polar Sea, and to a cleaving into new fornis in very late 
periods. 
The name „Sea of ..the Laminariaceae“ for the Polar Sea. 
must have been still more appropriate in tertiary tinies than 
now (cf. Setchell 48, p. 373), as the family has probably been 
restricted to that area, with a few exceptions only. 
It must now be examined how far the views here stated 
are in accord with the ideas of Peinke (41) about the phylo- 
genesis of the Laminariaceae. The simplest form of all is after 
liis opinion (p. 51) Laminaria solidungula {Setchell has L< Phyl- 
litis) and tliat species is not only the primitive type („die ide¬ 
elle und embryologische Grundform u ) of the family, but he also 
accepts.the hypotliesis, that it is the original form („die Urform 
des Laminojriaceen typus“) from which all the different Lamina¬ 
riaceae have sprung. This again he thinks derived from the 
Flagellatae , and as far as is indicated in tlie treatise he seems to 
assume a direct descendance from the Flagellatae , so far as none 
of the phylembryons of Laminaria solidungula should live now, 
all the intermediate members of the cliain should be exstirpated 
without leaving any trace, as they, likewise as the Lamina¬ 
riaceae now living, have been unfit for preservation in a fossil 
state. He further has a discussion of the probabilities for and 
against a monophyletic origin of the family, but as already in- 
timated, not the least that points to an assumption that more 
Phaeosphoreae also could have the sarne ancestor arnoiig the 
Flagellatae, i. e. that the Laminariaceae could descend from an- 
other now existing family of brown algae, or at least have tlie 
same origin as some or other of these. I cannot see wliy not 
the theory of Kj eil man (Engler & Prantl, 1.2, p. 253) should 
be at least quite as acceptable. tliat the Laminariaceae have 
branclied off from tlie Encoeliaceae. Indeed this is a question 
