EVANS—THE NORTH AMERICAN SPECIES OF ASTERELLA. 269 
Soon after Wahlenberg’s account of the plant, under the incorrect name 
M. pilosa, had been published, M, ludwigii Schwaegr. and M. gracilis F. Web. 
were proposed as new. M. ludwigii was cited from Germany and doubtfully 
from Switzerland; later publications show that the type specimens were col- 
lected by Ludwig in the Sudetic Mountains of Silesia, no more definite locality 
being given. M. gracilis was based on material collected by Wahlenberg in the 
vicinity of Upsala, Sweden. The latter species has long been recognized as a 
synonym of M. pilosa Wahl., but the status of M. ludiigii has been doubted, 
Nees von Esenbeck,’ for example, in citing it as a possible synonym, suspected 
that it might really represent Grimaldia fragrans. Gottsche implies that this 
doubt was unfounded. In the critical remarks which he appends to Rabenhorst’s 
Hep. Eur. no, 161, where material collected in Silesia by J. Milde is distributed, 
he alludes to Ludwig’s specimens and to Nees von Esenbeck’s remarks, and 
speaks of Milde’s rediscovery of the species. Limpricht is even more definite, 
citing M, ludwigiit as a synonym and following the citation with an exclama- 
tion point. Since, however, he recognizes the validity of M. pilosa Wahl. at 
least provisionally, he retains the name Fimbriaria pilosa for the species and 
merely proposes F’, ludwigii as an alternative name, in case F. pilosa should 
ever be given up. As shown above, Marchantia pilosa Wahl. is untenable and 
therefore the names Fimbriaria pilosa and Asterella pilosa can not be main- 
tained. The combination Asterella ludiwwigii, first tentatively proposed by Un- 
derwood, is therefore advocated. 
When Nees von Esenbeck proposed the genus Finbriaria, he cited his fourth 
species, /’. tenella, from Virginia and Canada only. Marchantia gracilis, M. 
ludwigii, and M. pilosa he gave as possible members of the genus, but did not 
definitely include them on account of the fact that the divisions of their peri- 
anths become free. A few years later’ he included M. gracilis and M. ludwigii 
among the synonyms of F. tenella and cited the species from Sweden, Germany, 
Switzerland, and Java, as well as from Virginia. He therefore fell into the 
old error of Zoéga and Retzius, which Wahlenhberg, Schwaegrichen, and Weber 
had escaped. This error was repeated by Lindenberg,* by Hiibener,* and by 
Bischoff,’ who understood F. tenella in the same broad sense. When Taylor 
definitely restricted the name F. tenella to North American plants and gave 
the name /’. pilosa to the European plant, Nees von Esenbeck accepted his dis- 
tinctions. At first, however, he continued to cite the Javan specimens under 
F, pilosa. In the Synopsis Hepaticarum he made these Javan specimens the 
type of a new species, Ff’. blumeana Nees, and included under F. pilosa a long 
series of European specimens and also a specimen from Greenland, collected 
by Vahl, this being the first record for North America. 
Lindenberg’s Fimbriaria nana was based on Swiss material collected by 
Schleicher and distributed as Marchantia nana. Without having seen specimens, 
Nees von Esenbeck accepted the species in his Naturgeschichte, but stated 
that it might perhaps be nothing more than a form of Ff, pilosa. It is retained 
also in the Synopsis Hepaticarum, where no doubt is thrown on its validity. 
Later writers on Swiss Hepaticae rarely mention F.. nana, although it is ac- 
cepted as a species by both Dumortier * and Sydow.’ In 1899 Stephani included 
*Naturg. Eur. Leberm, 4: 273. 1838. 
2?Nov. Act. Acad, Caes. Leop. Carol, 12: 411, 1825, 
® Noy. Act, Acad, Caes. Leop. Carol. 14: Suppl. 109. 1829, 
*Hep. Germ. 6. 1834. 
* Noy. Act. Acad. Caes. Leop. Carol, 17: 1022. 18385, 
° Hep. Eur. 158. 1874. 
'Leberm. Deutschl. Oesterr. Schweiz 79. 1882. 
