278 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL HERBARIUM. 
Balbi ex Schleich.” Similar descriptions were published soon afterwards by 
Weber and Mohr,’ by Weber, and by Wallroth? 
On the basis of these descriptions certain later writers have attempted to 
maintain a Marchantia fragrans Schleich, in addition to a Marchantia fra- 
grans Balb., and have cited A, saccata under the name Asterella fragrans 
(Schleich.) Trevis. or Fimbriaria fragrans (Schleich.) Nees, according to their 
choice of generic names. This course has little to recommend it. The writers 
who described Schleicher’s specimens supposed that they represented M. 
fragrans Balb., but even if they had considered them distinct the name “ M. 
fragrans Schleich.” would be nothing more than a homonym of M. fragrans 
Balb. and therefore without nomenclatorial standing. 
The case is different with Fimbriaria fragrans Nees, the third species of 
Nees von Esenbeck’s genus Fimbriaria, as originally described. As a synonym 
of this species Marchantia fragrans Balb. is unfortunately given, but the de- 
scriptions quoted are those of Weber and of Wallroth, instead of the original 
description of Balbis. It is evident, therefore, that Nees von Esenbeck’s con- 
ception of F. fragrans was largely based on Schleicher’s specimens, and for 
this reason it is perhaps justifiable to regard F. fragrans as a new and ade- 
quately published name. This was clearly the view held by Underwood‘ when 
he wrote the name of the species Asterella fragrans (Nees) Trevis. But an 
alternate interpretation is possible: If the true Marchantia fragans Balb. is 
considered synonymous with F. fragrans Nees, then the latter name becomes a 
mere synonym of Grimaldia fragrans. 
The revival of Wahlenberg’s Marchantia saccata removes the necessity of 
using the name fragrans at all in the present connection. M. saccata was based 
on specimens collected by Tilesius in Kamchatka, and Wahlenberg’s figures, 
although not very satisfactory, clearly show the plurifid pseudoperianths of 
an Asterella with the segments connate at the apex. The species was accepted 
by Schwaegrichen® and by Nees von Esenbeck, the latter author listing it as 
the second member of his genus Fimbriaria, under the name F. saceata. Wall- 
roth, however, was apparently the first to recognize its close relationship to 
the M. fragrans of Schleicher’s distribution, quoting it, in 1815, among the 
synonyms of M. fragrans. Later on, in 1831,° he no longer included M. saccata 
among the synonyms, showing that he may have changed his mind. In his 
Naturgeschichte der europiiischen Lebermoose (1838) Nees von Esenbeck makes 
no allusion to J’. saccata, but the authors of the Synopsis Hepaticarum" ac- 
cept it, placing it close to F. fragrans and emphasizing its relationship to that 
species. Apparently no further attention was paid to Wahlenberg’s species 
until Lindberg considered its status many years later. When he first referred 
to it he included it, with a question mark, among the synonyms of Diivalia 
pilosa (Hornem.) Lindb. (Neesiella pilosa Schiffu.),° but he changed his mind 
afterwards, when he listed “ Fimbriaria fragrans (Schleich.) N.—-Es.” from 
Amur in eastern Siberia,’ stating that “ #. saccata (Wahlenb.) N.-Es.” was very 
* Bot. Taschenb. 391. 1807. 
* Hist. Muse. Hep. Prodr, 106. 1815, 
* Ann. Bot. 120. pl. 6, f. 9. 1815. 
‘Bot. Gaz, 20:.61. 1875. 
* Hist. Muse. Hep. Prodr, 38. 1814. 
°F, Crypt. Germ. 1: 44, 1831, 
"Page 559. 1846. 
* Not. Siillsk. Faun, Fl. Fenn. Férh. 9: 281. 1868. 
* Act. Soe. Sci. Fenn. 10: 259. 1872, 
