EVANS—THE NORTH AMERICAN SPECIES OF ASTERELLA. 279 
probably referable to F. fragrans as a synonym. In 1889 he and Arnell* spoke 
still more positively, saying that Marchantia saccata ought without doubt to be 
referred to Asterella fragrans (Schleich.) Trevis. Whether they based their 
statement on a study of Wahlenberg’s type specimen, which is presumably at 
Upsala, does not appear but is surely to be assumed. In any case they would 
not have supplanted the name fragrans by the name saccata because they con- 
sidered Marchantia fragrans Schleich. a valid species, antedating M. saccate 
Wahl. For those who can not accept this view, M. saccata represents the oldest 
valid name for the species. 
Although Nees von Esenbeck does not refer to F. saccata in his Natur- 
geschichte, he gives a full account of F. fragrans® and establishes the generic 
position of the true Marchantia fragrans,* citing the original publication of 
Balbis, with which his predecessors had apparently been unacquainted. He de- 
plores the confusion caused by Schleicher’s incorrect determination, but admits 
that he himself as well as others had not been blameless. As a matter of fact, 
Wallroth, to whom attention has already been called, had been a serious of- 
fender. In eonnection with his description of M. fragrans he cites specimens 
from the vicinity of Halle, Germany, which represent Grimaldia fragrans, This 
error was pointed out by Bischoff,t who showed that Wallroth’s figures were 
drawn partly from the true F. fragrans and partly from the Grimaldia, Other 
errors also, based on incorrect determinations, might be noted, including some 
that have appeared within comparatively recent times. Bernet,’ for example, 
writing in 1888, cites Ff. fragrans from a number of Swiss localities, most of 
which were afterwards transferred by Boulay ® to Grimaldia fragrans. 
Wallroth’s F. umbonata, based on specimens collected in the Harz Mountains, 
Germany, remains to be considered. This species was admitted to the Synopsis 
Hepaticarum,’ although attention is there called to the strong resemblance 
which it bears to F. fragrans. It is likewise listed by Hampe.’ Stephani,” how- 
ever, reduced it to synonymy in 1899, citing it under F. fragrans, and later 
writers, such as Loeske, Migula, and Miiller, have followed his example. 
The earliest record for A. saccata in North America was published by 
Austin ” in 1873, the specimens upon which it was pased having been collected 
by Fendler at Santa Fe, New Mexico. So far as seen by the writer these 
specimens are either sterile or else show very immature receptacles. Their 
ventral scales, however, as well as their epidermal and photosynthetic tissues, 
differ from the corresponding structures in authentic material of A. saccata, 
and indicate a wrong determination. The North American records cited 
above, all but one of which have been previously published, seem to be trust- 
worthy. 
Although it would be impossible, in the light of our present knowledge, to con- 
fuse fruiting specimens of Asterella saccata and Grimaldia fragrans, the two 
species resemble each other very closely indeed in a sterile condition. They are 
both of about the same size; both have a markedly xerophytic habit, the thallus 
Svensk. Vet. Akad. Handl. 23°: 10. 1889. 
* Page 267, 
® Page 225, 
‘Nov. Act. Acad. Caes. Leop. Carol, 17: 1019. 1835, 
5 Cat. Hép. Suisse 124. 
*Muse. France 2:190. 1904. 
"Page 559. 
®¥], Hercyn. 374. 1873. 
° Bull. Herb. Boiss. 7: 211. 1899. 
2 Hep. Bor. Amer., no. 136¢c (as Fimbriaria fragrans). 
