^4 REVUE BRYOLOGIQUE 



Porella once more, by Auguste Le Jolis (1) 



I M 



Mr. Marshall A- H-e Ijav^ng bee so courteous a^^o ^send 

 Snpcies^'^o Porella Treprinted'Jroni the Bulletin or tuk 

 what criticised, I beg leave to present a brief reply m the. 



Tn his paper Mr. Marshall A. Howe concludes from the 

 ident?f catfon of the specimen in the Dillenian herbarmm 

 ht? the name Porella must (( stand as the name of the 

 tenus » 1 cannot agree with such a deduction. If, owing to 

 STdentSiori, tie spe.^/?c. question ^as long ago been 

 resolved, the generic question is quite another thing and n 

 s?ands tilus : Is the Dillenian l^opodiaceous genus P^^^^^^^^ 



previous equivalent to the modern Sf ^^^^^f So Jecfl ? 

 generic character the true generic character of Madotheca . 



^"DmlTasrtlnshed his genus on « nad.ed>ntherac^ous 

 capsules, without operculum or pedicel, dehiscing by several 

 po?es thr'ougb the sides, and emitting a farinaceous POwder >^ 

 whence the name Porella. Consequently, any plant which 

 does not bear such capsules, with several farinaceous pores 

 cannot be entered in the genus Porella nor can be entitled to 

 hear that significant name PoreZ^a. _ n^^.win 



It is to be considered that Dillen, after ranging his Porella 

 among the ivcopods, describes and figures another svecimen 

 of the same 'species in his genus ((Lichenastrum«= ^wj- 

 aermannia\ under the name « Lichenastrum filicinum pen 

 fatumTSist. Muse, 495, pL 71, f. 25) the Bpecimen ^J 

 which, in the Dillenian herbarium, according to tbo opinion 

 ofS.O.Lindberg and Prof . S. H. Vines, cerainly belongs to 

 the same species as the specimen of « Porella pinnata. » in 

 iTcC^rella was a mere blander of Dillen and a name ^vhich 

 is the expression of such a gross blunder cannot stand as 

 the name of a modern scientific genus. 



I may add that Mr. Marshall A. Howe seems to have some 

 what misunderstood my papers on Pore^to, ^'^'^J^}^^^ 'L'^.^Jiil 

 written (( that Dickson considered his Ju.^^^rmanmaPorc^W 



to be different from the Porellft of Dillonius » ; on the con 



trary,Ihave said that Dickson, having 'compared Ins ./i*« 



' ffermannia with the specimen of Dillen, did hnd out that 



the two plants were alike. niiipnii His- 



I may also give notice that my own copy of « Dillenii Uis 

 toria Muscoru.n » is the editio pnnceps of 1741, and tha^ 

 I have not seen the reprints of 1763 and ^811, to which 

 Mr. Marshall A. Howe has only had access ; I arn then i„no 

 rant if those reprints or reproductions of the plates are quite 

 identical wath the standard original edition. 



(1) Bulletin of the Torrej Botanical Club, XXY, Fcbr. 1898, p. 



95. 



