o RO Eu AN y wi 
> 
ch 
DE RE re Se Ne a ye D SSS See. Ier c dmm fu A E 
F 
` 
E 19314] Evans,— Notes on New England Hepaticae,— XI 71 
earlier. The next name to be taken up was the C. symbolica of Breid- 
ler, published in 1894. This name is still used by a number of con- 
tinental writers but is invalid according to the International Rules of 
Botanical Nomenclature, adopted in Vienna in 1905, in spite of the 
fact that the name symbolica was published four years earlier than the 
name media. The rule which applies to the present case is embodied 
in Article 49 and reads, “when .. a subdivision of a species becomes a 
species . . the earliest name received .. in its new position must be 
regarded as valid." Since Cephalozia media was the name first ap- 
plied to Jungermannia connivens, forma symbolica, when it was raised 
to specific rank, it is clear that the name C. media ought not to be 
supplanted by C. symbolica. 
The name C. lunulacfolia of Dumortier was revived for the present 
species by Pearson on the authority of a letter received from Spruce, 
and has been adopted to a considerable extent by American writers. 
In Spruce's letter he comments upon the difficulty of securing authen- 
tic specimens of Dumortier's species. He states, however, that he was 
able to obtain, from the herbarium of the botanical garden at Brussels, 
specimens quoted by Dumortier in his original publication of Junger- 
mannia lunulaefolia and, long afterwards, in connection with his 
description of Cephalozia lunulaefolia.! These specimens were dis- 
tributed by Mougeot, Nestler and Schimper, under the name J. 
connivens, in their Stirpes Kryptogamae Vogeso-Rhenanae, No. 434, 
and were referred by Spruce without question to his C. multiflora. 
But, according to K. Müller? the specimens distributed under No. 434 
represent C. serriflora Lindb. instead of C. media, and the description 
of Dumortier certainly applies better to C. serriflora than to the other 
species. In any case C. lunulaefolia scems to have been based on a 
mixture of species and it seems wisest to discard it altogether as K. 
Müller, Macvicar, and other recent writers have done. With regard 
to the status of C. pallida, first published as a species by Pearson, the 
views of writers vary, but there seems to be a strong tendency to re- 
X 
. A gard it as a variety of C. media. — 
7. DiPLOoPHYLLUM GYMNOsTOMOPHILUM Kaalaas, Vidensk-Skrift. 
I. 18989: 4-9 f. 1-4. Scapania gymnostomophila Kaalaas, Bot. Not. 
1896: 21. Martinellia gymnostomophila Arnell & C. Jensen, Bih. 
1Hep. Europ. 93. 1875. 
2 Mém. de l'Herb. Boissier 6: 7. 1900. 
