515 
Schiffner,* however, though rejecting Madotheca, considers Porella 
of Linnaeus a nomen nudum and adopts Bellincinia, Raddi (1818), 
reinstated by Otto Kuntze. 
Lindberg supposed the “antheraceous capsules’ to be the ¢ 
branches, but we are inclined to accept Dickson’s explanation of 
the Dillenian error. We are assisted to this view by detecting in 
the larger figure+ given by Dillenius what we believe to be two or 
three ‘‘antheraceous capsules,” which have the general appear- 
ance of perianths, and also by the form of the detached and en- 
larged ‘‘ capsules.” M. Le Jolis has somewhat lately, in a secondt 
paper on the nomenclature of the Hepaticae, expressed the opinion 
that the figure in the Historia Muscorum would apply to a Se/ag7- 
nella as well as to one of the Jungermaniaceae and that it is easier 
for him to believe that a MJadotheca has by some chance been fast- 
ened to the sheet previously occupied by the enigmatical Pore//la 
than that Dillenius could have made such blunders in interpreting 
its morphology and affinities. Against this view may be urged a 
portion of the Dillenian description concerning which M. Le Jolis, 
in his two elaborate papers, is silent. The “ Aguae immersa planta 
reviviscit, sicca contracta et convoluta est, structuram non monstrans’ 
is not applicable to any Se/aginella of the eastern United States, 
but does apply in a significant way to the hepatic in question, a 
form of which, with leaves strongly convolute.and stem subcir- 
cinate in drying, was given the specific name ixvoluta by Hampe. 
Moreover, Dickson’s statement that in the “ original drawings in 
the possession of Sir William Banks, the leaves, so far as they 
are represented, are placed in the same manner as in the annexed 
figure’ should have much weight. Neither M. Le Jolis nor any 
one else will question the meaning of Dickson’s “ annexed figure.” 
The objection that Porclla is a nomen nudum with Linnaeus 
would apply equally well to Zargionia hypophylla or Blasia pusilla, 
so far as any “‘ specific Leica in sg eh macs is con- 
*Engler & Prantl, Nat. PA. Fam. 1: Abt. 3, 115. 1895. 
+ We have had access to the Edinburgh reprint of the Historia Muscorum (1811) 
and the abridged edition of 1763. Of these, the figures in the 1763 enn op in the 
Columbia University copy, at least, are much the clearer. 
$Mém. Soc. nation. Sci. nat. et Math. seagate 29: 142-147. thos. ‘ 
. 
