Howe: Nores on AMERICAN HEPATICAE 283 
confused, owing partly to the fact that is was not until 1881 and 
1882 that Lindberg and Spruce began to distinguish, in their pub- 
lished works at least, between the true Cephalosia connivens and 
C. lunulaefolia, and owing furthermore to some uncertainties at- 
tending the determination of JSungermaniaia multifora of Hudson 
(Fl. Angl. 431. 1 762). The question of interpreting correctly 
Hudson’s /, multifiora, difficult at best, is needlessly complicated 
by Dr. Spruce (4. ¢. 40) by quoting the 1778 edition of Hud- 
son’s Flora Anglica, where a supposed synonym from Linné’s 
Mantissa is introduced, though the original 1762 edition with- 
out the Linnaean synonym is all that needs to be considered. 
_ The original Jungermannia multiflora seems to have been founded 
wholly upon a plant described and figured by Dillenius (Hist. 
Muse. 481, pl. 69. f. g. 1741). As noted already by Hooker, 
Spruce, and Lindberg, the figures given by Dillenius point strongly 
to Cephalozia bicuspidata. It is quite impossible to believe that 
they were drawn from specimens of C. connivens and Dillen’s 
words “ per lentem vero perangusta’’ in describing the leaves 
could not well apply to this species, yet’ Lindberg in 1875 
(Act. Soc. Sci. Fenn. 10: 501), after determining the specimen in 
the Dillenean herbarium bearing the corresponding name and 
Number from the Historia Muscorum to be the Jungermannia con- 
nivens * of Dickson, brought forward for this species Hudson’s 
name multiflora. Finally,+ however, interpreting this “ Liche- 
Mastrum multiflorum exile foliis angustissimis ” of Dillenius by the 
ure and description, Lindberg considers it a synonym of 
Cephalozia bicuspidata (L.) Dumort., which seems to us the most 
reasonable course in the matter. Lindberg at the same time most 
"nWwarrantably interprets /ungermannia multiflora Huds. in the 
light of additions made by Linnaeus nine years after its original pub- 
lication and shifts the specific name multiflora to Lepidosia setacea 
Web.) Mitt. It is clear that if Jungermanuia multiflora Huds. 
(17 62) can be justly treated as a synonym of /. bicuspidata L. 
(1753) it Should always remain a ‘dead name.” 
* This determination, it may be noted, was made several years before the distinc- 
a Meticad the true C. connivens and C. lunulacfolia (C. media Lindb. ) were Tec- 
we ved in print, at least, yet the statement that the Dillenian specimen is “ C. conni- 
ns (Dicks. ) Lindb.,’’ was repeated by Lindberg in 1883, two years after his publica- 
of C. media. 
} Kritisk Gransk. Mossorna Dill. Hist. Musc. 38. 1883. 
