the Dillenian Herbarium, 103 
CONFERVA. 
No. 1. It is singular that the very first species is almost the 
only instance where we met with a complete difference between 
the figure in Dillenius's work and the plant in his Herbarium. The 
specimen evidently grew in a loose straggling manner, from which 
circumstance, and the tenuity of its filaments, it seems to be 
C. spiralis of Roth. Both the description, however, and figure 
appear designed for C. rivularis, to which all authors have re- 
ferred them. The variety " e mitscis lecta" is a very different plant, 
with the habit ofC.compacta, Roth; but its threads are distinctly 
jointed, and somewhat thicker than those of that species. This 
also is on the same paper marked " C. maderaspatana in Anglid 
lecta" but diffei's from the specimen of C. maderaspatana from 
Plukenet's Herbarium, which is of a whitish colour and unlike 
any species with which we arc acquainted. 
2. C. nit id a. Fl. Dan. 
3. The specimen is entirely destroyed by age ; a thing very 
much to be regretted, as no means are now left us of clearly as- 
certaining the C. fontinalis of Linnaeus, Hudson, and others, a 
plant about which a variety of opinions prevails among the bota- 
nists of this day. 
4. C. confragosa. Fl. Scot. — Dr. Roth's C. velutina, under which 
he refers to this number, appears from specimens, with which he 
has been so obliging as to favour me, a distinct species. 
Of 5. and 6. there are no specimens*; the former, however, of 
these is so accurately described as to leave no doubt of its being 
* I have always noticed, where there are no specimens, that other botanists may 
know where the Herbarium is deficient, and consequently where no information is to 
be derived from a reference to it. In all these cases the figures are cut out and pasted in 
the places. 
C. limosa 
