the Dillenian Herbarium* 111 
Of No. 8. there are several specimens, only one of which is in 
fruit: this is the same plant as is preserved in most English Her- 
baria under the name of L. calcarcus, but is very different from 
that so called by Weis and Hoffman, though, perhaps, not speci- 
fically distinct from L. contiguus, Hoffm. The specimens not in 
fruit appear to belong to Z. variant, Dories'. 
15. A. Here, with several specimens of /,. ater, are preserved 
one of L. subfuscus and one of L. parasemus. B. is L. scruposus, 
as is already well known. 
16. This number, besides L. subfuscus, comprehends a specimen 
marked " sine limbo," which is L.fcrrugineus, lluds. and another 
marked " e muro," which is L. epipolius, Ac/tar. 
34. and 35., made by Lightfoot varieties of L. tremelloides, 
appear to belong with more propriety to L. sinuatus. 
Of 40. 41. 47- 48. and 58. there are no specimens. 
60. (L.fucoides, Dicks.) seems evidently only a small variety of 
the following, No.61., (L.fuciformis, Dicks.) of which there are four 
specimens : three of these exhibit an appearance quite unknown 
to, or at least unnoticed by, modern botanists, being copiously 
furnished at their margins with small, round, sessile, concave 
shields, black in the centre, with a thin elevated white margin. 
62. A. appears to be a narrow variety of L.scopulorum, Fl. Dan. ; 
B. is L. scopulorum, with its common appearance ; C. L.fustigi- 
atus, Achar. It is to this number Linnaeus has referred for his 
L. calicaris. 
Of 64. 65. 66. 67. and 68. there are no specimens. 
71. L. pulverulentus of Schreber. A single specimen, among 
many others, without any letter subjoined to it, has black shields, 
and appears a distinct species, the same as No. 72., which Hud- 
son joined with No. 71., referring both to the /3. of L. stellaris. 
Dr. Acharius has far more properly separated them. 
73. L. affinis. 
