and some of its Allies. 81 
correctness in this point, from Dillenius's descriptions of Brewer's 
plant, at p. 66, “ colore nigro et fusco variantem,” and again 
p. 113. under species 32 (differentia) * cum illa. nervum me- 
dium crassiorem habeat, &c." and the circumstance of my 
having found Brewer' plant, as above stated ; yet, wishing to 
speak with all possible certainty on the subject, I applied to 
Dr. Williams, Professor of Botany at Oxford, for what informa- 
tion he might be able to give me concerning the subjects under 
contemplation. That gentleman, with all readiness, and the 
most polite attention, supplied me with sufficient instruction, 
and subjects out of Dilleniuss own Herbarium, to preclude 
every possibility of mistake or doubt. The specimen corre- 
sponding with f. 8. f. xiii. is precisely what I found in Brewer's 
habitat, i. e. Lıcuen bicolor, which appears in Eng. Bot. 
t. 1855. ; ji | 3 
This one species being determined, let me now proceed with 
the other three plants included under the specific name lanatus; 
in Lich. Suec. Prodr., and likewise in Eng. Bot., as above quoted, 
viz. f. 9. t. xiii. —f. 32. t. xvii. Dill. and L. scaber of Hudson. 
— Lirenew lanatus of Acharius, and that represented in Eng. 
Bot., pl. 846, is, without doubt, ** Coralloides tenuissimum nigri- 
cans, mundi muliebris instar textum.” Dill. p. 113. f. 32. t. xvii. 
The figure is, by mischance, taken from a diminutive specimen ; 
but the descriptions of it by Dillenius, Acharius, and Smith, 
accord wellin the general, and convey an uniform consistent 
idea: a part of that of Dillenius is as follows; ** in latum sparsa, 
caule crassiore destituta :” again, “ hujus ramuli primarii per di- 
chotomiam dividuntur et extrema cornicula, quse brevissima, 
bifida plerumque sunt," &c. Acharius’s definition p. 216. runs 
thus, “ Caulescens solidus teres leviusculus fusco-niger decum- 
bens ceespitosus, ramis filiformibus implicatis repetito dichoto- 
NOL. XI. M mis.” 
