12 Dr. Smitu’s Remarks on 
No. 181. L. atro-albus. p. 185. 
, The figure of this refembles L. ceruleo-nigricans, more than 
L. afro-albus, but the defcription does not accord well with either. 
No. 182. L. airo-virens. p. 186. 
I have the plant here defcribed for the L. /pheroides of Mr. 
Dickíon. It by no means agrees with the characters of the true 
atro-virens. The latter is generally fuppofed a variety of L. geo- 
grapbicus, but I know not on what grounds, nor can I quite re- 
move the difficulty, as atro-virens is not in the Linnean Herbarium. 
No. 183. L. viridi ater. p. 186. 
This feems to be really new, but there is no figure of it. 
No. 184. L. rigidus, p. 187, 
is nothing elfe than L. corniculatus of Lightfoot, radiatus of 
Hudion, ;rifis of Weber. The figure is unworthy the works of 
a Jacquin, and far inferior to that of Dillenius or even Weber. 
The name given by Lightfoot is beft worth retaining, and has 
the right of priority. 
No. 1 185. L. reticulatus. p. 187. 
I can fcarcely agree with the ingenious author in making this 
fpecifically different from L. /anatus, merely becaufe the ramuli 
adhere together. ‘Thefe kind of adhefions are common in L. Yan- 
dicus and other fpecies, and {hew their approach to the nature 
of Fungi. 
No. 186. L. puflulatus. p. 188. 
About this there 1s no doubt or difficulty. 
