184 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 



Dr. Nylander's Obs. Lich. in Pijren. 1873, p. 48, where a " Leptogmm 

 (Ampkidium) terrenum " is described, and the remark immediately 

 follows, that this new Leptogimn of the new section AmphicUum is really 

 to be taken for a new genus, — ^' genus novum quoad thalluin, quasi Pan- 

 naria . . . sed sporce solitce Leptogii . . . Genus Amphidium nnndum 

 satis cognitum." But the Amphidium of Kerguelen's Land differs con- 

 siderably from the Pyrenean one, and the proposed genus seems as far 

 from establishment as ever. In his full diagnosis of tlie species in Mr. 

 Crombie's " Enumeration of Kerguelen Lichens," cited above. Dr. Ny- 

 lander compares it with Pannaria elceina. I must still consider the 

 affinity of the plant Pannariine and not CoUemeine, and continue to 

 call it Pannaria glaucella. 



Placodium hicolor, Tuckerm. uhi sup., is, without doubt, correctly 

 referred by Messrs. Nylander and Crombie to Lecanora gelida, v. late- 

 ritia, Nyl. I had myself remarked that my plant was the same with 

 the red L. gelida of Taylor's herl)ariiim, upon which, doubtless, Nylan- 

 der founded his Squamaria luteritia {Enum. Gen. Lich.), but the color 

 suggested Placodium, and the spores seemed to look the same way. 

 The polar-bilocular type (whicli is hardly well named '' placodiomor- 

 phous ") is, indeed, a very distinct one ; but its exhibition in nature, if 

 we limit groups rather by the sum of their characters than by any par- 

 ticular character, is now far enouujh from distinct. 



" Urceolina Kergueliensls *, Tuck., n. gen. S^ sp. = Lecanora Ker- 

 guelensis (Tuck.)." I cite once more from Mr. Crombie's revision ; 

 and can but repeat here, in reply to Dr. Nylander's criticism, what I 

 said at first: " the lichen is not referable to Lecanora § Aspicilia, and 

 is excluded by its exciple from § Sfpiamaria;" as, of course, from the 

 section re|)resented by L. suhfusca. The apothecium certainly carries 

 the plant into the Urceolariei, as these have been understood, and is 

 irreconcilable with the Lecanorine type. It is true that Nylander has 

 not recognized this sub-family, referring, from the first, Gyalecta to Le- 

 cidea, Nyl., and proposing to unite even Urceolaria with Lecanora (in 

 fact, U. scruposa really appears as Lecanora ( Urceolaria) scruposa, 

 Ach., Nyl., in Norrlin Beratlelse in Not. Scilsk. p. F. ^ Fl. Fork., 13, 

 1873) ; but the latter of these emendations of the system is now given 



* A better word, perhaps, than eitlier Kerguehnsis, which Messrs. Nylander 

 and Crombie have taken leave to sub.stitute for it in the cited pajier, or Kergue- 

 lena, which tliey elsewiiere employ. It is formed from Kerguelia, an attempt at 

 a short latinization of the land or island of Kerguelen. Kergudenia may be more 

 correct, and Kergueleniensis ; but hardly Kerguela. 



