CHILEAN SPECIES OF METZGERIA. 273 



(18, p. 266), which had been described from specimens collected on 

 Lord Howe's Island and in Australia. Two other well-known species 

 that he accredited to the Chilean flora were the northern M . conjugata 

 and M. Liebmanniana Lindenb. & Gottsche, a species originally known 

 from Mexico. His record for M. Liebmanniana was based on a speci- 

 men collected at Valdivia by Hahn, and his record for M. nitida on 

 Naumann's material from the Straits of Magellan. Most of his other 

 data are more general, M. conjugata, and M.furcata being cited merely 

 from "Chile," M. hamata from "Patagonia" and M '. frontipilis from 

 the Straits of Magellan and " Chile." Under M. f areata and M. 

 hamata he made no mention of Hooker as a collector and failed to cite 

 either Hooker or Jacquinot in connection with M. frontipilis. He 

 therefore ' gave no information regarding the earliest specimens of 

 Metzgeria found in the region, including those upon which Lindberg's 

 records were based. 



In addition to the species already mentioned Stephani proposed 

 as new no fewer than ten Chilean species, although he assigned to 

 three of these a range extending far beyond the boundaries of the 

 region. These species are the following, only the Chilean stations 

 being indicated: M. angusta, "Chile" and Patagonia (Dusen); M. 

 chilcnsis, "Chile" (Dusen); M. corralensis, Corral (Krause); M. de- 

 crescens, "Straits of Magellan" (Dusen); M. Dusenii, Desolation 

 Island (Dusen) ; M. glaberrima, Straits of Magellan (Spcgazzini, Dusen, 

 "Gazelle" Expedition) and "Chile" {Gay, Krause); M. Leehlcri, 

 Arique (Lcchler); M. longiscta, Straits of Magellan (Warnstorf Her- 

 barium); M. patagonica, Newton Island (Dusen); and M. terricola, 

 Straits of Magellan (Savatier, Dusen). It will be noted that Spegaz- 

 zini and the " Gazelle " Expedition are mentioned in connection with 

 M . glaberrima and that Savatier is named as one of the collectors of 

 M. terricola. Since the collections of Spegazzini, Naumann and 

 Savatier had already been reported upon (see 11, 16, and 2), it is 

 evident that the authors of these reports must have listed M. glaber- 

 rima and M. terricola under other names or else have made no allusion 

 to the specimens here cited. Unfortunately Stephani throws no light 

 upon these doubtful points. It will be noted further that more than 

 half of the new species were based wholly or in part on material col- 

 lected by Dusen. In regard to some of this material Stephani has 

 given fuller details about localities in two subsequent papers (21 and 

 22), published respectively in 1900 and 1901. 



In the first of these papers he listed M. australis as a valid species, 

 apparently no longer regarding it as a synonym of M. nitida, and 



