192 Evans: Notes on genus Herberta 



that time he was undoubtedly ignorant of Gray's writings. Many 

 years afterwards, however, in his last published work on the 

 Hepaticae,* he quotes Gray's generic names as synonyms, refusing 

 to recognize them as valid on account of their masculine form. 

 In the present instance he naturally maintains his genus Schisma. 

 Gray's genera were likewise unknown to Nees von Esenbeck. In 

 the first volume of his Naturgeschichte der europaischen Leber- 

 moose, published in 1833, he accepted Schisma as valid (p. 107). 

 In the third volume, published in 1838, he suggested that it 

 might be considered a section of his genus Mastigophora (p. 573), 

 although he continued to employ Schisma as a generic name. 

 The inclusion of Schisma under Mastigophora would have been 

 quite unwarranted on the basis of priority. The latter genus 

 was not published until 1833, and its characters were completely 

 revised in 1835. Schisma therefore antedates it by more than a 

 decade. As originally defined Mastigophora was essentially the 

 equivalent of the genus Lepidozia Dumort., although no species 

 were definitely assigned to it; in its revised form it was made to 

 include such species as Jungermannia diclados Brid. and J. Woodsii 

 Hook. At the present time it is accepted by most writers in its 

 revised form. 



Nees von Esenbeck's provisional reduction was adopted 

 definitely by the authors of the Synopsis Hepaticarum (1845), 

 who went even farther than he and included both Schisma and 

 Mastigophora under the genus Sendtnera of Endlicher,t a genus 

 which had been proposed a few years earlier for the single species 

 Jungermannia Woodsii. On account of the high position which 

 the Synopsis holds in the literature of the Hepaticae the name 

 Sendtnera was acknowledged for many years as the correct name 

 for the combined genus. Now, however, both Schisma and 

 Mastigophora are universally regarded as distinct, and the name 

 Schisma is employed by those who refuse to sanction the use of 

 the name Herberta. 



Of the eighteen species of Sendtnera given in the Synopsis only 

 six would now be included in the genus Herberta. In Stephani's 

 recent monograph of the genus (under the name Schisma), pub- 



* Bull. Soc. Bot. Belgique 13: 123. 1874. • 

 t Gen. Plant. 1342. 1840. 



