American Species of Marchantia. 313 



self apparently had no faith in its validity since he does not 

 mention it in his Sylloge (1856). Stephani therefore seems 

 justified in repudiating it altogether. 



4. ]\Iarchantia flabellata Hampe, Linnaea 20: 235. 1847. 

 Venezuela: Galipan, without date, Morits 4yh (erroneously 



ascribed by Hampe to Colombia). 



According to the brief original account the species is monoi- 

 cous, the female receptacles are four-parted, and the male recep- 

 tacles seven-parted. Although no specimens have been available 

 tlie writer suspects that M. flabellata may represent a synonym 

 of M. domingensis. Should this be established it would show 

 that Hampe confused tlie male and female receptacles and incor- 

 rectly assigned a monoicous inflorescence to his species. Unfor- 

 tunately the question must be left in doubt. 



5. Marchantia Notarisii Lehm. Pug. Plant. 10:22. 1857. 

 Chile : near Valparaiso, without date, W. Lehmann. 

 Although Stephani at first threw doubt on the validity of this 



species, suggesting that it was probably synonymous with M. 

 chenopoda, he afterwards listed it without question from the 

 Chilean island of Chiloe, citing specimens collected by C. Skotts- 

 berg.^^ The original description of M. Notarisii is very full but 

 is justly criticised by Gottsche^^ on account of its many ambi- 

 guities. It certainly seems to point to M. chenopoda, and the 

 writer would refer it provisionally to that species. Unfortunately 

 no specimens of M. chenopoda from Chile have been available for 

 study. 



3heffield Scientific School, 

 Yale University. 



"Kungl. Sven. Vet.-Akad. Handl. 46': 5- ipn- 

 "Bot. Zeit. 16 (Beil.):28. 1858. 



