453 



to the genus, much less to a particular species of it. Now Hariot 

 has examined type specimeos of C. arhorum and teli us (1, e.) that 

 tliey belong to Treniepohlia pleiocarpa Nori>st. and on tliis ground 

 he has revived Agardh's narne; a course of which I cannot approve. 



Hariot has also shown, 1. e. p. 384 (repr. p. 20) that Nylander 

 considered Agardh's species a variety of his Coenogoniuin confer- 

 voides and that Nylander' s type speciraens also belong to Tr. pleio- 

 caì'pa. In Ann. d. se. nat, hot. ser. 4, voi. 11 (1859), p. 24o, Nylan- 

 der described his Coenogonium confervoides and stateri that on 

 the specimens from Ile de Bourbon he had seen apothecia. Therefore 

 what he then describes is surely a lichen. In Ann. d. se. nat. bot. 

 ser. 4, voi. 16 (1863), p. 91, Nylander seems to have raade these 

 specimens from Bourbon Island the type of a new species Coen, in- 

 terpositum, bu.t does not quote C. confervoides ex parte and con- 

 cerning C. confervoides he says 1. e. p. 91-92: «Filamenta thallina 

 absque elementis obducentibus linearibus distinctis, ita simpliciter 

 confervoidea (mm. 0,016-0,028 crass.) . . . . Propter apothecia ignota 

 non omnino certum est, sin hsec species ad genus Coenogonium per- 

 tineat» and in his paper of 1859 1. e. he says: «Thallus e filamen- 

 tis longis simplicibus eompositus». From the diagnoses in these two 

 papers it is evident that Nylander describes the filaments as simple 

 but as Treniepohlia has branehed thallus and there nothing else in 

 Nylander 's description to demonstrate that he is describing a Tren- 

 iepohlia, not to saj' T. pleiocarpa I think we have no right to choose 

 the name of confervoides in place of pleiocarpa but should reserve 

 it for the fungus that forms a lichen with the assistance of T. pleio- 

 carpa as gonidia, or perhaps more correctly for the above mentio- 

 ued Coenogonium interpositum. — However it is very interesting 

 from a historical point of view to have made out what the type 

 speciraens of Coenogonium confervoides Nyl. and Conferva arho- 

 rum Ag. really are. 



In his paper «Note sur le genre Cephaleuros (in Journ. de Bo- 

 taniq. 3.« Année, n. 16, p. 274-6, n. 17, pag. 284-8, 1889) Hariot 

 has restored the name of Cephaleuros for M;/coidea in consequence 

 of the examination of Type speciraens. Now both Kunze's originai 

 description and Fries's little fuUer one are too incomplete to decide 

 whether they refer to Mijcoidea or to the allied genus Hnnsgirgia, 

 especielly as Fries (Syst. Mycol. 3, p. 327) adds «Forsitan Dicùjo- 

 nema Ag. Syst. Alg. ». The character «flocci sporangiferi non se- 

 ptati» given both by Kunze and Fries is, as shown by Hariot, 



