8S 



should he of opinion th.il mv pl;int was more nearly relalcd to 

 the lattcr and, as he remarks. a specimen toc liLlIc developed but 

 prohahly reprcscnting an undescrihcd spccics. \n my answer to Prof. 

 Schmilz I mentioned, that I certainly found my plani much re- 

 mindinf^ onc of Ihe Scottish, thouf< hy closer examination noi or 

 scarcely lo he considcrcd rcfcrrihlc lo Ihat, bui in faci very nearly 

 agrccinp: with Ihc r;reenlandic, only Ihe cells frequcnlly a lillle smallcr 

 than in old specimcns of Ihe killer, bui larger Ihan in Ihc Scotlish 

 specimen, and espccially Ihc cells of Ihc basai laycr on Ihe v.holc 

 agrccing well wilh the Grccnlandic one, but somewhat diffcring 

 from thosc in the Scottish. The crust also was thicker than in the 

 '.alter and nearly as thick as the old Tirecnlandic specimen. Wilh 

 regard to Stròmfelt's plani I do noi know whcther Schmilz 

 has seen the same slide, in which I found a good section of a 

 specimen of about the same age as my own specimcns, some of 

 which al least are not to bc considered as young, bui on the con- 

 Irary, in my opinion, nearly fully developed bui sterile like most of 

 the Squamariaccic by us taken in summer. Laler I also gol youngcr 

 specimcns of the Grccnlandic species from Kolderup Kosenvinge, 

 and the latler strengthcn my opinion. Ihal the Lyngò plani is idcntic 

 with the former. 



Allhough I, therefore. cannot concede that my specimcns are not 

 idcntic with Peyssoiiellia Roscnvingii 1 admil, that J oughl noi to 

 bave adopted Stròmfelt's denomination unlil belter developed 

 specimcns of bis species are forthcoming. but on the other band 1 

 Ihink. that also ihe latler will prove to bc idcntic with the Grccn- 

 landic species. 



Troiìdhjem, Aprii 1896. 



