﻿Le Jolis-Howe : Porella once more 101 



point, even though we are often obliged to go back of Linnaeus 

 for the proper understanding of his genera and species. The 

 u Lichenastrum filicinum pennatum " is said to have come from 

 Patagonia, one quarter of the earth's circumference from Pennsyl- 

 vania, the habitat of Porella pinnata, and if Dillenius classified it 



* 



under quite a different head it is perhaps only additional proof 

 that the illustrious cryptogamist shared with other mortals the lia- 

 bility to err, 



M. Le Jolis says that, " As to the expression i Porella ptnn at a 

 L. J it seems most unreasonable thus to point out Linne as the 

 author of the genus and species when he himself declares that he 

 has never seen the plant, gives no description of it and quotes only 

 the Dillenian name," etc. Yet hepaticologists, almost without 

 exception, now write " Targionia hypophylla L." to which Linnaeus, 

 so far as I am able to discover, never gave one zvord of his own in 

 the way of specific description. But Targionia hypophylla L. cannot 

 fairly be called a nomen nudum, for he made his meaning clear by 



• . * 



M 



were mote familiar with the plant than he. Writing " Targionia 

 hypophylla L.," then, simply signifies that Linnaeus was the first to 



Targionia. 



hypopJiy 



pinnata 



pinnata 



Dillen's generic name Porella. It would certainly be most unrea- 

 sonable and unjust, in a formal systematic work, to write " Tar- 

 gionia L." over a generic diagnosis without accompanying it by 

 "Ex Michelio," inasmuch as Micheli was its real author; under 

 the same circumstances, Porella should be followed by " L. Ex 

 Dill." as I have written it in the paper to which M. Le Jolis refers. 

 But that the day may sometime come when there shall be sufficient 

 uniformity in plant nomenclature to justify the dropping of the 

 name of the author entirely in all ordinary use is a thing to be 

 hoped for. 

 M. Le Jol 

 editio princeps" of the Historia Muscorum. 



We 



ever, that the essential points in the controversy are covered 

 equally well by the Edinburgh reprint of 1811, together with the 

 abridged edition of 1763. 



