125 
ratio, totidem finget genera’’), but he himself saw no reason 
viii.) why he should not follow his revered teacher (Linnaeus) 1n 
partium studio, velut rectissimam  sequar. I have 
quoted those passages because the fact that he actually makes 
binominal quotations combining the name of the “‘ tribus”’ and 
the specific epithet and quotes the latter in the index under the 
‘‘tribus’’? is apt to create the impression that he meant his 
diagnosis, heading the synonymy and in the case of Swedish 
e, @.g. 
Lichen deustus . . . Umbilicaria deusta. Svet. Svedlaf (sveda 
liam vel Ordinem Cryptogamiae Classis quam Genus solum con- 
stituere sat firmis argumentis probari potest.’’ In this Methodus 
Setaria does not occur at all. Two of the three species of the 
“Tribus’?? Setaria, Lichen jubatus and L. chalybaeiformis, 
appear under Parmelia, whilst the third, a doubtful lichen 
(Lichen hippotrichodes, Ach. Prodr. 220) is omitted. Nor is the 
name Setaria revived in Acharius’ great Lichenographia Univer- 
salis, both ‘‘Setarias’’ being merged there -n the new genus 
Alectoria with references to the Prodromus, but without the 
Setaria-binominals of that work. 
here is, therefore, no reason to attribute to Acharius the 
authorship of a lichen genus Setaria; but if that is so, can Beau- 
vois’ Setaria as the name of a genus of grasses be rejected on the 
ground adduced by Scribner? The species described and figured 
by Beauvois in his Flore d’Oware et de Benin, ii. 80, tab. 1G, t-0,-: 
