376 R. HeBeR HowkE, JrR.: NOMENCLATURE OF GENUS USNEA 
Usnea ceratina Ach. Through the kindness of Dr. Elfving I 
am reproducing a photograph of the type of this species. It does 
not occur in temperate North America and appears to be as 
Acharius made it a prostrate and entirely asperate species, perhaps 
as Dr. Jatta calls it synonymous with U. coralloides, aspera 
Eschw.,* and certainly totally unlike the papillate or partially 
sorediate and pendulous species recognized as ceratina (No. 95 
Decades No. Amer. Lich., Cummings) or as the especially luxuriant 
specimens U. californica Herre, which may deserve subspecific rank. 
Usnea barbata (L.) Web. In my former paper I adopted the 
name barbatus L. as synonymous with dasypoga Ach. and pointed 
out that I believed it to be the proper name for this variety, but 
my argument was based on Crombie’s partially inaccurate state- 
ment in regard to the Dillenian type, and also on account of the 
(“Europae & Americae septentrionalis’’) type localities. My 
reasons heretofore stated were that the Dillenian type was said 
by Crombie to be Usnea dasypoga (Ach.), and also the ruling of 
early post Linnean authors Westring, Hoffmann, and Fries (see 
author’s Class. Usneaceae 14. 1912). An examination of the 
Dillenian type, a figure of which is here published, shows it to be 
composite, Usnea articulata and Usnea dasypoga mounted on the 
same sheet. In an examination of the plate of these plants a 
few semi-inflated articulations (explaining Linné’s “subarticula- 
tus’) are to be found,} as appears to have been the case in the 
plant, and Dillenius seems to have ignored the other specimen as 
he figures it in another and entirely typical plate illustrating 
his Usnea capillacea et nodosa, = Lichen articulatus L. It would 
seem therefore so far as Dillenius is concerned that his type is 
composite, though not his plate, and by his plate he himself contra- 
dicts the duplicity of his type. In the Linnean herbarium, how- 
ever, we find no type of articulata, but a single and perfect specimen 
of barbata which answers exactly to our modern conception of ar- 
ticulata. According to Dr. B. Daydon Jackson, however, Linné 
must have based his Lichen barbatus entirely on Dillenius, for he 
did not have a specimen of it in his own herbarium until 1767 (Index 
Linn. Herb., Supp. Proc. Soc. 96. 1912). Oneis therefore left with 
* A caespitose, erect, not prostrate species. 
7 A condition not infrequently met. 
