218 Haynes: THE GENUS SPHAEROCARPOS 
back to common ancestors, but have originated at different points from several anacro- 
dao prototypes 
‘ The syste matic position of the sig egailrh is more difficult to determine, and 
their connection with any existing forms known must be remote. While the structure 
of the thallus al sporogonium in Wofothylas shows a not very remote resemblance to 
e corresponding structures in Capes aege itm oT — that the peculiar 
ns, are 
similar $ quite conceivable that the ee es of the sexual organs 
may be explained b by siposing ad sone of such a form as Sphae eieeseaeiny for example, 
should become ai with = rrounding evatope at a very early stage, and re- 
main so u nail maturi ae Aneura we have seen that the base of the archegonium is 
confluent with the th nk in whit respect it gave an digi to the condition found 
in the Anthocerotes ; but that this is anything mo an analogy is improbable. 
ages, it must be assumed that its structure in the Anthocerotes is radically 
different from that of the other Liverworts. Of the lower of cia 2 ee sorts 
perhaps offers again the nearest — to Notothylas, but is would not be safe at presen 
assume any close connection bet Of course the ‘ie oe velati oie 
obvi 
Pt 
oO 
$ whole, then, the e nce before us seem o indicate that the — 
the ex g Hepaticae are the lower thallose poviee nniales, and o 
Skis ictehe ‘ probably the most rape The two lines of the Marchantiales gir 
Jungermanniales have diverged fro s common ancestral type and developed along 
different lines. The Anthocerotes pot certainly be referred to this ee stock, 
an sit differ Sepia more radically from either of the other two lines than these do from 
ta the oe m 
allu 
ne we fe affinities among certain ag cetera The Seoseibility of separate origin of 
eons “fom: oe be? ancestors is conceivable, but it seems more 
probable that they hav mmon ori ery r it is true 
They may probably best be Tleauted oS a Py ta ad Ga class, pene with the 
Hesateac aa Mus 
Those who follow the Vienna Rules of nomenclature will 
scarcely be inclined to deny that the first effective post-1753 pub- 
lication of the genus Sphacrocarpos is found in Boehmer’s edition of 
Ludwig’s Definitiones Generum Plantarum, dated 1760. Strict 
adherents of the ‘‘ American Code,’ however, may discover that 
Sphaerocarpos was not here used in connection with a specific name 
and that it is not ‘associable by citation with a previously pub- 
lished binomial species.’’ But Ludwig’s reference to Micheli, the 
real founder of the genus, makes the application of the generic 
name and the type of the genus indisputable. Adanson, who 
appears to have been the next author to mention the genus, chang- 
ing the spelling of the final syllable to ws, meets the American re- 
quirements of effective publication no more closely than does 
Ludwig. The name, in the Michelian sense, appears not to have 
been used in the binomial form until 1792, though, meanwhile, 
