608 R. H. Howe: LINNAEAN NOMENCLATURE OF USNEA 
Whether the page priority of hirtus makes floridus rather a 
synonym of the former, reduces itself largely to the question of 
considering composite, uncited ‘‘types”’ of a pendulous character 
of greater value than the diagnoses and plate references. The 
page priority of hirtus over floridus, can, however, be waived on 
good grounds—first, perhaps, because of its composite representa- 
tion already noted; secondly, because page priority was not ac- 
cepted by the Brussels Congress; thirdly, because good sense 
allows and advises the holding (nomina conservanda) to names of 
long standing, this principle being eminently applicable here. In 
point of fact, among lichens no better case exists. Acharius in 
Lichenographiae Suecicae Prodromus of 1798 (224-5) combined 
them under florida. He writes: 
“Hujus tantum varietas exscutellata est: Lichen hirtus Linn.,”’ 
an absolutely true statement, and followed by an interesting ex- 
planation given below, the truth of which can be proved only by 
a long study of growing plants. The sterile plants, however, I 
believe rarely mature as described, their substrata and environs 
generally preventing a luxuriant development. “L. hirtus Linn. 
& Auctor. a L. florido in eo tantum differt, quod ille junior 
pallidior, glomerulis frequenter adspersus, magis ramosus, longius 
fibrillosus atque sterilis; hic autem per aetatem fere nigricans, 
crassior, rigidior minusque ramosus sit, & scutellis amplis radiosis 
instruatur.”’ 
No. 79, Lichen articulatus, Wainio did not find represented in 
the Linnaean herbarium, except as heretofore referred to under 
Lichen barbatus. As, however, Linnaeus’ 1753 diagnosis is char- 
acteristic, and the plate reference and the Dillenian plant are 
well known, there seems no reason to disturb our present position 
in the absence of a Linnaean “‘type’’ specimen, particularly as a 
comparison of the given “‘type”’ localities is also a most convincing 
argument. : 
No. 80, Lichen floridus, is represented in the Linnaean herb- 
arium, as would be expected, by a specimen of the sort known to 
Tuckerman as ‘‘Usnea barbata a. florida Fr. This case is clear 
and needs no further comment, except to recognize the present 
position of Usnea florida (L.) Web. as a species, and to hold to 
the advantage of nomina conservanda. 
