178 HKRNT LYNGK. M.-N. Kl. 



hO. Pannclia cefrarioidcs Dii., 



Maj). IX, 2. 



Ihisk. Skjonnc (Kiær). 



Tcli'iu. Ati-aa (Ki.kkI. 



So^u. Frethcini (Jkue). 



O/)/. S. iM-on: ulleberg(KiÆK), Siiiklairstotten IH.); Land: Odnes (Norm.). 



Pan I IC lin cctrarioidcs is not so rare in Norway as /■*. olivaria. It has 

 been recorded from several of our continental valleys. 



Our specimens are sterile; initiating pycnides are common, but conidia 

 were sought for in vain. 



The reaction 'medulla K Ca Cl + rose' is generally attributed to this 

 species (Harm. Lieh. France p. 571). I have only once seen a very faint, 

 hardly perceptible red colour by KOH + CaCl.202, in the other specimens 

 I could find no colouring. The KOH-reaction is differently described: 

 'KOH + orange -yellow' (Cromb. Brit. Lieh. p. 235 1, 'oberseits K -7-, Mark 



K -T-' (Lindau Flechtenflora p. 195), 'K _^ jaune' (Harm. Lieh. France p. 580, 

 misprint for K + jaune?). My observations agree with Crombie's statements. 



47. Parmelia excrescens (Arn.). 



var. pilosella (Hue) Lynge comb. nov. 



Map II, 5. 



Very rare. Only recorded from Mosterhavn, on our Atlantic west 

 coast, between Stavanger and Bergen, on mossy rocks near the sea (Havaas). 



The specimens were sterile, and fertile pycnides were sought for in vain. 



The species Inihricaria excrescens was proposed by Arnold in his Lieh. 

 Exsic. No. 655. I have been unable to ascertain the accurate date of 

 publication for this no., but it was edited between 187 1 and 1879. 



Hue published Parmelia pilosella in his Causerie sur les Parmelia' in 

 1898. He reduced /. excrescens to a forma of P. pilosella. 



Our museum possesses a specimen of P. pilosella, collected by Picque- 

 NARD at Finistère (Foret de Coatloe'h), in reality Hue founded his species 

 upon these specimens which must be regarded as authentic. — The diffe- 

 rence between P. pilosella, and P. excrescens as represented in Arnold no. 

 655 c (I have not seen a and b) is that the isidia of the latter species are 

 much more developed, forming large coralloid 'excrescences'. I agree with 

 Hue, not regarding this as a specific difference. But in that case I think 

 it more correct to retain the older name excrescens for the species. 



' Journal de Botanique (1898! p. 177 — 189, 239 — 250. 



I 



