of the Herbarium of Acharius. 309 
6. Cladonia endiviefolia, Fr. (Ach.) Syn. p. 250 et hb. ejusd. 
Two specimens of this species deserve to be cited here—one 
from the isle of Aland, the most northern station known, and 
the other from Tiflis, by the late Stevens, whose rich herbarium 
is also in the museum of Helsingfors. The Acharian herbarium 
comprises also some specimens from France, received from M. 
Léon Dufour, and bearing this inscription: “ Affinis Cen. con- 
volute, ast semper subtus cervino.” Acharius has ticketed these 
thus: “var. major Cen. endiviefolie.” They are perfectly refer- 
able to the var. firma of C. alcicornis (Nyl. Syn. p. 191). 
There is also a pretended variety of C. endiviefolia or of C. 
alcicornis, concerning which we have no certain information— 
the variety cladomorpha. In his first works Acharius regarded 
this as a variety of C. alcicornis; afterwards, in his ‘Synopsis’ 
(p. 259), he attaches it to C. degenerans ; and lastly, in the Sup- 
plement to that work (p. 342), he joins it to C. endiviefolia. 
The Acharian herbarium demonstrates undoubtedly that this 
variety is only a form of C. degenerans, var. lepidota. For the 
future, therefore, this variety must be suppressed. As to the 
C. alcicornis, cladomorpha (Ach.), Rabenhorst, ‘Cladonize Eu- 
rope,’ tab. i. no. 5, it scarcely differs from the type of this 
species. 
The C. endiviefolia itself is not a good species, but forms only 
a variety of C. alcicornis, as I have shown in my ‘ Cladoniz 
Belgice,’ No. 7 (1863). 
7. Cladonia cervicornis, Scheer., (Ach.) Syn. p. 251 et 
hb, ejusd. 
This lichen is badly represented in the Acharian collection. 
The var. prodiga, Ach. L. U. pp. 5381-532, is, according to 
the fragments still in the Acharian herbarium, only a small, in- 
significant proliferous form of the type. 
8. Cladonia verticillata, Flk., (Ach.) Syn. p. 251 et hb. ejusd. 
This species, or, more correctly, this perfect form of the pre- 
ceding type, has, in the herbarium at Helsingfors, representative 
specimens from the principal countries of Europe, and even from 
North America. 
Flérke did not separate the C. cervicornis from C. verticillata, 
and that justly. Acharius himself did not always know how to 
distinguish these two forms from each other, as is proved by 
certain hesitating determinations in his herbarium and the con- 
fusion of the two types in this collection. 
I regard, therefore, the C. verticillata as the type of the 
species, and the C. cervicornis as a simple macrophylline variety. 
