310 L’Abbé E. Coémans on the Cladoniz 
9. Cladonia pyxidata (L.), (Ach.) Syn. p. 252 et hb. ejusd. 
Acharius, in his Synopsis, distinguishes four forms and one 
variety of C. pyaidata, all of which ave found in his herbarium. 
And first as to the forms. He designates under the name 
simplex, spermogoniferous non-proliferous individuals; under 
that of staphylea, apotheciferous mdividuals ; under that of syn- 
theta, proliferous plants; and, lastly, under that of lophyra, 
squamiferous specimens. These distinctions appear to me very 
useless, and only serve to overload the nomenclature with new 
names, and in effect only indicate that each species has a sper- 
mogoniferous, fertile, proliferous, or squamulose state. These 
Acharian forms may therefore well be rejected. 
With regard to the form lophyra, Acharius has applied this 
name to two distinct forms, at first to C. pyaidata (Syn. p. 253), 
and afterwards to C. fimbriata (Syn. Suppl. p. 342). The typi- 
eal Acharian specimen belongs nevertheless to C. py«idata. 
Amongst the C. pyxidata of the Acharian collection are found 
many different species,—a Swedish specimen of C. cariosa; an- 
other of C. cornucopioides from Switzerland ; a third of C. pi- 
tyrea (Ach.), received from France; and, lastly, a specimen of 
C. decorticata, Fr., collected in Norway. We must not infer, 
however, from this inexactitude, that Acharius confounded all 
these species. It merely shows that in reviewing his herbarium, 
towards the close of his life, he did not always give the requisite 
attention to the work. 
As to the var. 8. coralluidea (Syn. p. 258), it is very difficult 
to decide with certainty to what species it belongs, because the 
specimens, or rather fragments in the Acharian herbarium are 
particularly small and altogether insufficient. These specimens 
are of the height and have nearly the aspect of C. papillaria 
molariformis, and have short, abortive, granulose, and spermo- 
goniferous branches. Acharius had only once met with a small 
tuft of this variety*. No one since his time has rediscovered it; 
moreover it is only an accidental form of C. degenerans or cris- 
pata, and consequently may be neglected. The only developed 
specimen which permits us to distinguish any characters exhibits 
the summits of the branches perforated, as in this last species. 
The C. coralloidea (Ach.), Rabenhorst, Clad. Europ. t. xi., 
has no resemblance to the plant of which we are speaking, and 
is in fact C. decorticata, Fr., Ny). 
Acharius has not mentioned in his works a very important 
variety of C. pyxidata, named by Florke var. chlorophea; so 
* The two small fragments from Switzerland, which equally bear the 
name of C. coralloidea in the Acharian herbarium, do not belong to the 
same type. 
