258 Alexander IV. Evans, 



normal number of rays is nine. IMicheli, in his description, 

 emphasizes the glaucous color of the thallus. The species is still 

 abundant in the vicinity of Florence, where it was originally 

 collected, and specimens from this region are among those cited 

 above. 



Bertolini's description is drawn from female plants, and he 

 distinctly states that both male receptacles and cupules were 

 unknown to him. His material came from the vicinity of Chia- 

 vari in Liguria. He adds very little to !Micheli's account, but 

 gives the number of rays definitely as ten and notes that their 

 extremities are obtuse or almost truncate. Apparently his species 

 was not very widely known at first because neither Raddi nor 

 Lehmann and Lindenberg make any allusion to it. Raddi's M. 

 papUlata (3 ifalica was based on ]\Iicheli's description and figure 

 and on specimens collected at Micheli's original locality. M. 

 nepalensis and M. nitida were based on material collected by 

 Wallich in Nepal and M. squamosa on two specimens, one col- 

 lected by Wallich in Xepal and the other by Raddi in Brazil. 



In 1835 Taylor-^ accepted M. paleacea as a species and referred 

 to it not only the Italian specimens originally cited but also 

 specimens from Xepal collected by ^^'allich. Although there 

 seem to be no specimens in the Taylor herbarium labeled "M. 

 paleacea", there are two with a manuscript name of Taylor's 

 from the Wallich collection. In one case M. n'ltida is given as 

 a synonym and M. squamosa as a doubtful synonym, so that 

 these specimens probably -represent the M. paleacea of Taylor's 

 paper. Unfortunately his figures and description do not corre- 

 spond in all respects with authentic specimens of the species in 

 question and have therefore g-iven rise to considerable con- 

 fusion. The most marked discrepancy is in his account of the 

 female receptacles, where the number of involucres is given as 

 four to six, instead of eight (corresponding with nine rays), 

 but an error of this sort might easily be made if poor material 

 was examined. Taylor's specimens are, indeed, imperfectly 

 developed, but they show the thallus characters of M. paleacea 

 very clearly, and his determination may therefore be considered 

 correct. 



In proposing M. tholopliora as a species Bischoff makes 

 no mention of M. paleacea or of the various species based on 



■'Trans. Linn. Soc. 17:378. pi. 12, f. 5. 1835. 



