342 Transactions of the Society. 



Eespecting the synonymy of the present species Professor Bayley 

 Balfour writes as follows: — "Under Tr. chrysosperma, Eostafinski 

 quotes a very extensive synonymy. I have devoted some time to 

 the study of the synonyms quoted, but I am not satisfied from the 

 descriptions and figures by the several authors that the identification 

 in all cases is correct. Indeed, I do not see how, by such descriptions 

 and figures as are given, one can determine which of the sessile 

 aggregated species — Tr. clirysosperma, Tr. scahra, Rtfki., Tr. 

 Jachii, and Tr. affinis, De Bary, all having a general likeness in 

 habit — is referred to by the older authors. A correct estimate would 

 only be possible after examination of the type specimens. How many 

 of these Eostafinski was enabled to study I do not know. As I have 

 not yet had the opportunity of seeing a suflficient number of these, 

 I shall not at present criticize in detail the synonymy, but that great 

 confusion has occurred in the identification of the several species of 

 sessile, aggregate Trichias, an examination of the specimens in the 

 Kew Herbarium has convinced me. 



. . . But first let me say a word as to the name Trichia 

 chrysosperma, as adopted by Eostafinski. As I have stated, he 

 ascribes it to BuUiard ('Hist, des Champign.,' T. (1791) 131, t. 417, 

 f. 4), who describes a form, Sphserocarpus clirysospermus, pre- 

 senting three varieties, the first of which is taken by Eostafinski as 

 the type of the species Trichia chrysosperma, Bull. Now, in 

 Bulliard's description and figures there is nothing regarding the 

 elaters and spores to show that his species really conforms with the 

 definition of the species given by Eostafinski, and is not such another 

 form as Tr. affinis, De By. Indeed, as I have mentioned already, 

 Fuckel quotes the species as being in part De Bary's Tr. affinis, 

 though 1 do not know the ground for his identification. But, sup- 

 posing Eostafinski's identification to be correct, there is no warranty 

 for affixing Bulliard's name to the species, as he describes it under 

 another genus. The real authors of the name, it would appear, are 

 Lamarck and De Candolle, who (' Synops. Plant.,' No. 673, and again, 

 'Flor. Franc.,' ii. 250) describe under this name what they take 

 as identical with Bulliard's Sphserocavpus clirysospermus, which 

 they quote as a synonym. Bulliard has no claim to the name. 

 Eostafinski having adopted the name for the form he so carefully 

 describes, there need be now no longer any difficulty or confusion in 

 the determination of the species, as it is preserved in herbaria or 

 gathered at the present day, whatever decision be come to as regards 

 synonyms." * 



ISo much for the synonymy. From the above it appears that it is 

 more than doubtful as to whether the variety of Bulliard's plant was 

 the same as the species described by Eostafinski, a doubt not cleared 

 up by the description given by Lamarck and De Candolle ; and fur- 

 ther, as types, so far as I have* been able to ascertain, do not exist, it 



* Grrev., X. p. 118. 



