SPH^EELLA V. MYCOSPHiERELLA 91 



they must be deemed sufficient for the purpose. Both Wille and 

 Berlese and de Toni arrive at their conclusions from other con- 

 siderations than that of priority — Wille, on the ground that the 

 type of Sommerfelt's genus was S. nivalis, and not S. Wrangelii, 

 and that he considered it inadvisable to upset the large genus 

 Chlamydomonas by renaming it Splicerella as should in that case 

 be done — and Berlese and de Toni, on the ground that Sommer- 

 felt's genus was almost still-born," a conclusion at which they 

 arrive by omitting to take into account his species S. Wrangelii, 

 and by preferring to attribute his ;S. nivalis to a later-erected 

 genus Ghlamydococcus A. Br. (1851). The matter is also confused, 

 in their account of it, by the fact that it was then (and till quite 

 lately) thought that G. nivalis and S. lacustris were congeneric, 

 which is now known to be a mistake. 



The result is that Splicerella must be accepted as an algal 

 generic name, whether for nivalis or for lacustris it matters not 

 to the mycologists. This leaves the field clear for Mycosijhmrella 

 of Johanson instead of the old Sphcerella of Fries ; but at the 

 same time invalidates Saccardo's use of the name for the sixteen- 

 spored species. Following out the happy idea of Johanson (it 

 would be well if all nomenclators would show as much aptness 

 for their work as he did), I suggest that for the latter group the 

 name DiplosjjhcBrella be employed, with the following diagnosis : — 



DiPLOSPH^EELLA nov. nom. Perithecia et sporidia ut in 

 MycosiohcErella Johans., sed ascis sexdecim-sporis. 



D. polyspora (Johans.) nov. comb. My co sphcerella polyspora 

 Johans. Svampar fran Island (1884), p. 164. 



My thanks are due to Professor G. S. West and Mr. J. Eams- 

 bottom for help in connection with the literature concerned in 

 this involved and much debated matter. 



Postscripttim. — While the question between Sphcerella and 

 My CO sphcerella is not concerned, from the mycological point of 

 view, with the species of alga for which the former is to be 

 employed, it may be as well to seize the occasion to point out 

 that, if the reasoning given above is correct, the species now^ 

 called Chlamydomonas nivalis should bear the name Sphcerella 

 nivalis, and all the other similar species of Chlamydomonas 

 should be transferred to the same genus. Then the other generic 

 name Hcematococcus can be used for ''Sphcerella Wrangelii^ The 

 basis for the decision will be seen in the following quotation from 

 Sommerfelt's paper : — 



" Sphcerella. 

 Char. gen. Vesiculae gelatinosae, globosae, minutissimae. 



1. Sphcerella nivalis', vesiculis dispersis (in nive), puncti- 

 formibus, sanguineis. 



2. Sphcerella Wrangelii : vesiculis in crustam pulverulentam 

 aggregatis (ad rupes inund. calc), sanguineis. Lepraria Kerme- 

 sina Wrangel, MS. 



* "Distrutto appena sorto," I.e. p. 225. 



H 2 



