BRITISH HEPATIC^. 67 



* Leaves opposite (connate at the base). 



Stipules none, or entire : Bracts adnata to the perianth = Southbya, Spr. 

 Stipules bifid : Bracts free =z Leioscyphus, Mitt. 

 ** Leaves alternate. . ' 



Stipules entire ; Bracts free = MyKa, Gr. & B. 



From which it will be seen that Southbya is restricted to those species in which 

 the leaves are opposite (" inter se et cum amphigastriis ooalitis "), and the colesule 

 compressed laterally, and adnate with the involucral bracts. No British specimen 

 agrees with this diagnosis, but three European species are recorded by Lindberg, — 

 S. stilliddorum (Haddi), Lindb. ; S. tophacea, Spruce ; and S. fetmica, Lindb. Nardia 

 obovata and iT. hyalina are placed by Professor Lindberg in the section Eucalyx, 

 under Southbya. 



On consulting the latest work of the celebrated Dumortier (Hepaticse Europse, 

 1874), presented to the Belgic Academy of Sciences on the fiftieth anniversary of the 

 publication of his Commentationes Botanies (1822), and which may be looked upon 

 as a revised edition of the Sylloge Jungermannidearum (1831), I was sorry to find 

 that he altogether ignores the classification of Gray and Bennett (1821), because the 

 nomenclature is "barbaric," many of the generic names derived from persons having a 

 masculine instead, of feminine terminology. " Nomenclatura Grayi" (he writes) "ad 

 normam regni animalis, nee plantarum est confecta, contra botanices regulam, et 

 igitur postponenda." I have elsewhere (Trans. Ed. Bot. Soc. vol. x. 2, p. 305-9 

 (1870),. stated my views on this question. Gray's arrangement had the misfortune to 

 be in advance of its time ; it was the earliest attempt to introduce the Natural System 

 to English botanists, and partly from the suspicion which always clings to new 

 methods, but chiefly from the inveterate animosity called forth by anything French 

 at that period, the disciples of Linnseus were powerful enough to discredit, and 

 effectually " damn " one of the best handbooks ever produced. 



I confess, therefore, to a feeling of disappointment that an author so tenacious 

 of the claims of priority as far as they affect his own works, and bitterly conscious 

 (and not without reason) of the sins of omission and commission committed against 

 himself, should refuse to render the scant justice now within our power to Gray and 

 his fellow-workers. Moreover, if the slight rectification I have ventured to make in 

 their nomenclature robs them of their vested right to priority, at least in the present 

 instance my emendation, published in 1870, might have been respected, since Millia, 

 Lin., could never be mistaken for Mylia. Lastly, the genus Coleochila of Dumortier 

 is not identical with Mylia, since it is described with the " perichsetium oligophyllum, 

 phyllis basi connatis," and the leaves " estipulatse," whilst the figure (PI. III. f 26) 

 represents the bracts as joined together for half their length, and the colesule tubu- 

 lose, and cleft for about a third of the way down. Indifferent as the figures generally 

 are, it is to be presumed they were intended to represent living specimens. What the 

 author may have had before him when the drawing of Coleocldla was made, I am 

 unable to say ; but since Southbya stiUicidorum is quoted, it may be meant for that 

 species, certainly not M, Taylori. Jung, cunei/olia is also placed in this genus, 

 although differing loto ccelo in character. 



