80 BRITISH HEPATIC^. 



Gottsche (1844^), all the more strange because of Lindenberg's careful description of 

 J. resvfinata, in_liis earlier work (Syn. Hep. Eur. p. 53, 1829). 



Under these circumstances, we owe a debt of gratitude to Professor Lindberg for 

 rescuing the species from the limbo of forgotten things ; but how far he was justified 

 in describing it under a new name, 21artinellia gracilis, and transferring the old one 

 to Jung, samcola, Schrad., requires further consideration. For the present I hesitate 

 to accept these changes for the following reasons : — 



1. According to Smith and Hooker, the plant preserved in the Linnsean Herbarium 

 is identical with t. 71, f. 19 of the Hist. Muse. (Eng. Bot. t. 2437). It seems to be 

 proved, however, that Linnseus confounded more than one species under the name. 

 Thus "Wahlenberg affirms that the J. resupinata of Fl. Suec .ed. 1, p. 338, was J. saxkola. 

 In the Sp. PI. and his later works (all of which contain the reference to Dillen.) the true 

 species was.probably described. Dumortier (Hep. Eur., 1874) pertinently remarks : — 

 " NuUo dubito quin sit vera Linnsei /. resupinata, quod jam plurimi aiictores admit- 

 tunt. In herbario Linnseano deficit, sed synonymon Dillenii allegatum, et ' foliola 

 crenulata, i/mbricata rotunda ' a Linnseo laudata, omne dubium solvunt.'' 



Moreover, the deserved reputation of Linnseus must not blind us to the fact that 

 his acquaintance with cryptogamic plants was superficial, and for the most part second- 

 hand ; so that to understand his meaning it is necessary to consult the authorities from 

 whom he copied. 



2. The statement of Professoi" Lindberg (Manip. Muse. Secund., p. 354) that 

 t. 71, f. 19 (Dill. 1. c.) consists of two species, A. B. C. J. saxdcola, and D. E. J. resupi- 

 nata, has caused some astonishment, no doubt having hitherto arisen as to their identity. 

 But for the well-known accuracy of Professor Lindberg, I should have been inclined to 

 suspect some error. It is possible that Dillenius may have received specimens from 

 Sweden, where the two sometimes grow together. British specimens of J. saodcola 

 could not have been known to him. On the other hand. Hooker, from examina- 

 tion of the herbarium at Oxford, states of t. 71, f. 19, "It is certain that it only 

 represents a small variety of J. nemorosa. It requires, however, to be remarked that 

 in the original specimen there are no traces of any lateral fructification, as the plate 

 and description would lead us to imagine " (Brit. Jung., t. xxiii.). Lindenberg also, 

 referring to the position of the colesule "in surculis ^ecMZiariSits hrevibus" — "pro 

 plantse ratione magnse veniricosw," suggests that some other species may have been 

 intermingled with J. resupinata. After stating that no lateral fructification is found 

 in the Oxford herbarium, he continues, " Dilleniusque 1. c. ipse dicat, ' unam alte- 

 ramque plantam observavi cum folliculo latiore, compresso e summitate prodeunte.' 

 We must not forget also that the presence of lateral colesules, from the growth of 

 proliferous shoots, is common to all the species. 



About the description (Hist. Muse, p. 491) I suppose no doubt can exist. The 

 leaves, under the lens, are described — " acutissime crenatos margines exhibent," and the 

 enlarged figure of the leaf (19 h.) shows this structure clearly; whereas the leaves of 

 J. saxicola are always entire. 



" Who then shall decide when doctors disagree 1 " 



3. The term resupinatus (turned backwards) is devoid of meaning when applied 

 to J. saxicola, in which the leaves are concave and arched forward, not defiexed, the 

 back of the shoots, from the close imbrication of the leaves, looking almost as smooth 

 and round as the back of a millipede, — whereas it accords well with the present 

 species. 



