(53 ) 
lata (Tuckerm. seb Coccocarpia Obs. Lich. 1. ¢. 5, p. 402) Nyl. On Ilex 
opaca, South Carolina (Ravenel). Except in its minuteness well compar- 
able with small forms of P. molybdea, v. incisa (Coccocarpia incisa, Pers. 
Lindig. Lich. N. Gran. coll. 2, n. 68) and the fruit entirely similar to the 
younger ones of New Granada lichen cited; with which our plant also 
agrees in its ‘bilocular or binucleolate’ spores. Its lobation is, at the 
same time, not unlike that of P. tryptophylla, etc.; and Nylander (Disp. 
Psorom. ¢ Pann.) has removed the lichen to Pannuria proper. Buta 
resemblance to P. tryptophylia may be said to imply also no great dis- 
similarity to our next succeeding section (Lecotheciwn) and here we must 
remark not only that P. stellata is comparable with P. flabellosa and P. 
Petersii, but that the section Coccocarpia, as a whole, recedes, in an impor- 
tant detail of anatomical structure (the compacter medullary tissue) from 
Pannaria proper, in the exact direction of Lecothecium, as interpreted by 
Pterygium. BP. molybdea, etc., agree in the features of their medullary 
layer with P. plumbea, described already by Tulasne; and the structure 
in question of these lichens suggests that of Pterygiwm, Nyl.; bere not 
distinguished from Lecothecium. 
We have found Coccocarpia, while at one én represented by distin- 
guished forms, passing yet, at the other, like Pannaria proper, into 
diminished conditions, comparable even with some of the lowest of Pan- 
nariine types. And we have also suggested, that, in addition to the 
argument from the always pseudo-biatorine apothecia of the group just 
reviewed, and its finally (it should seem) bilocular spores, there were not 
wanting indications of other structural agreement with the section now 
to be considered. But Lecotheciwm has an interest of its own independ- 
ent of any supposed associableness with Coccocarpia. The former group, 
as we here understand it, exhibits structure which unquestionably antici- 
pates that of Collemei ; and one or other of its members is now all but 
universally accepted as Collemaceous. If however the modification of 
structure referred to, first in fact shew itself within the undisputed limits 
of Pannaria (in P. tryptophylla)! it is impossible to avail ourselves of it 
for the generical separation of Lecothecium nigrum, Mass. And if we 
organizzazione del Vendosporio di quello, che alla sua speciale morfologia.” Mass. 
Mem. p. 54. Montagne, on the other hand, has no hesitation in calling the spores 
“ biloculares seu binucleolatas.” Syll. p. 343. 
1 The observations upon which this remark rests were made in 1865, and some 
expression given to my view of their importance in a note to the description of 
Pannaria eyanolepra, in Lich. Calif. p.17, the following year. But it now appears 
that far more important results, looking in the same direction, were reached by 
Schwendener in 1863. By the passage, already cited at the conclusion of the pre- 
liminary remarks on this family, it is evident that marked Collemaceous features 
are traceable, not only in P. tryptophylia, where they might perhaps have been 
beforehand reckoned possible, but in P. microphylla, and even P. rubiginosa. 
(Schwend. 1. c.) 
\ 
