(67) 
Fuci sp., Lightf. Fl. Scot. 2. p. 964, t. 32. Sm. E. Bot. t. 1332. Turn. 
Fuci, 4, p. 16, t. 204. Stereocaulon? Ach. Meth. p. 317. Chondrisp., 
Lamx., cit. Nyl. Gelidii sp., Lyngb., cit. Mont. 
Apothecia terminalia, globosa, disco coarctato punctiformi- 
impresso. Spore ellipsoidez, simplices, incolores. Spermatia 
ellipsoidea, sterigmatibus simplicibus. Thallus fruticulosus, car- 
tilagineo-corneus, fusco-ater; collogonidiis moniliformi-concatenatis, 
stratum inter corticalem sub-distinctum et medullarem sistentibus. 
If the lichen last described and its immediate allies are readily com- 
parable with some inferior types of Alg@, the present cluster has been 
regarded by the majority of authors, to avery recent period, as closely akin 
even to Fucoidee; with which it also agrees in its marine, or at any rate 
maritime habitat. But L. confinis had passed for a lichen from Micheli’s 
time, and was accepted as such by Fries (S. O. V.) when he still looked 
upon L. pygmeaas foreign to the class. And the two species correspond, 
itis no longer doubted, most closely; the whole structure of the larger 
. one being repeated, if possibly with less stress and clearness, in the 
smaller. It appears indeed to have been habit alone which determined 
the recognition by phycologists of this type; its fructification being either 
unexplored by them, or admitted, as by Greville, to have in fact ‘‘no 
affinity with that of” fucoid Alge. Montagne, and especially Tulasne, 
have now fully exhibited this fructification; and the latter author, and, 
more recently, Schwendener, have made clear the distinctly lichenose 
constitution of the thallus.’ 
The persistently undeveloped, or globular apothecium of Lichina ad- 
mits easily of misconstruction; which it has by no means escaped, even 
among writers upon Lichens. Of this sort must be considered, —not to 
refer further to the unsatisfactory attempts to associate the plant with 
Verrucariaceous types, —the often repeated comparison of the type be- 
fore us with Spherophorus; carried so far, in one instance, that it is even 
proposed to bring both together as divergent members of the same tribe 
(Spherophoracee, Naeg. in Hepp Abbild. t. 2). There is yet no real 
weight in the alleged resemblance of these lichens? as respects the excip- 
ular relation of the thallus to the hypothecium, however it suggested their 
comparison, and however, in both alike, the hypothecium fails to develope 
1 That the difference between the compact cellular tissue of the medullary 
layer of Lichina and the medullary filaments of Collema is only one of degree is 
sufficiently shewn by a comparison of the variations of this layer in Pannaria ; 
which descends, in this respect towards Collemet much as, in the latter, Lichina 
ascends towards Pannariei, especially Pannaria § Pterygium. And the ‘hyaline 
filaments’ of Collema are not so much wanting (Koerb: Parerg. p. 445) as pecu- 
liarly modified in Lichinei, as here taken. 
2“ Notez bien que je dis analogues, et non pas voisins.” Mont. sur la struct. 
du nucleus des genres Spherophoron . . et Lichina, in Ann. Sci. Nat.1. supra. 
