(77 ) 
317. Synalissa, Enchylium, Psorotichia, Thelygnia, et Pannarie sp., 
Mass. Ric.; Mem.; Framm.; et in Flora Ratisb., in locis. , Synalissa, 
Enchylium, Psorotichia, et Porocyphus, Koerb. Syst. p. 422, 425; Pa- 
rerg. p. 428, 433, 439. Schwend. Untersuch. 1. c. 4, p. 166, 192, t. 23, 
f. 23-24. Synalissa max. p., et Pyrenopsis, Nyl. Prodr. p. 18; Syn. 
1, p. 93, t. 2, f. 2, 4, 5, t. 3,72, 4; Lich. Scand. p. 25; Add. Nov. ad 
Lich. Eur. in Flora Ratisb., 1867, p. 370, 1863, p. 342, 1869, p. 82; 
additis, teste auct., Collematis spp., Nyl. Syn., et Pannariz, Psoroti- 
chiew, Stenhammarie, et Verrucarie Auct., spp., Animadv. in Bot. 
Zeit. 19, p. 387. Synalissa, Enchylium, Psorotichia, et Pyrenopsis, 
Stizenb. Beitr. 1. c. p. 141, 143. Synalissa, Enchylium, et Psorotichia, 
Krempelh. Lich. Bay. p. 99. 
Apothecia depresso-globosa, disco urceolato 1. dein aperto. Sporae 
ovoideo-ellipsoidese, simplices, incolores. Spermatia ellipsoidea 
oblongave, aut filiformia arcuata; sterigmatibus simplicibus. Thallus 
corallino-granulosus rarius fruticulosus; textura in plerisque tota 
parenchymatica; collogonidiis 1. glomeratis 1. dein moniliformi-con- 
catenatis. 
In arranging this group, made up on the one hand of lichens which it 
is almost as easy to refer to Pannariei, and on the other of types unques- 
tionably Collemeine, no better course has suggested itself than to follow 
‘the outlines of Nylander’s disposition, as emended in conformity with his 
. own suggestions. By associating Synalissa conferta, Born., with 8. 
symphorea, and recognizing S. polycocca, Nyl., as a member of the same 
genus, this author (Sy. 1, p. 94) has, if we mistake not, fully broken 
down the distinction between Synalissa, as understood by him, and his 
Pyrenopsis (Thelygnia, Mass.) and the latter must be taken as properly 
no more—to cite indeed his own words —than a ‘sub-division’ of the 
former (Syn. p. 97). Synalissa conferta is structurally, as described, and 
as fully appears in a specimen (Eastern Pyrenees, Montagne) without 
doubt referable here, almost as much a fruticulose Pyrenopsis as a re- 
duced Synalissa (Mass.). And however distinct in species be 8. polycocca 
from Pyrenopsis fuliginea (Wahl.) Nyl., it is very far from easy to regard 
these lichens as other than congenerical. I know in fact, of no attempt 
made as yet to distinguish the two groups referred to, by diagnostic 
characters. 
Apart indeed from Synalissa conferta as interpreted by the eminent 
authority cited, another arrangement might suggest itself. S. symphorea 
(Synalissa, Mass.) is in every respect a Collemeine lichen; but Pyren- 
opsis a group precluded by its parenchymatous tissue from the chief 
structural peculiarities of Collemei, and, in the last resort, perhaps recon- 
cilable with these only by a certain accordance in habit. How plausible 
then to keep this low and even equivocal group together, and to assign to 
