THE BRYOLOGIST 



Vol. XVI September 1913 No. 5 



NORTH AMERICAN SPECIES OF THE GENUS RAMALINA 



R. Heber Howe, Jr. 



During the eight years that I have been studying the species of the family 

 Usneaceae and publishing papers on four of its genera, I have been collecting 

 data on the present genus, realizing that it was one of the most difiicult of the 

 family, and until I could study the European types, it was quite impossible to 

 prepare a thorough continental monograph. A year in Europe in 1911-12 gave 

 me this opportunity and I have now traced all the preserved types of which I 

 can secure information and have seen sufficient material to gain a knowledge of 

 the distribution of species. 



Our species of the genus Ramalina, since 1753, have appeared under the 

 following genera: Lichen L., 1753; Physcia Pers., 1794; Loharia Hoffm., 1795; 

 Parmelia Ach., 1803; Aledoria Ach., 1810; Borrera Ach., 1810; Usnea Tayl., 

 1847; Desmaziera Mont., 1852; and Cenozosia Mass., 1853. These compara- 

 tively few genera for such a large and diverse group shows the little difficulty 

 lichenolbgists have found, particularly since 1853, in recognizing the character- 

 istics of the genus. The species, on the other hand, have always presented a 

 most difficult problem, caused largely no doubt by the innumerable intergrades 

 that present themselves, and by the unwarranted description of new species. 



The genus has received in Europe notable attention, the four following 

 papers being particularly important: Speerschneider, Mikros. anat. Ram., Bot. 

 Zeit. Jahrg. 13: 345-385. 1855; Nylander, Recogn. monograph. Ramalinarum, 

 Bull. Soc. Linn, .de Norm., 2 ser. 4: 101-180. 1870; Stizenberg, Bemerkungen 

 zu den Ramalina- Ar ten Europa's, Jahresber. d. Naturf. -Ges. Graubiindens 34: 

 77-130. 1891; Brandt, Beitr. zur anatomischen Kenntnis der Flechtengattung 

 Ramalina, Hedwigia 45: 124-158. 1906. Mr. G. K. Merrill, Bryologist 11: 

 48-53, 1908, has given us an excellent brief review of the commoner North 

 American species, contrasting the Tuckerman and Nylander conceptions. 



There has been comparatively^ little done so far toward the typificacion of 

 lichen genera, but it is not necessary for the retention of Ramalina to treat it as 

 a nomina conservanda, as Prof. Bruce Fink has intimated (Lich. Minn. 224, 

 1910). Though Persoon's Physcia of 1794 antedates Acharius' Ramalina of 1810, 

 Schreber proposed the genus Physcia in 1791 (Gen. Plant. 2; 767. 1791). 

 The Acharian genus was well made and it is remarkably coherent, and it is a 

 satisfaction to know that a change which would involve so much confusion is 

 unnecessary. 



The July number of The Bryologist was published August 21st. 



