-83- 



divisis subcrispis. " 1. c. Type locality: "Canaria. " The Abbe Hue kindly 

 sent me this material for examination. The species appears to be a slightly 

 more rigid plant with laciniate slender apices. In the present writer's opinion 

 it could hardly rank higher than a variety of the former species. Most of our 

 material is distinctly rugose, but well divided above and might in part be re- 

 ferred here. The Abbe Hue also records a form minima Hue (Lich. Extra-Eu.. 

 63. 1901.) from Florida. 



Series: Myelopoeae Wain. Class. Nat. et Morph. Lich. Bresil 16. 1890. 



Medulla arachnoid, cortex thick (65-80^1) hyphae divaricate above gonidia. 



Observations: I am commencing the Series Myelopoeae with this species 

 so that the question of the calicaris nomenclature may be settled at the outset^ 

 and am giving a diagnosis, etc., so that its true status may be made clear. 



A. Cortex glabrous. 



Ramalina calicaris (L.) Fr., Emend. 



Synonymy: Lichen calicaris Linn. Spec. Plant. 2: 1146. 1753. As to name 

 bringing synonymy, Ramalina calicaris (L.) c. canaliculata Fr. Lich. 

 Europ. 30. 1 83 1, not, however, as to plant described. 

 Ramalina scopulorum (Retz.) Ach. of most authors. 

 Type: In the Linnean herbarium, Burlington House, London, are six sheets 

 of Ramalina specimens. Seven plants on these sheets were referred to by Dr. 

 Wainio. Five he called Ramalina calicaris f. canaliculata Fr., and two Ramalina 

 scopulorum (Retz.) Ach. Two of these sheets only may be considered to be 

 types, as they alone are labeled in Linneus' handwriting, the others having been 

 added to the herbarium from later sources. Those sheets labeled by Linneus 

 bear the name and number of Species Plantarum, and also the Flora Suecica 

 number (see figure). One small specimen of the first sheet though old and 

 abraded probably represents the so-called calicaris stock, and cannot be re- 

 ferred to either the form canaliculata Fr. or scopulorum Retz. Though in two of 

 its laciniae it suggests states of fraxinea, it cannot be said to bear out either Lin- 

 neus' description or the Dillenian or Vaillant plates he cites, which all accord in 

 the main. The other perfect specimen of this sheet and the remaining type of 

 the other sheet are without doubt scopulorum, and the two specimens of this 

 species referred to by Dr. Wainio. 



If we now turn to the founder of the genus Ramalina we will see that Achar- 

 ius placed Lichen calicaris of Linneus in his synonymy of Ramalina scopulorum. 

 It was only later that Fries made calicaris L. synonymous with his variety canal- 

 iculata. Though it is difficult to drop a name as old as scopulorum, especially 

 since a reliable type specimen exists in the Retzius herbarium at Lund {fide 

 author), yet the fact that the Retzius figure-reference refers to a Dillenian plate 

 unquestionably representing a Roccella, a much argued point, gives us added 

 ground for so doing. It is true that the Dillenian herbarium proves by its com- 

 posite specimens (fide author, see Crombie) that he, as has been said of Linneus, 

 did not distinguish between scopulorum and calicaris {sensu Nylander). Never- 



