Roper, on the genus Licmophora. 
55 
no observations had been publislied as to the laws of develop- 
ment and the propagation of the plant. 
It is not at all surprising^ therefore, that in attempting to 
avail himself of the meagre specific characters and mere out- 
line figures of his predecessors, in the endeavour to reduce as 
far as possible the overloaded nomenclature and synonymy of 
the tribe, some errors should have crept in, which at the 
present day can be to a certain extent cleared up ; and I pro- 
pose on the present occasion to show that in the genus 
Licmophora, though the author of the ' Synopsis ' appears 
to have referred to what are, or what he supposed to be, 
authentic specimens for the determination of the species, yet 
by some oversight, not readily accounted for, the names of 
the only two species included in the genus are reversed. The 
Licmophora splendida of the ' Synopsis ^ is in fact the 
L. flabellata of all previous writers, whilst what is referred 
to as L. fi,ahellata, Ag., is the true L. splendida, Grev. It is 
also perfectly evident to any one who will carefully examine 
the allied genera Podosphenia and Rhipidophora, and compares 
the species and synonymy of the ^ Synopsis ^ with the 
works of Kiitzing, Ehrenberg, and Agardh, that great con- 
fusion exists as to the limits and specific characters of those 
enumerated by Professor Smith; and though I have been unable 
at present to obtain a sufficient series of authentic specimens 
to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion on the doubtful points 
in these genera, I hope on a future occasion to be able to 
elucidate them and lay them before the Society. 
With the genus Licmophora, however, the case is different, 
for by the kind assistance of Dr. Walker- Arnott, who first 
directed my attention to the point, and also of Dr. Greville, I 
have been able to study a variety of gatherings, including 
authentic specimens both from Agardh and Kiitzing. Dr. 
Hooker has also permitted me to examine the original MSS. 
of Capt. Carmichael, and the specimen of his Echinella venti- 
labrum, on which Greville's species of L. splendida was I 
believe originally founded ;^ and as I had in my own collection 
* Thatthis is the case is tolerably certain, from the fact that in 1827 
Dr. Greville, in the ' Scot. Cryp. Fi.,' only describes the lExlllaria flabellata 
from Capt. Carmichael's specimens; in 1833, in the *Brit. M.,' he includes 
this under Agardh's name of Licmophora flabellata^ and also describes a new 
s])ecies as L. splendida.^ the only specimens mentioned being those of Capt. 
Carmichael. Now, as Capt. Carmichael in his herbarium has only two 
species, which he called Echinella flabellata and E. ventilabrum (the latter 
having broadly cuneate valves, as in Dr. Greville's L. splendida)^ there can 
be little doubt that they are identical, and I hear from Dr. Greville that he 
has no doubt the reason for his adopting a new name for the species was, 
that, though the specimens came into his possession, he had not the manu- 
script descriptions to refer to, and, therefore, did not adopt Carmichael's 
VOL. XI. e 
