LICHENS. 
61 
different ages, x 50 ; fig. 3, gonidia of same, x 400. — Fig. 4, 
Leccinora ferruginea , ascus with spores, two paraphyses, and two 
free spores, x 400. Fig. 5, spore of L. Pollinii , showing the two 
small loculi of the spore separated by a very broad median septum, 
through which a central strand of protoplasm extends from one 
cavity to the other ; highly X . 
Odontotrema longuis , Nyl., is synonymous with Patellaria 
proxima, Berk., hence the species will stand as Odontotrema 
proxima (Berk.). 
Parmelia molliuscula, Ach. — T. A. Williams (“ Missouri Botani- 
cal Garden ; Third Annual Report,” 1892) adds to the knowledge 
of this lichen by giving an account of the fructification, which, 
although a cosmopolitan species, has hitherto occurred only in a 
sterile condition. While looking over the Engelmann Herbarium 
at the Missouri Botanical Gardens a couple of fragments of this 
species, from Upper Pole Creek, in the Black Hills region, U.S., 
were found bearing several apothecia, which are as follows : — 
“ Apothecia middling size ; disc dark chestnut brown, becoming 
flattish ; margin often at first entire, but soon becoming suberenu- 
late.’’ What the “middling ” size of the apothecia is relative to 
is not stated. Spores were not seen in the asci, but a few loose 
ones were seen ; they were simple, colourless, ellipsoid, and 
measured 10 x 5 /x. In the beautiful plate accompanying the note 
the apothecia appear substipitate, asci broadly cylindrico-clavate 
and shorter than the stout, clavate paraphyses. 
ON NOMENCLATURE. 
Sereno Watson. ( Bot . Gaz., 1892, p. 169.) 
We heartily endorse the following remarks on a subject which, 
in the hands of certain men at the present day, “ is being heaped 
like an incubus upon the science ” of botany. 
[It was the request of the late Hr. Sereno Watson that the 
following communication dictated by him in his last illness should 
appear at an early date in the “ Botanical Gazette.” — Eds.] 
For some time I have had a desire to give expression to my 
views upon botanical nomenclature. Under the circumstances, I 
must speak briefly and somewhat dogmatically. In my opinion 
botany is the science of plants, and not the science of names. 
Nomenclature is only one of those tools which is necessary to 
botany, and this being the case, points of nomenclature should be 
subordinated to science. 
A principle of botanical convenience has been established by 
those who prefer one name to another on account of expediency or 
convenience. This principle should have a great deal of influence. 
It has been so recognized by the greatest botanists, and from their 
authority receives great weight. I prefer the word expediency as a 
better term than convenience to designate the principle, that the de- 
mands of science override any merely technical claims of priority, etc. 
