124 
OBSERVATIONS ON THE GENUS EPIIEBE, Nyl. 
By The Rev. J. M. Crombie, F.L.S. 
Having recently been engaged in investigating the synonomy of 
Ephehe pubescens (Linn.), in the writings of the older authors, I 
was next led to investigate the history of Ephehe itself, with the 
following results, which will be both interesting and useful to 
Lichenists : — 
The name Ephehe was first generically used by Fries, who is 
usually cited as thus employing it in “ S. O. V.,” p. 256. On re- 
ferring, however, to the diagnosis which he gives of the genus, it 
becomes at once apparent that we owe to him simply a name, and 
nothing more. He defines the fructification of his genus Ephehe 
in the following terms : — ‘‘ Apothecia scutelliformia superficialia ; 
disco excipulo thallode aperto marginato.” From this it is 
evident either that he had not seen the true apothecia of Ephehe^ 
or rather that he had mixed it up with states of Painnelia lanata^ 
with which the Lichen pubescens, Linn., was frequently confused by 
the older writers. At all events, he certainly does not define 
Ephehe in the true acceptation of the genus.* 
So, also, Bornet, whose name is usually associated with that of 
Fries as conjoint author of the genus, inasmuch as he is supposed 
to have defined it more definitely, is not more accurate in his 
diagnosis. For if Fries errs with respect to the character of the 
apothecia, Bornet equally errs with respect to that of the thallus. 
In his “ Commentary,” p. 5, he affirms, ‘‘ La partie centrale ou 
mMullaire manque dans les tres-jeunes rameaux. Dans lesrameaux 
plus ages, on la trouve composee de cellules incolorees, de con- 
sistance gelatineuse, irregulieres, tres-petites, et mol definies an 
centre &c. Again, in p. 14, he repeats the same .in Latin, and 
says, “ Cellulis centralibus gelatinosis, minoribus confusis.” This 
is quite an erroneous description of the thalline structure of 
Ephehe (vide Nyl., in “ Flora,” 1861, p. 132, &c.), whence it follows 
that Bornet (as in other and more recent instances) must have 
had something else under the miscroscope which he describes and 
figures as Ephehe. 
The first accurate diagnosis of the genus was given by Nylander, 
in his “ Synopsis,” p. 89, where the true characters of both the 
thallus and the fructification are described, and also delineated, in 
so far as relates to E. pubescens, in t. ii., pp. 17-20. This dia- 
gnosis is virtually transcribed by Dr. Th. Fries, in Lich. Arct., p, 
287, who in this case rightly forsakes Bornet, and ceases to trust 
in the latter’s “ snbtile disquisitions ” (vide Gen. Heterol., p. 2). 
It thus appears that neither Fries nor Bornet can with any very 
* Fries has, indeed, published the true Ephehe pubescens sterile in “Lich. 
Scand. Exs.,” No. 211, but here, as in other cases, specimens in herbaria must 
be interpreted in connection with the diagnoses of the authors. 
