— 2 — 
their notice, and to have been unassailed by doubts regarding the accuracy 
of their reference, or the status of the form itself. The first to challenge 
equivalency for the plant with a! crispata — or C. crispata (Ach.) FI. as now 
reckoned, seems to have been Wainio. From material sent to him by Dr. 
Fink, he indicated the form as a new variety Finkii Wain, of C. fur cat a. 
The evidence that C. fur cat a Finkii Wain, is identical with the plant here 
defined, is furnished by Dr. Fink’s brief description in Bryologist VII, no. 
4, p. 55, examination of specimens of v. Finkii communicated to, and deter- 
mined for the writer by Dr. Fink, and of others identified for Mrs. C. W. 
Harris. Study of the large series of C. multiformis contained in our herb- 
arium prompts a doubt of the validity of this proposed association with C. 
fur cat a, and brings conviction that the plant however near it may be to other 
forms, is yet specifically distinct. The comparatively meagre material that 
the writer has been enabled to transmit to European students has proved 
puzzling, and no definite place has been fixed by them for the plant, except a 
tentative concurrence with Wainio’s opinion. The most obvious point of 
resemblance between C. 7nultiformis and C. furcata, and the one which it is 
assumed suggested the relationship to Wainio, is only to be noted in such 
individuals of the first named as are conditioned in that cristate-ramulose 
manner of which the divisions are more or less fissured and flattened, as in 
the summits of C. furcata racemosa corymbosa Nyl. (sensu Wainio). Now 
while this resemblance is in a manner confirmatory of such a view, the fail- 
ure of C. furcata in its racemose variations to furnish scyphiform exhibitions 
even recedently, presents as yet an unbridged gap in phylogentic record. It 
is true that there are states of C. multiformis ultimately resembling certain 
forms of C. furcata , but curiously enough, both must attain a degree of 
maturity before this is apparant. In no instance so far as our observation 
extends, is there any similarity between juvenile forms. C. jurcata is pri- 
marily and constantly ascyphiferous, while C. multiformis is initially cup- 
bearing and does not develop ramuli until a scyphus has been formed. 
Proliferations from this may be, and often are, simple like the basal section 
of the podetia and terminating in a cup, or at once become branched. In- 
stances have been noted of one proliferation from the first scyphus continu- 
ing until five to seven ranks were attained, all cup-bearing, while another 
becomes branched and cristate. If the species is a hybrid, it may safely be 
asserted that the fusion is not anterior to the development of the scyphus, 
and thus that phenomena of the partnership which produces a counterpart of 
the habit of C. furcata corymbosa is in another aspect lessened in import- 
ance as a guide to affinity or specific rank. On the evidence afforded by 
the specimens examined, it seems probable that while the branching summits 
of the species apparently mark the ultimate of development, this is only true 
in particular cases, for some individuals never develop ramifications. And 
again some aspects of C. multiformis , as before noted present a dual phase of 
development, in the curiously inconsistent conditions of a fruticulose com- 
bined in one individual with a scyphiferous type ; but this while remarkable 
is not without analogy in Cladonia. The point to be clearly noted is, that of 
the two modes of proliferation, one scyphiform throughout its development, 
