— 3 — 
and the other dendritic and never provided with cups, the latter must be con- 
sidered the atypical as it is known to be the inconstant phase of growth. As 
no observation has yet conclusively established C. furcata, its var. race7nosa, 
or its modification corymbosa to be an ascyphiferous evolution of C. multi- 
formis or any other cup-bearing Cladonia, there appears no good reason for 
Wainio’s association of the two specifically. Even if C. multiformis is as- 
sumed to be the phylogenetic precursor of C. furcata , and a sequence of 
metamorphosis is to be found, the term furcata is a misnomer in its applica- 
tion to the scyphiferous prototype and anew name is in order. But evidence 
for such paternity for C.furcata. is yet lacking. Both species are found in 
Knox Co., Maine. C. furcata racemosa, abundantly and in all its forms as 
recognized by Wainio, C. multiformis sparingly. The former grows almost 
uniformly in colonies, while the latter is usually found solitary or in isolated 
small clumps. No C. multifor7nisYia.§yQX. been found growing with C. fur- 
cata racemosa , nor has the latter been found in any quantity where the 
former abounds. C. 7nultiformis is a shade loving plant, and is scarcely 
found in any other situation, while C. furcata race7nosa will obtain a footing 
under less favorable, and even adverse conditions. 
Having specified the points of dissimilarity which serve to distinguish C. 
77iultifor7nis from C. furcata , a similar severance is undertaken for its alleged 
relationship to C. crispata . The variability of C. multiformis has been 
foreshadowed in the preceding lines. So extreme is this diverseness that be- 
side the erroneous reference of the form to a. crispata by Tuckerman and 
others generally, certain of its conditions have been named C. gracilis , C. 
squa7nosa , C. crispata inf undibu lifer & and C. furcata paradoxa by good 
American authorities. Although inaccurately identified, any reference of the 
plant to C. crispata may be condoned, for in its various modifications so 
closely does it simulate some of the crispata subdivisions as recognized by 
Wainio, that only one well acquainted with the diagnostic factors for sepa- 
ration may avoid error. Thus the fissured conditions of C. 7nutifor7nis are 
not unlike C. crispata f. schistopoda Wain., the folioliferous m. divulsa 
(Del.) Arn., and the f. virgata (Ach.) Wain, finds an imitator in some dark 
colored scyphiferous states. But all the varying exhibits on examination in 
an extended series resolve themselves into mere records of development, 
and the primal characters for the species are obvious throughout. The brief 
and inadequate description of Baeo7nyces turbinatus v. crispatus in the 
Acharian Methodus might be made to apply to C. 7nultifor7nis equally with 
C. crispata , but in his Synopsis that author gives an amplified diagnosis that 
clears up the question of what is being described. Further confirmation of 
this may be derived from a statement of the Abbe Coemans in his “Cla- 
donia Achariana.” He says under the head of C. crispala that “all speci- 
mens of the Acharian herbarium are perfectly typical, and exhibit no 
approach to any other species.” Perhaps the best method of pointing out the 
differences between C. multiformis and C. crispata is the parallel column. 
The form of C. crispata described is infmidibulifera (Schaer.) Wain., for 
that seems to be the historical type, and is the condition of the species associ- 
ated with C. 77iultifor7nis under the name of a. crispata in the Tuckerman 
herbarium. 
