- 44 - 
fallen into of idenifying the plant with C. symphycarpa Fr. ; and the third 
is our neglect of chemical criteria as a means of determining species. On 
the loose description given by Tuckerman of C. symphycarpa Fr. rests the 
burden of error in greater part. While the two forms are unlike viewed with 
the careful scrutiny which comprehends all their points of difference, if the 
less obvious features of diversity are ignored or overlooked, the description 
answers satisfactorily for both. The result is that f. symphycarpia has been 
commonly recognized as C. symphycarpa Fr. Wainio seems to have been 
first to point out the true status of f . symphycarpia Tuck, by calling attention to 
the fact that No. 116 of Tuckerman’s exsiccati as examined in some European 
copy, afforded the characteristic reaction with KHO of C. subcamosa Nyl. The 
earliest collected example of f. symphycarpia in his herbarium as tested by 
Tuckerman himself affords similar testimony, and personal examination by 
the writer of the specimens there preserved confirms Wainio's opinion of its 
identity. As C. subcariosa the plant will now be considered. Few of the 
Cladoniaea respond more satisfactorily to the test with KHO than this 
species. The reaction is K-J-at length orange-red and even crimson, If our 
American students desire to ascertain how many examples of C. subcariosa 
Nyl. (nee f. symphycarpia Tuck.) are contained among their specimens 
marked as C. symphycarpa Fr. , the test will demonstrate most satisfactorily. 
To the distribution given by Dr. Fink in Bryologist IX, No. 4 for C. sub- 
cariosa is added: 1. Rock Creek, D C., T. A. Williams; 2, Putnam Co,, 
Ind., L. M. Underwood; 3. Thomasville, Ga., Mrs. Taylor; 4. Waltham, 
Mass., W. Gerritson; 5. Sudbury, Mass., Miss C. M. Carr; 6. Morgantown, 
W. Va., J. L. Sheldon; 7. Catonville, and 8, Avalon, Md., C. C. Plitt; 9. 
Island of Jamaica, and 10, Wellesley, Mass., Miss C. E Cummings; n. 
Camden, Maine, Miss A. L. Crockett; 12. Takoma Park, D. C., Miss M. E. 
Williams; 13, Central Village, Conn., J. L. Sheldon; 14. McCall’s Ferry, 
Pa,, A. A. Heller. Of these No. 1 was the only specimen rightly identified 
when coming to the writer’s hands. No. 2 bore the name of C. symphycarpa 
Fr., likewise No. 10, while No. 11 was called its var. epiphylla . No. 14 was 
labelled C. gracilis. It may be noted that No. 178 Li. Bo. Am. marked C. 
symphycarpa Fr. is No. 12 of the foregoing. It is not known who identified 
No. 12 for it was issued under the joint names of Williams, Seymour, and 
Miss Cummings, but No. 10 collected in 1884 was sent out in the early “ New 
England Lichens ” series of the latter. This last originally marked C 
cariosa (Ach.) Spreng. is revised in my copy in Miss Cummings’ handwrit- 
ing and now reads C. symphycarpa Fr. Miss Cummings enjoyed an inti- 
mate acquaintance with the Tuckerman collection, and it is difficult not to 
believe that the specimens marked and published as C. symphycarpa or at 
least some of them were compared with the Tuckerman examples. If this 
was done and carefully, then those of our lichenists who have not been in 
touch with authentic material but have determined their symphycarpeous 
Cladonia specimens from Tuckerman’s description alone, scarcely need an 
apologist. A curious fact may be mentioned here that perhaps had some 
weight in the many erroneous reference of f , symphycarpia .. According to the 
