• 86 - 
In brief the differences between the species as here summarized are really 
inconsiderable, except that one of discordance in apothecial conformation. 
This factor in itself would scarcely seem of sufficient importance to sepa- 
rate the two, but Nylander and others have found that the papillate apothe- 
cia of U. spadochroa afford large spores. An instance of crude botany 
reinforced by modern histology. With Nylander first to point out sporal dif- 
ferences, the labors of other lichenists seemed to become confirmatory, if 
Hepp is excepted. In the latter’s work on the spores of European lichens, 
are figured and micrometrically recorded the spores of U. vellea and U. 
spadochroa as examined in the Exsiccati of Moug. & Nest, E. Fries and 
Schaerer. In plate XXXIV, fig. 306 Hepp’s Sporen, the spores of U. spado- 
chroa (Ehrh.) Ach. Li. Um. p. 229, are alleged to be illustrated. The figures 
and measurements are derived from examination of E. Fries, Li.Suec. Exs. 
No. 130: Moug. & Nest, Exs. Nos. 540 and 746, and Schaerer, Exs. Nos. 141 
and 142. All have small spores, vis. 9-1 1 by 5-8/1, and by modern interpreta- 
tion belong to U. vellea and not U. spadochroa. 
Nylander avowedly, and Th. Fries inferentially based their diagnosis 
of U. spadochroa on the Acharian conception, and both the former definitely 
accept the papillate apothecia as distinguishing. Is it not strange that the 
various specimens from those exsiccati examined by Hepp, doubtless all 
determined on the Acharian data, and conjecturally all provided with the 
papillate apothecia of the species, should have yielded small spores ? It is 
reasonably certain from the description, that U. vellea of E. Fries (Li. Eu. 
Ref.), is U. spadochroa as now understood. If No. 130 of Fries Exs. Li. 
Luec. is representative of that author’s var. b. spadochroa as may be inferred 
from the text, with its determination based on the Acharian conception, then 
Nylander’s assumption of small spores for U. vellea is really inexplicable. 
Schaerer (in Eu.) affirms No. 130, Fries Exs. to be equivalent to U. cirrhosa 
Hoffm., and Wainio (Revisio Lich. Hoffmannianorum, p. 16), finds the speci- 
mens of U. cirrhosa iu Hoffman’s herbarium to be U. spadochroa (Ehrh.) 
Ach. 
Some one has erred, but on whom shall the burden rest ? No. 141 of 
Scharer’s Exs. is his form d. rupta of U. vellea var. spadochroa , and No. 
142 represents his form cinereo-rufescens. Schaerer cites the latter as 
synonymous with U. spadochroa DC., U. vellea Ach. , and Lichen valleus 
Ehrh. ! Plate XIV, fig. 117 of Hepps’s Sporen is said to figure the spores of 
U. vellea (L.) Ach. Syn. p. 68. The specimens examined were from Moug. 
& Nest, Exs. No. 344, and Schaerer’s Exs. Nos. 137, 138, 139 and 140. All 
have large spores viz. 18-24 by 8-13//, and several numbers by Nylander and 
others would be referred to U. spadochroa. Schaerer lived a little early to 
fully avail himself of the manifold advantages of the compound microscope, 
and he variously distributes the above cited examples to his Enumeration, 
they appearing to have been very dissimilar externally. No. 344 Moug. & 
Nest, Exs. is referred to his U. vellea var. a, hirsula . U. hirsuta as now 
understood has spores of 9-12 by 4-8//, or small. Nos. 137, 138, 139 and 140 
of his Exs. Schaerer defines as form b, vellei-formis , f. c. vulgaris , f. d. 
