— 7 — 
lichenologists can in general agree. It is, therefore, of value to have the 
system applied concretely to the lichen flora in an American locality. 
A subsequent paper® by Dr. Herre points out the peculiarities of the 
California lichen flora, with which the earlier publications of Dr. H. E. Hasse 
have already made us somewhat acquainted. Yet with due allowance for 
these peculiarities, it is doubtful if Dr. Herre has not been somewhat too free 
in his proposal of new species, the present paper and those preliminary to it 
including 14 new species, named by Dr. Herre himself, with 3 more named 
by Dr. Zahlbruckner. It seems probable that some of these will share the 
fate which has already overtaken the Gyrophora diabolica Zahlbr. of the 
earlier paper® (1906), which proved to be G. polyrrhiza (L.) Koebr., well- 
known in Europe, but new to this country. Another case noticed in review- 
ing the paper is that of Parmelia olivacea var. polyspora Herre (p. 199) 
which is evidently P. 7 nultispora Schneider, discussed at different times in 
The Bryologist by Mr. G. K. Merrill* and Dr. H. E. Hasse, ^ who point out 
the wide distribution of the plant along the Pacific Coast. One new genus, 
Zahlbrucktiera, with the species, calcar ea^ is also described. 
The paper is furnished with keys, a procedure in lichen publications 
which can not be too strongly encouraged. The generic keys are based on 
those in Engler and Prantl ( 1 . c.). The value of the specific keys, based on 
Dr. Herre’s own work, can be judged only after extended trial. In the key to 
Ramalma (p. 215, bottom of page), there is evidently a mistake in arrange- 
ment, which is especially to be regretted as it involves R. Menziesii 
Tuck, upon the diagnostic characters of which eastern lichenologists would 
be glad of more light. In the key to Pertusaria (p. 165), there is introduced 
a new diagnostic character for P. amara (Ach.) Nyl. First we had the 
morphological study of lichens, then we had to apply chemical tests, and 
now, it appears, that we must taste our lichens! for P. ajnara is said to be 
“ bitter to the taste, like quinine.” This may be an excellent character, but 
would it not be rather inconvenient to use in the examination of a large series 
of specimens? 
In addition to the assistance rendered by the keys, each species is accom- 
panied by synonymy sufficient to place it, together with a description 
concise enough to be almost of diagnostic value. 
To the descriptions Dr. Herre has added the chemical tests, which we are 
glad to have, apart from any opinions as to their value. 
In spite of some points open to criticism. Dr. Herre has produced a 
valuable and stimulating work, and deserves the gratitude of lichenologists 
in contributing to the knowledge of one of the most interesting parts of our 
country. Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. 
5. Herre. A. W. C. T. Suggestions*as to the Origin of California’s Lichen Flora. 
Plant World 13: 315-220. Sept. 1910. 
6. Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci. 7: 366. 1906. 
7. Schneider, A. Guide to the Study of Lichens, p. 154. 1898. 
8. Bryologist 12: 73. 1909. 
9. Bryologist 13: 60. 1910. 
