C 53 ] - 
reprefent in his Tables, might not deviate too much 
from the natural appearance of the plants tl'icmfelves 
to the naked eye : and it is pretty evident th.it tl'ie 
glades he ufed were but of moderate powers, dnce^ 
befides other miftakes, they left him quite undeter- 
mined whether his 4th and 5th fpecies of Conferva 
had ramifications or not, though this very diftiniffion 
forms a feparate feries in the firff O?'do. Linnaeus’s 
(4) generlcal characfter of this plant is certainly lefs 
defeftive than that given by Dillenius, inafmuch as 
he takes notice of the tubercula omitted by the for- 
mer, and calls the fibres of the Conferva capillary ; but 
as he does not exprefsly fay, whether thefe fibres are 
tubes or not, and takes no notice of the fepta or dia- 
phragms diftributed at equal didances along them, I 
apprehend that he equally negledted examining the 
plant with proper glaffes. Perhaps he adopted the 
\.txmca piUarisixom profefTor Van Royen’s Synonyme, 
which he quotes; efpecially fince, in his divifions and 
fpecific charaders of the Conferva, he has fallen into 
the fame miftakes with Dillenius, whom he chiefly 
followed in his clafs of the Cryptogamia. 
If the fydematical botanifts have not therefore ac- 
quired an adequate knowledge of the drudure of the 
minuter Confervas, by negleding to ufe proper 
glades, their defcriptions of thefe plants mud necef- 
farily be imperfed. 
The Ijiecimens of paper, which I fent you with 
the copy of my letter, are, 
Fird, A fpecimen of the natural paper of Cortona. 
Secondly, An artificial paper made of the fame 
fubdance with the natural paper of Cortona; which 
(4) Gen. Plant, CJ, 24. 
fubdance 
