114 
to regard Cosm. quadratum in Brit. Desm. as collec¬ 
tive, including, as well C. quadratum sensu Lundeil 
as Cosm. sinuosum.^ even if the first description alludes 
to other species, at least for the greater part. 
Corda’s Cosm. Cucumis is nearly indeterminable, 
and therefore Ralfs ought to be regarded as author. 
Cosm. tetraophthalmum of Kützing and Mene- 
ghini refers to other species, or at least includes 
many heterogeneous species, lor which reason Bréb. 
apud Ralfs is to be cited as author. 
Before Ralfs in Br. Desm. all the authors had 
described Cosm. Botrytis very badly, often as a col¬ 
lective species. 
X.antliidium fasciculatum sensu lat. could be divi¬ 
ded in forms as well according to the form of the 
cell as to the number of spines. Ralfs quotes the 
figures in Ehre nberg’s Inf. right, but he brings the 
name '^polygonunC not to his a, as he ought to have 
done, but to ß. When Ralfs’ forms are to be sepa¬ 
rated as varieties or species, the quoted synonym 
”var. antilopccum Bréb. in litt. c. icon.” ought to be 
accepted, Brébisson’s description in List. Desm. being 
good. On the contrary Cosm. antilopmmi Bréb. in 
Menegh. Syn. Desm. seems according to description 
and quotation identical with X. cristatum v. uncina¬ 
tum Bréb. 
Turner 1893 has regarded Xanth. cristatum v. 
uncinatum as a proper species with the name X. hi- 
senarium Ehrenb. This species was described by 
Ehrenberg in Mikr. Leb. Süd. u. N. Amer. p. 426 
thus: ”corpusculis globosis, subangulosis, binis, acu¬ 
leatis, aculeis fasciculatis, fasciculis in quovis globulo 
senis. An varietas X. fasciculati? Icon Baileyi? 
1841 T. III f. 13.” Hence, Ehrenberg himself 
calls in question the identity of his species with 
Bailey’s figure and his word ”globosis” give both 
him and us every right to do so. For that reason 
