118 
tioned ones has been quite too much dependent on 
whether their authors saw original specimens or not. 
Hirn, K. E., Monographie und Iconographie der 
Oedogoniaceen. 64 Tab. in 4:o. Helsingfors 1900. In 
the tables nearly all the known species are represented. 
Bornet, Ed. et Flahault, Ch., Revision des 
Nostocacées hétérocystées contenues dans les principaux 
herbiers de France. Paris 1836—88. 
Gomont, M., Monographie des Oscillariées (No- 
stacacées homocystées). Paris 1893. 
2. Aphanochæte or Herposteiron? 
In his paper in Pringsheims Jahrb. wiss. Bot. 
Vol. 25 Klebahn quotes a part of the original de¬ 
scription of Aphanochaete^ thus: ”Trichomata pa r a Ile¬ 
liter in stratum membranaceum coalita, sæpe ver¬ 
ticalibus e cellulis globosis compositis et dense 
aggregatis obsessa”, and he asks: ”Welcher Unbe¬ 
fangene kann danach auf Äphanochcete repens A. Br. 
rathen?” 
Ha Z en vindicates the resurrection of Herpws- 
teiron^ thus: ”The researches of Huber and Klebahn 
leave no room for doubt that the two types, Her- 
posteiron confervicola Nag. and Aphanoclicete repens A. 
Braun are the same plant. These two investigators, 
however, reject the earlier name proposed by Nageli, 
on the ground that his description is incomplete and 
even inaccurate in certain respects. The identification 
of his plant with that later described by Braun as 
Apihanochœte repens rests upon authentic drawings b}^ 
Nageli, but as these were not published with the 
description, the evidence furnished by them on a 
matter of priority is not admitted by Klebahn and 
q As Mr Hazeii in his paper in Memoir. Torrey Bot. Club 
Vol. 11 n:o 2 follows the neo-american rule for the type of nomen¬ 
clature, it is no wonder, that his nomenclature differs from that 
commonly used. 
