119 
Huber. From an American point of view, these ori¬ 
ginal drawings, even though unpublished, furnish as 
valid evidence in regard to the character of Nägeli’s 
species as would be furnished by specimens from his 
herbarium.” 
From what Hazen says, we conclude that in 
his opinion before Hubert’s examination of Nageli’s 
specimens and drawings one could have right of re¬ 
jecting Nageli’s genus, but not since. The exami¬ 
nation of a type specimen (or of original sketches) 
can verify the historical factum, that this specimen 
(or -these drawings) belongs to a certain species or 
genus, but the giving legal claim to such an exami¬ 
nation (with or without issuing), as if it had been 
made before the publication of the original description, 
can only throw us into confusion. How many unne- 
cessar^'' synonyms have not been established owing to 
the supposition that Linné had kept the types of 
his species in his herbarium. 
Hazen has only shortly quoted Hubert’s exa¬ 
mination of ISTageli’s original specimens. Nageli 
had distinguished 3 species; according to a mscr.- 
note he had also given another name to one of them: 
Gongrosira Sclerococcus Kütz. v. confervicola. And 
Huber sa,ys 1. c. p. 286 that he had seen a drawing 
of Hageli representing ”un thalle en forme de cous¬ 
sinet”, and continues thus: ”Si la formation d’un thalle 
aussi régulier par juxtaposition de filaments simples 
m’a paru déjà invraisemblable, mes doutes ont encore 
été confirmés par l’examen des échantillons authenti¬ 
ques. Les thalles en coussinet étaient très rares dans 
les échantillons que j’ai examinés, et ils me semblai¬ 
ent plutôt appartenir au cycle d’évolution d’un En~- 
doderma qui parait se trouver à côté du vrai Herpo- 
steiron. Ces coussinets seraient donc à mettre en 
parallèle avec celui que M. Hansgirg a figuré dans 
sa description de VEntocladia gracilis Hansg.” Hence 
