123 
ia Spec. Plant. I). Really in Spec. PL p. 1164 there 
are two species ”filamentis simplicibus æqualibus geni¬ 
culis destitutis, but on p. 1165 also one species ”filis 
simplicibus” in sect, ”filis nodosis” and such a one p. 
1166 in sect, ”filamentis geniculatis”. 
4. Myxonema or Stigeoclonium? 
Hazen 1. c. p. 193 makes mention of ^^the fact 
that the genus Myxonema^ as proposed by Fries, 
was composed of two diverse elements,” — — and 
that ”the first element comprised only the type (that 
is the first) species, Conferva lubrica (syn. Draparnal- 
dia Ag.)”, — and that ”the second element consisted 
of four unbranched species, Conferva zonata (Web. and 
Mohr), C. compacta Roth, C. oscillatorioides Agardh, and 
C. dissiliens Dillwyn, of which three are now recog¬ 
nized as species of UlotJirix^ and the last as a desmid.” 
In Syst. Orb. veget., 1825, p. 343 Pries says thus: 
Mn infimo hoc genere Confervis tandem confluit hæc 
series. Affinitatem vero cum prioribus majorem vel 
optime patet e C. lubrica^ Draparnaldia Agardhio, C. 
zonata^ Draparn. Boryo, C. compacta &c. Aliæ species 
evidentius ad Oscillarias v. c. C. oscillarioides & Dia- 
tomata v. c. C. dissiliens^ ut in hoc ordine quoad 
affinitatem sint collocandæ”. Therefore Pries inten¬ 
tionally brought together in one genus 2 different 
groups of algæ, which combined 2 different ordines 
or tribus. If one of the groups of the genus is 
separated from its genus, the other one cannot esta¬ 
blish the genus Myxonema Fries. This genus is 
from the beginning all too heterogeneous. Fries 
1. c. p. 340 suspects Conf. ornata Ag. to belong 
to Myxonema. Mr Go mont has examined an original 
specimen of it in Herb. Agardh and identified it 
with Goniothrichnm coeridescens. 
