124 
As the majority of the species in Syst. orb. 1825, 
according to Hazen, belong to Ulothrix, O. Kuntze 
probably would in such a case, have claimed pri¬ 
ority for Myxomema 1825 as identical with TJlotlirix 
183B. But there was also in Syst. orb. 1825 an 
”&c.”, the meaning of which we can see in Fries, 
FI. Scan. 1836 p. 329, where probably 6 of the 8 
species belong to Tjlothrix. In Syst. Veg. scand. 1845 
Fries had Myxonemata as a section oA Conferva^ but 
with the same 2 sections (^ramosce^ Draparnaldiæ ec¬ 
typus, with 3 species; simplices Tiresiæ ectypus, 
with 4 species; ^ subspecies not included). 
Neither at the establishment of TJlotlirix (1833), 
nor of ^Styyeocloniuni’'^ (1843 in Phyc. gen. ^)), did 
Kützing tell us that they were parts of Myxonema 
Fries; hence he did not give any diagnosis of the 
remaining part of Myxonema. 
As Hazen 1. c. p. 194 says, Rabenhorst had 
”at first (1847) adopted the genus Myxonema in prac¬ 
tically the same composite sense as used by Fries”, 
but for the same reason we could lay stress upon the 
fact that Raben horst already 1844 (Deut. Krypt. 
Fl. I p. IX and 77) accepted the genus Myxonema 
Corda (Icon. fung. I, 1837, p. 10 t. 2). In Syl- 
loge Fung, of Saccardo Vol. X, 1892, p. 714 we 
find the description of Cor da’s Myxonema in fam. 
Tubercularieæ. 
How doubtful the old nomenclature is, we can 
find from Hazen’s deliberation upon Conferva stellaris 
as the ”type” of Ktit zing’s genus Stigeoclonmm. 
Perhaps in the future ”the name Clicetogliora would 
have to supersede Myxonema and Stigeoclonium^ while 
the species we know as Chcetophora would have to 
be restored to llivulariaP. 
*) In Linnæa 1843 Kützing; had only given an enumeration 
of names without any description. 
