
          Recd. Nov. 26
Duby-Geneva
And. Dec. 25th
Cambridge 23 Nov. 1839

Dear sir,
I have just finished the study of those invaluable
Van Diemen's land lichnes -+ haste to inform you of the results at which
I have arrived: of course these may be erroneous, the exercise is not
an easy one, but I have still some confidence in my conclusions. I
must, as usual, trust you will excuse whatever is wrong.
No 29. Stereocaulon paschale, var.
5. Sticta damaecornis Ach.
6. Sticta dissects, Ach. (part.
7. Sticta crocata, Ach. (part.) these two last were together
9. Sticta aurata, Ach. var. utrinque villosiusula
3(a.) Sticta laciniata Ach. I am not sure that this specimen does not belong to No. 7
The cyphella + their contents, are however yellow, - "pallide lutescentibus", as Ach.
says of those of S. lacinulata, and not white, as they are in No. 7. And though No. 7
of this plant are in different periods of growth (this being very old) there are
still apparent differences in my specimen which led me to conjectur its distin-
ctness.
22. Sphaerophorous compressum, Ach.
10(a) Parmelia conspersa, Ach.
28. Parmelia conspersa, B. [beta] stenophylla, Ach.
10. Parmelia perlata Ach.
11. Parmelia. possibly caperata in an old state. specimen too small to allow an 
opinion.
5(a) Parmelia mini [?] incogn.
13. Parmelia. This beings to that small group which includes P. physodes,
diatrypa, colpodes + 2 or 3 others. May it be P. enteromorpha? But the
apothecia are quite remarkable in our plant which character does
not appear in the desc. of P. enterom-orpha. I sent you specimens
        