150 
, THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
was paid to the Andreieacese, which were regarded as mere species of 
the intricate genus Jungermannia. But as soon as Ehrhart founded 
the new genus Andrecea and showed by the clearest arguments and 
with his usual sagacity that it differs so much from all known genera of 
mosses that only by violation of Nature itself could it he thrust into 
any one of them, the novel genus at once received wide recognition, 
although Linnaeus filius, as far as he could, prevented the publication 
of the species. The generic characters were so evident that none 
could be deceived about them. 
According to Smith, who doubtless had many opportunities of 
meeting Linn. fil. during the visit of the latter to London in 1781, 
Linnaeus also took exception to certain alterations made by Ehrhart 
in the text—an objection which Smith, with his classical instincts, 
shared: one such alteration is thus animadverted upon by Smith in 
El. Brit. iv. 79 (1828), where, commenting on the substitution of 
Garex Psyllophora for O. puli car is L., he writes : “ The original 
Linnaean name being Latin, like the classical generic one, was most 
inadvisedly translated into Greek by Ehrhart, who being entrusted 
with the printing of the Suppl. Plant, abused that trust, by 
corrupting the text in this and many other instances, to the great 
displeasure of the younger Linnaeus. He therefore ought not to be 
followed in any such alterations.” A number of similar substitutions 
are indicated by Ehrhart in “Meine Beitrage ” (1787), in which are 
included not only the genera of mosses already indicated, but a large 
number of names and descriptions textually identical with those of the 
Supplementum ; these Ehrhart here claims as his own, making no 
reference to their previous publication (1781) in the Supplementum : 
it may, however, be noted that when repeating some of these names 
in 1788 (Beitr. ii. 67, 68, 78, 82, 100) “Linn. Suppl.” is cited 
as the authority. The names thus claimed are Scirpus P ceothry on , 
Juncus Tenageia , Hum ex Nemolapathum , Mespilus Xanthocarpus , 
M. Pheenopyrum , JPyrus Potryapium ( Mespilus canadensis L.), P. 
Amelanchier (M. Amelanchier L.), P . arbutifolia {M. arbutifolia 
L.), Serapias Xipliophyllum (S. grandifora ( ensifolia ) L.), S. Lon- 
chophyllum (S. grandijlora L.), Garex Psyllophora (C. pulicaris 
L.), G. Leucoglochin , G. Ghordorliiza, G. PLeleonastes , G. Lepto- 
stachys, G. Prymeia , G. Agastachys, Lichen Poemyces (X. erice- 
torum stipitatus L.), L. Icmadophila ( L . ericetorum sessilis L.). 
Eor some of these the number of the Phytophylacium is cited, both 
in the Supplementum and in “ Meine Beitrage,” and it will be recog¬ 
nised that many of the names are taken thence. Smith (in Bees, 
s.v. Phrharta) suggests that the specific name of P. Mnematea 
(Suppl. 209), by which Thunberg’s P. capensis, published two years 
earlier, is there superseded, “ was probably suggested b}^ Ehrhart 
himself ” ; this seems probable, but Ehrhart in the Peitrage does 
not claim the description, and I do not find the name in the eight 
fascicles of the Phytophylacium to which I have access. Lichen 
Icmadophila (L. f. Suppl. 450), by which L. ericetorum L. (Sp. PI. 
1141) is superseded, is based on Icmadophila Ehrh. Phytophvl. 
n. 40; the specific name was subsequently adopted by Zahlbriickner 
for the genus based on the plant. 
