R E I N W A R D T I A Published by Herbarium Bogoriense, Kebun Raya Indonesia Volume 2, Part 3, pp. 435-440 (1954) THE GENERIC NAMES PROPOSED FOR HYMENOMYCETES—II* Hymenolichenes M. A. DONK * SUMMARY 1. This part deals with the generic names proposed for Hymenolichenes, a very limited group of Hymenomycetes. 2. In connection with Herpothallon Tobl. attention is drawn to Hypochnus Fr. ex Ehrenb. (non Fr. ex Fr.), which seems to be the correct name for the genus. INTRODUCTION.—The small and heterogeneous group of Hymenoliche- nes contains those lichens of which the fungus component represents, or is supposed to represent, a hymenomycete. Being lichens their starting- point book is Linnaeus's "Species plantarum," published in 1753, in contrast to all other Hymenomycetes, of which the starting-point date is January 1, 1821. Apart from the hymenomycete associations which are now nomen- claturely treated as lichens, a few other hymenomycetes have been reported to associate with algae, for instance some species of Septobasi- dium Pat. (cf. Marchionatto in Rev. Soc. Argentina Ci. nat. 19: 345-347. 1943) and certain Clavariaceae, like Clavaria fossicola Corner, C. mucida Fr., and C. vernalis Schw. (cf. Corner, Monogr. Clav. 233, 442, 394. 1950). I am very much indebted to Dr. R. Santesson, Uppsala, for many valuable suggestions. ALPHABETICAL ENUMERATION Cilicia Fr., Syst. Orb. veg. 301. 1825. — ETYMOLOGY: cilicium, carpet made of hair. Gender: f. — TYPE SPECIES (by original designation) & SCOPE. "Typus generis est Theleph. teztilis Spreng.!, sed plures habemus species e tropicis, ubi vulgares videntur . . .." The cited specific name seems not to have been validly published, the original genus not being monotypic. Later on Fries (in K. Vet.-Akad. Handl., Stockh. 1848: 144) published the combination Cora textilis (Spreng.) Fr., but * The first Part of this series appeared in Reinwardtia 1: 199-220. 1951. * Keeper of Herbarium Bogoriense, Kebun Raya Indonesia. 436 R E I N W A R D T I A [VOL. 2 again did not furnish a specific description. When Saccardo (Syll. Fung 6: 687. 1888) listed the species, as "Cora textilis (Spreng.) Fr. Fung. Nat. p. 24 (nomen), Theleph. Spreng. in herb.," he added the original generic description of Cilicia (emphatically stating this) and remarked "Nullibi descriptionem inveni hujus speciei, cujus forte ill. Fries specimina habuit a Sprengelio." No specimens could be found at Uppsala. It may be tentatively accepted that it represents a species of Cora: "Cora textilis Sacc." (with a point of interrogation) and "Thelephora textilis Sprgl. apud Sacc." (without such a point) were listed as synonyms of Cora pavonia (Sw.) Fr. by Zahlbruckner (Cat. Lich. univ. 7: 744. 1931). — REMARK. Cilicia Fr. has been cited with doubt as a synonym of the ascolichenous genus Chrysothrix Mont. (1852) by Zahlbruckner (in Engl. & Pr., Nat. PflFam., 2. Aufl., 8: 135. 1926) and it will also be found listed with a point of interrogation as a nomen rejiciendum when Zahlbruckner (in Int. Rules bot. Nomencl., 3. Ausg., 128. 1935) proposed Chrysothrix as a nomen conservandum. This apparently incorrect association can be ex- plained as follows. When Montagne (in Ann. Sci. nat., Bot. II 2: 375. 1834) described Cilicia noli-tangere Mont., he first assigned it to Cilicia Fr. Later on he changed his opinion and placed his species in a genus of its own adding this observation: "OBS. J'ai du separer ce genre du Cilicia auquel je l'avais d'abord reuni, en modifiant legerement sa definition. Car M. Fries persistant (V, Summ. Veget. Scaudin., p. 333) a prendre pour type de ce dernier, reuni au genre Cora, le Thelcphora sericea Swartz, dont la fructification, trouvee par mon ami le Rev. M.-J. Berkeley, est exospore ou basidiophore, il n'y a plus moyen de rapprocher dans le memo genre deux modes de fructification si divers."—Montagne (in Ann. Sci. nat., Bot. Ill 18: 312-313. 1852). Thus the association of Cilicia with Chrysothrix by Zahlbruckner rests on a misapplication of the former name by Montagne. — However, it should be noticed that Fries, on the place cited by Montagne, did not at all insist on Thelephora sericea Sw. as the type species of Cilicia. He indeed relegated that genus to Cora, Fr., q.v., as a synonym, but did not mention a type. See the index (p. 566) to "Summa Vegetabilium Scandina- viae," where one will find: "Cilicia (sub Cora)." And compare Fries (in K. Vet.-Akad. Handl., Stockh. 1848: 143-144): "CORA Fr. I. c. [= Epicr.] p. 556. Hujus subgenus est CILICIA S. 0. V., cujus mihi cognitae species sunt: 1. Cora sericea (Swartz!) et 2. Cora textilis Spreng.! (Utraque sub Thelephora.) . . . " A few years later Fries (in Nova Acta Soc. Sci. upsal. Ill 1: 113. 1851) was still of the opinion that Cora should be divided into two groups, viz., 'Eucora* and 'Cilicia' — TYPONYMS. Compare Cora 440 E E I N W A R D T I A [VOL. 2 Wainiocora Tomaselli in Archivio bot., Forli 26 (2): 8 (reprint pagination). 1950; in Rev. bryol. lichen. II 20: 213. 1951. — ETYMOLOGY: E. Au. Wainio (Vainio); the genus Cora. Gender: f. — TYPE SPECIES (only original species): Waimocora ciferrii Tomaselli.—Dr. R. Santesson (oral communication) thinks this might well be a synonym of Cora pavonia (Sw.) Fr. = C. montana (Sw.) Santesson. 433 434 435 436 437 438