see T. Schumacher (1988): The Scutellinia Battle; The Lost, Missing and Dead. Mycotaxon 33, relevant pages here: http://www.cybertruffle.org.uk/cyberliber/59575/0033/0165.htm
In short, S. hirta in original (C.F.Schumacher's and Fries's) sense is probably a Geopora, deeply cupulate species with fasciculate hairs. Then there's S. hirta ss. Cooke and Le Gal, the latter selected a neotype and, based on her description, this taxon seems conspecific with S. cejpii. T.Schumacher considered S. hirta (ss. anyone) nomen ambiguum.

T.Schumacher didn't in either work (1979, 1988, 1990) cite the neotype in K among studied specimens. Yao and Spooner (1996, Notes on British species of Scutellinia. Mycol. Res. 100) studied the Cooke's collection in K (S. hirta neotype) and confirmed it's conspecificity with S. hirta ss. Le Gal. They also pointed out that C.F.Schumacher wrote orange-red hymenium for this species ("miniata [,] extus fusco hirta") and that therefore it cannot be a Geopora.

But interesting is, that although Fries (1822) wrote this species has color like Peziza (Caloscypha) fulgens and that C.F.Schumacher illustrated immature specimen (which Fries compares with Peziza (Trichophaea) hybrida, quite correctly for an immature Scutellinia), he also states that C.F.Schumacher's fungus is 3 lignes wide and high. If he used milimeters, it would look ok, but "3 lin." should be equal to 6,75 mm. If anyone has an explanation for this, I would very much like to learn it. Anyway, I wonder if it is at all possible to confirm conspecificity of S. hirta ss. Cooke with S. hirta ss. orig. + Fries's, when neither was illustrated and there is no orig. material available.

Viktorie

Schumacher: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/252660#page/430/mode/1up
Fries: http://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/ing/Libro.php?Libro=958