3 



bristle-like teeth, as in Sph. cymbjfolium and its allies. They are also 

 very narrowly margined, and their areolae are furnished with largish 

 more or less unequal indistinct pores. Howev^er, in the description 

 ot Sph. Garberi^ both these last characters are erroneously said to be 

 wanting. Furthermore, the chlorophyllose cells are said to be fur- 

 nished with '' numerous pores." Of course, this is an optical illu- 

 sion ; for poresbelongonly to ar<ft?/^^ or air-cells. " The inflorescence," 

 it is said, "is dioecious/' This needs confirmation, for four reas- 

 ons: I. No part of the mnle plant is described. 2. All of the numer- 

 ous specimens I have seen, if mature, are fertile, — this could 

 hardly happen were the plant dioecious. 3, All the other forms of 

 Sph, rigidum are monoecious. The 4th reason will become appar- 

 ent to the reader further on in this review. [L have not searched for 

 the male inflorescence because my specimens were all collected when 

 the fruit was mature, by which time the antheridia in all Sphagna, 

 (grown in warm climates at least) have totally disappeared.] 



(2.) Archidium longifolwn^ L. & J. Hab. Florida. Garber. — I have 

 seen no authentic specimens, the one sent me by Mr. James under 

 this name being A. Ohioense^ Schimp. But the perusal of the diag- 

 nosis and the habitat given, leaves no doubt of its being identical 

 with A. Lescurii^ x'VusT., first described in this Journal for Mar., 1877, 

 (Vol. VI., p. 144). The authors affirm that the capsule and spores 

 are as in A. altemifolium^ Brid. Qualifying this remark slightly, 

 they should have so extended it as to include all the other species of 

 of the genus; and they might very properly have included the calyp- 

 tra in the same category with the capsule and spores- (In 1868 I 

 described and sketched this organ in a letter to Mr. Sullivant. I 

 also described it in this Journal Vol. V., n. 7, p. -^o, but to this day 

 I am Aot aware that any one except myself and IVfr. Rau ever 

 saw it!) They also say "Antheridia 2." I have found as many as 

 eight in one cluster, 



n(3-) Bruchia Jiexuosa^Scnv^x^GK, — ''Stems a half-inch or more in 

 length. Inflorescence synoecious {^Jlos bisexualis)." T have a large 

 quantity of specimens of all the species of Bruchia which are common 

 from New Jersey to Florida, all of which I have examined very care- 

 fully; but I never saw one with such long stems (exclusive of the 

 leaves), nor did I ever see a bisexual flower except upon the minute 

 B, Carolinianae^ AusT-, and even here the inflorescence is often aut- 

 oicous, 



(4.) Bnichia SuUivanti^ Aust. — This is said to be autoicous. 

 " Inflorescence monoecious, male flower gemmaeform," and in the 

 very next line the authors quote SuUivant's Incones, T. 13, to substan- 

 tiate the statement ; yet it i-s both correctly figured in the Icones and 

 described by me in this Journal, Vol. VL, n. 27,p. 143, as paroecious ! 

 (antheridia naked in the axil of a single comal leaf.) I have never 

 seen autoicous inflorescence in any species that could be taken for 

 either B, flexuosa or B, Sullivanti, axcept in extremely rare instances, 

 all of which will be mentioned further on. 



(4^0 Bruchia nigricans, Avsr. (It should read B.nigrescens 

 (S. & L. Aust. ; B. flexuosa, var. nigrescens, S. & L., an error of mine.) 

 Our authors consider this a " mere casual var. of B, Sullivanti,'' 



