18 REVUE BRYOLOGIQUE 



gathered it below 1000 ft., and up to 3500 ft. ; it ascends to 

 8000 ft. (2600 m.) in the Tyrol. It has only bocn found 

 sterile up to the present time in Great Britain, though 

 frequently intermixed with fruiting P. pHchellum var. 

 nitididum, in which case the fruit may easily betaken for 

 that of P. MuUerifUUtm. This appears' to be the case with 

 some specimens in the British Museum Herbarium, pur- 

 porting to be P, Miillerianuni cfr., in which, however, 

 the fruit belon^is to the smaller species. So-called fruiting 

 specimens of 7\ Mi'illerianum should be very cautiously 

 examined. On the other hand Mitten informs me that his 

 specimen of this moss, gathered by Spruce in the Pyrenees 

 at Bagneres-de-Luchon, and distributed by error as //. Bor- 

 rerianinn Spr. actually contains fruit, a fact overlooked 

 by Spruce himself. 



"^Toulay and others (v. Limpricht, Laubmoose, sub P. 

 elegans) have protested against the confusion introduced 

 into an already complicated nomenclature by Lindberg in 

 1874, when in his Manipulus Muscorum II, p. 410 (Notis. 

 SiUlsk. Faun. & Fl. fenn. XIII) he announced that an exami- 

 nation of an authentic specimen of Spruce's ti. Borre- 

 rimuini from the Pyrenees showed that plant to be identical 

 with Schimper's P. i\Ili//rria/unn, and concluded that tlic 

 specific name Ho?'rr7i (1851) must therefore super'sede 

 MiHlerUuiifm (1800) for this last plant. P. Mnller'uinnm 

 Schp. thereupon became Isoplerj/gn'nn Borrrri Lindb., 

 our common, luwiand Furopean plant being then referred 

 i)y him to the North American P. elegans. 



Few, I think, will disagree with the view of the al)0ve- 

 named authors^ that common-sense demands that Schim- 

 per's original name should be retained for Scinmper's plant, 

 and not superseded by the name Borrrri as Lindberg at 

 that time desired. But lest some stickler for prioritv should 

 still maintain that Lindberg was I'ight in principle, and 

 should hereafter endeavour to displace Schimper's name 

 {Alullrrkuiuin) by Borreriamun Spr., I think it is worth 

 while to point out one or two considerations that seem 

 to have been overlooked. 



H is perfectly clear that Carl Miiller in his description of 

 /L Borrrrinnufn (Syn. TI, p. 270) has confused two plants. 

 That hn liad P. Mullerkunnn Schp- before him for one, 

 seems clear from his description of the « ruinis,., flncri- 

 dUsimis^ scirpUis in rcunulos tcncrrinios flagrHiforfnes 

 con f'f'rvoifloos spars} folios dissoltitisD^ which relates to the 

 attenuated form of that species, and is not applicable to 

 the axillary, caducous ramuli of P.elrfjnns. And moreover 

 one of the plants he cites, vi/.. that from near Bagneres-de- 

 Luchon^ is without any doubt P. M idler ianurn^ and it is 



