1 



REVUE BKYOLOGTQUE lO 



■t 



probable that he had this plant before him in writing the 

 note on the attenuated forms (" Hf/pno .vu^////simillimi") 

 which closes his descriiition. 



On the other hand, that he had also before him our 

 common British and European plant, P. elegans^ is equally 

 clear, for this reason among others that the description 

 gives the leaves as "•' apice subdenticulalo' " which is 

 only true for P.. elegnns^ not for P. MaUer'unufm. Not 

 only so, but Spruce in his paper on P. Bornn'ianu)ii„ etc. 

 (Journ.-Bot. 1880, p. 259) distinctly slates that liis specimei 

 from Bagneres-de-Bigorre, '' but especially those gathered 

 at Tunbridge Wells, were the materials on whiclj Mr. 

 Midler founded his description of the species, " The 

 Tunbridge Wells plant, like all those from the soulli of 

 England, is P. eJeganSj not P. Mnllerifnntm. 



This being the case, which of the plants is to be taken 

 as the true type of C. Miiller's //. Borrrr'uuiiun ? It would 

 seem most natural to say, that of which the bulk of his 

 material consisted ; tliis was, as shown by Spruce's paper 

 cited above, undoubtedly our (lowland) plant P. elajtDis^ 

 not the alpine P. MiUlerianuni Schp. . 



It may however be claimed thai (he first specimen cited 

 by C. Miiller must be considered the type of his species. 

 This is the Pyrenean plantfrom c( propeBai-ncros-de-Bigorre, 

 ad terrum (g) ». There is I think no reasonable doubt that 

 this too is Ihe P. rloqans, not P. MiUlcrianain, For 

 Spruce in the above paper, at which dale, be it remem- 

 bered, he fully recognised the distinction between the two 

 lauts, clearly states that Lhis specimen from Bagneres-de-. 

 -igorre was the former species, the same plant as our 

 South of England one, y/o/ the same plant as the second 

 one cited by^C. Miiller, from Bagneres-de-Luchon. (That 

 this was, as recognised by Spruce (1. c), undoubtedly 

 P. Mi(lfericunnn^ch^.\s amply confirmed. Not only did 

 the specimen of Spruce's seen by Lindberg and telerred to 

 by him in the note under discussion, belong to that species, 

 but I find the specimen from that locality ni the British 

 Museum to be the same thing, undoubtedly P. Mulln'ith 



nirm Sclip. <? ^i i f 



It uiay be contended that the idenlincatiou of the plant 

 intended by G. Mullcr as the type of his //. liorrcruuunn 

 must bo decided by what was Sprtirr\- mtention, smce 

 Miiller cites it as ^' U, Borrcricuunu Spruce (M^t) In 



ve have Spruce^s express declaration (1. c.) that 

 the true type of the latter (//. Horrrriffnnw) was 

 however both for G. Muller and myself the moss gathered 

 at Tunbridge Wells, as I have already stated. " Ihe luu- 

 bridge Wells plant is the lowland P. elegans. 



this case u 



