348 
The calyptra is not preserved with the type, and the one fig- 
ured (Schwegr. Suppl. 2: 1, 4 oz, fig. 8) seems to belong with 
Fig. 3 to a Pleuridium rather than a Bruchia. It is described in 
the text 
« Calyptra campanulata, angusta, latere fissa, vix dimidio minor quam capsula.” 
It is probable that there was a mixture in the original speci- 
men. It should be noted, in support of this view, that the base of 
the capsule in fig. 3 is abrupt, while in figs. 2 and 7 it has a 
distinct neck; also that it protrudes laterally and the leaves far 
overtop it in fig. 3, while in fig. 2 it is almost erect on a slightly 
curved seta and the leaves reach to its base or only a little beyond 
it, as in the specimens preserved. 
Two other statements in the description contradict each other, 
and may be verified by the figures and the specimens: 
*«‘Caules lineas duas ad quartor alti; pedicellus lineas tres vel quartor emetiens.” 
The stems are not higher than 5 mm. (4 lines would be 8 mm.) 
in the specimens, and the pedicels are only 2 mm. long (not 6-8 
or 3-4 lines). 
BrucuiA BREVICOLLIS L. & J. Man. 47 (1884). 
Bruchia Beyrichiana Sull. Icon. Musc. Suppl. 25, 4 £5 (1874)» 
not Hpe. 
In Lesquereux and James’ Manual, on page 47, the statement 
is made that table 15 of Sullivant’s Icones Supplement is partly 
drawn from specimens of B. drevicollis L. & J. collected by Rave 
nel, on the Santee Canal, South Carolina. Hence it became 
necessary to see Sullivant’s specimens. Through the kindness of 
Dr. Robinson and Mr. Fernald these were sent tome, and I found 
in the cover all the specimens cited by Sullivant (Icones Suppl. Pe 
25), including a small portion of the type of Sporledera Beyrichiané 
Hampe, collected by Beyrich, near Baltimore, 1833, and sent to 
Sullivant by Hampe in 1860. Below the packet Sullivant 
written : is 
“As I supposed, Sporleder a) Beyrichiana Hampe ! 
an immature aaa of F sets Ce ea These specimens 
belong to B. brevipes. Schwegrichen’s figure is founded on ”- 
flexuosa, W.S. S.” 
This is substantially the opinion he published in the lc 
page 24, under B. drevipes ; later he crossed over these i, 
