353 
Therefore it seems likely that these plants are, as Sullivant 
supposed (Icon. Musc. 24) immature specimens of B. Sullivanti 
Aust. (B. flexuosa Sull.), but they might be B. curviseta L. J., 
which also has a flexuose seta, and subpapillose leaves, and with- 
out the mature capsule and spores it will be impossible to refer 
either of these names to BZ. Beyrichiana Mill. as synonyms, for 
we should be forfeiting a certainty for an uncertainty, therefore it 
Seems best to drop B. Beyrichiana from the list of Bruchias, espe- 
cially as its synonymy is already in a sad state of confusion. . 
2. Brucuta SuLzivanti Austin. 
Bruchia Sullivanti Aust. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, 6: 143 (1877). 
Bruchia flexuosa Sull. Icon. Muse. t. 1? (1864). 
Bruchia flexuosa, of Sullivant’s Icones, was believed by Austin 
to be a mixed species, composed of the true B. flexuosa and B, 
Sullivanti Austin, to which he referred the plate in the Icones, but 
not the description. 
Bruchia flexuosa Sulliv. Icones (excl. descript.), 2 23; Aust. 
Musc. Appalach, No. 56; haud Schwegr. 
“Statura facieque Br. flexuosa, sed inflorescentia paroica foliis subpapillosis, etc., 
Statim dignoscitur.” 
“Capsule concolorous, the collum much constricted in drying, pale, yellow, be- 
Coming fuscous, Spores minute (about zho-shy (Of an inch in diameter), yellow, 
°paque, papillose, Leaves mostly longer than the pedicel (often over-topping the cap- 
€), More or less papillose above (often very obscurely so), nearly OF -QUME SURE: 
curs on damp ground, from New England to Florida and Louisiana.” 
\ 
Such is the description given by Austin, and the localities 
Cited below are too general to indicate what he considered the 
type of his new species, and his Musci Appalachiani (1870) were 
‘sued before the publication of this species. Number 56 of his 
€xSiccate, however, may be considered to be B. Su/hvantt, as 
shown by Specimens in his herbarium, from Closter, the locality 
Siven for No.56, These specimens are labeled “« Bruchia flexuosa,” 
‘ollected in 1862 near Closter,” and below is written “ Br. Sulli- 
vant.” (The first quotation marks are his, and evidently refer to 
his previous naming of the specimens.) : : 
No. 56 in our herbarium was compared with the type from 
Geneva, and they show the same differences that Sullivant’s spec-- z 
_'Mens do, the longer more flexuose seta, more slender capsule, 
