371 
legit.” A comparison of his description of B. Schwegrichenti with 
that of B. Hampeana in Lesquereux and James’ Manual shows 
the latter to be a direct translation of the former, and they simply 
followed Jeeger in crediting this species.to North America. We 
have found in the Jeger Herbarium two specimens labelled 2. 
Hampeana, collected in Louisiana, one sent to him by Sicken- 
berger, the other by Count Solms. They are both referable to 2. 
Drummondii Hpe. (B. brevipes Hook. & Wils.), but they are 
labelled «2, Hlampeana Sch.’ This would seem to indicate that 
there is a name of Schimper’s fora North American species which 
is identical with the name of the Chilian species, but we have not 
traced this out, it having no bearing on the name. B. Schwe- 
svichenit, in Hampe’s Herbarium, is also from Chili. It seems 
evident, then, that Jeger was mistaken in crediting this species to 
North America. I have not learned whether there are any speci- 
mens preserved in the Lesquereux Herbarium of this species, but 
Ma footnote in the Manual they say of the specimens from 
Louisiana (Drummond) referred to it, that they differ from B. 
Ravenel « especially in the distinct somewhat long neck of the 
capsule.” It may be that they had specimens of B. Caroline 
Austin, which is closely related to B. Rav neli, and differs in this 
Way also. Sullivant says in the Mosses of the United States, page 
'7 (1856), that B. Ravenelii is « very near the Chilian B. Hampe- 
ana C. Miill.” 
SPORLEDERA Hampe, Linnza, 279 (1837). 
Char. gen. Theca clausa, calyptra grandis mitreeformis vel campanulata integra, 
Sc abitat, Propre Baltimore, Awerice Septentrionalis, socie Phasci subulatt, 
Schreb, legit. Beyrich, Mai 1833.” 
This is the description which follows: 
Muscus flavescens, Phasco subulato simillimis; foliis inferioribus ex basi latiore 
Subulatis nervosis, perichztialibus latioribus et longioribus, complicatis integerrimis 
scundis vel flexuosis, Capsula oblonga erecta pedunculata, calyptra campulata eam 
includente, 
Then he says: « At first I thought it must be Phascum flexu- 
osum of Muhlenberg, but a comparison with Hedwig’s specimens 
'n the herbarium of Prof. Schweegrichen, through the kindness of 
Prof. Kunze, of Leipzig, contradicts this. With Bruchia, this 
Phascaceous moss is not to be united, as it shows an entirely dif- 
ferent structure, also it has a multifid calyptra. Our moss has the 
