216 Haynes: The genus Sphaerocarpos 



Italy, for excellent specimens from Sardinia and various Italian sta- 

 tions. One of the last mentioned, from Florence, the home of the 

 illustrious Micheli, the author of the name Sphaerocarpos and the 

 first botanist to figure and describe one of the species of this genus, 

 has been drawn upon to furnish illustrations of the generic type 

 species. Mr. William E. Nicholson, of Lewes, Sussex, England, 

 has kindly communicated an English specimen of the best known 

 European species. In addition to those already named, one hun- 

 dred and nine specimens have been examined in the following 

 herbaria : that of the New York Botanical Garden (including those 

 of L. M. Underwood and William Mitten), that of the Sullivant 

 Moss Society, and that of the writer (including that of M. A. 



Howe). 



Miss Lucy Maclntyre and Miss Julia T. Emerson have 

 obligingly aided in making certain translations. 



One of the results of this study is to exclude 5. Sphaerocarpos 

 (S. terrestns and S. Michelii of authors) from America, as no 

 American specimen has been seen which seems to conform strictly 

 to the characters of this European and possibly North African 

 species. On the other hand, Sphaerocarpos texanus {S. cali- 

 fornicus of authors) appears to have a very wide distribution, speci- 

 mens from South America, Europe, and Mediterranean Africa 

 being indistinguishable from those of the southern and western 

 United States. 



Stephani * gives the following seven species as belonging to 

 the genus Sphaerocarpos : S. tcrrestris (Mich.) Smith, S. Domicilii 

 Aust., 5. texanus Aust., 5. Berteroi Mont., S. calif ornicus Aust., 

 5. cristatus Howe, and 5. famesii Aust. The last mentioned, 

 Stephani states, was known to him by name only, a specimen 

 being nowhere preserved, though, he adds, it was collected in 

 Mexico. As no reference to such a species has been found in 

 literature, and as Herr Stephani has been unable to give us any 

 clue as to the place of origin of the name, it has been dropped 

 from the list. Sphaerocarpos texanus appears to be indistinguish- 

 able from 5. calif ornicus, and, as 5. texanus was published two years 

 earlier, that name has been adopted. On somewhat similar 

 grounds, though in this case the two names were based on speci- 



* Bull. Herb. Boiss. 7 : 656, 657. 1899. 



