of the species. On plate XVIII, figures 1, 3, and 4, 
Weiss illustrates a slender, lax variety called Solmsii. 
However, its reference to Macrostachya infundibuliform- 
is, even as a variety is rather dubious. Certainly the ro- 
bust Macrostachya Thompsonii with its thickened bracts 
is distinct. 
Bischoff” figured a poor specimen from Bronn’s col- 
lection under the name of HMquisetum infundibuliforme. 
It is not referable to Macrostachya infundibuliformis. In 
the collections of the Botanical Museum, there are three 
specimens from Bronn’s collection (number 10432). They 
are the type specimens. 
Their identity is authenticated by the following data 
on Bronn’s original label: 
Equisetum infundibuliforme Bronn et Bischoff 1827 
Steinkohlengebirge, St. Ingbert’s. 
As Weiss” suggested they belong to Cingularia typ- 
ica Weiss. Incidently in a foot-note (loc. cit. p. 93) he 
says ‘‘Das Original soll mit der Bronnschen Sammlung 
nach dem 'Tode des Besitzers nach Amerika gewandert 
sein.’” Bronn’s collection was purchased by Harvard 
University in 1859. 
Brongniart” published a description of Macrostachya 
infundibuliformis under the name of Mquisetum infundi- 
buliforme. He extended Bronn’s concept to include what 
subsequently became known as the ‘‘typical’’ plant. 
Brongniart’s memoirs were widely used, while Bischoff’s 
paper escaped the notice of most paleobotanists. hus 
Brongniart’s L.infundibuliformis is conserved, although 
Bronn’s species has priority. hus the correct designa- 
* Bischoff: Krypt. Gewiichse, p. 52, pl. 6. f. 4. 1828. 
"Weiss: Steink. Calam., 1876. 
“ Brongniart: Hist. Vég. foss., p. 119. pl. 12. f. 14-16. 1828. f. 14 
is a copy of Bronn’s type. 
