SHORT NOTES. 23 



temporary confusion for the sake of any theory, or for the sake of a 

 future peace that may never come. 



In our consideration of this matter we have pointed out a few 

 reasons why we could not follow the Rochester Code. It would be 

 easy to be more specific, and give others, did we feel that it were 

 incumbent on us to do so. We see no reason, however, why 

 objections should be set out by any one dissatisfied with the Code, 

 when the supporters have thus far been unable to prove that it has 

 any right to exist beyond their own will. Let them attempt to 

 prove their case, and their argument will be impartially heard by all 

 interested in this matter of botanical nomenclature. At present 

 they are in default. 



SHORT NOTES. 



Stipules of Blepharostoma trichophyllum. — It is interesting 

 to trace the origin and history of the mistake, noticed by Mr. 

 Farmer [Journ. Bot. 1894, 327), as to the supposed absence of 

 stipules of Blepharostoma trichop/ii/lliun (L.) Dum. Hooker i^Brit. 

 Jung.) describes the leaves as proceeding from every side of the 

 plant, clearly showing he mistook the stipules for leaves ; and in 

 his Synopsis, ip. 7, under section Stipula- huUcb, says: " Wahleub. 

 {Lapp. p. 385) and Mohr [Fl. Crypt. Germ. p. 411) appear to me to 

 have fallen into an error in attributing to it stipules." I have not 

 been able to refer to Wahleub., but in Weber & Mohr [Bot. 2\ischeiib. 

 p. 411 (1807)) we read: "Foliis amphigastriisque (stipule) simili- 

 bus," a fairly accurate description ; this is repeateJ by Schwaegrichen 

 (Prodr. p. 20 (1814)), Weber [Hist. Muse. (1815) ), and Martius 

 [FL Crypt. Erlang. (1817)). Dr. Taylor, in Mackay's Flora Hi- 

 beriiica, p. 65 (1836), describes the stipules as being nearly as large 

 as the leaves, and very like them. Hiibener (Hep. Germ. (1834) ), 

 a most careful and original student, describes the leaves as being 

 placed in three rows, observing that those of the under row have 

 been considered stipules by most authors ; but they cannot be dis- 

 tinguished either by their form or position from the leaves. Gray 

 (Nat. Arr. Brit. PL (1821) ), copying from Hooker, says, " Stipules 0." 

 Ekart [Syn. Jung. Germ. (1834) ), copying descriptions and also 

 drawings from Hooker without any acknowledgment, says the same. 

 In Dumortier's SyU. Jung. Eur. (1831) we first meet with Blepharo- 

 stuina as a section of Jungcrtnannia; in his Recueil (1835) it is pub- 

 lished as a genus, comprising three widely different species, each of 

 whicli are now referred to different genera — Cephalozia connicens 

 (Dicks.), Lepidozia setacea (Web.), and Blepharostoma trichuphgUum 

 (L.) ; in his latest work, Hep. Eur. (1874), this unnatural arrange- 

 ment is adhered to. Dumortier, who had only a superficial know- 

 ledge of the HepaticcB, founded his genera principally on the perianth ; 

 and it is easy to see, on looking at the three plates of Hooker (Brit. 

 Jung, 7, 8, & 15), that he grouped them together because each had 

 a ciliated perianth. Dr. Cooke [Handbook of Brit. Hep.), in copying 

 from Dumortier, has fallen into the same mistake in describing Ij, 



