28 INDEX BRYOLOGICUS. 



arrangement is strictly alphabetical ; hence the admission of sub- 

 genera, however desirable in the case of big and difdcult genera as 

 Bnjuni, &c., is impossible. The subgenera are, however, dealt with 

 by the method of cross-reference. As instances of the fulness of 

 the specific synonymy may be cited Amldi/strtfinin ripariiun and 

 Barbula umjidculata, each of which, Avith its varieties, occupies a 

 page and a half ; and at least eight other species cover a page 

 apiece. As to genera, the largest treated in the present part are 

 Bryum and Barbula, which fill 67 and 44 pages respectively, the 

 former with 560 species, the latter with 394. In Brywii is included 

 Anomohri/uin, but not Rhndobyi/iwi . Jaeger and Sauerbeck indicated 

 308 species of Bnjum (exclusive of Rhodobnjwu). Hence the number 

 of species in the genus has increased by upwards of 80 per cent. 

 The rate of increase is not so high in other cases; e.g., it is about 

 50 per cent, in Barbula, Brachytheciu)ii, and Cawpylopus. Caiit/n/- 

 lopus contains 349 species ; Brachythccium 173. In all, 82 admitted 

 genera are included in Part i., which ends in Diciwmon. The 

 number of species is 2758. 



The nomenclature is based upon that which was projected by 

 Schimper in the BryoJogia, and is practically the same as that of 

 Jaeger and Sauerbeck. Eunniug like a minor plot through the 

 present volume may be traced portions of an inedited monograph 

 of the Cryphaacea; by Paris and W. P. Schimper. Imported from 

 it are two new genera — (Jyptodon and I)tndrocrypha;a. Campylopodium 

 Paris, a third new genus, represents a section of Angstroenda in 

 C. Mueller's Synopsis. The two following genera at first sight 

 appear to be new. " Decodon C. M. MSS." ought to bear the 

 reference. Act. Soc. Sci. Fenn. xix. (1893), n. 5, p. 20; and the 

 reference of its first species is incorrect. It is a genus of Erpodiacea. 

 And " Brothera G. M. MSS." was, though General Paris omits to 

 say so, previously published in Kindberg's Enumeratio (1891, p. 105). 

 In it is placed that species of unsettled affinity — Campylopus Leanus 

 Sulliv. A change of name to be noted is that from Solinsia to 

 Braunfelsia, the former name having been previously taken up for a 

 genus of Tdiacecc. ^ 



Objection must be made to such spelling as Angstromia. It is 

 not Latin, nor was it so spelt originally. In vol. i. of the Bryologia 

 J'Airupcca it figures in the text as Angstroenda ; so too in the 

 Corollarium and the index to the whole work. The variation 

 Angstromia appears on tab. 94, and in the Conspectus (vol. i. p. viii). 

 Similar variations of reading occur in Schimper's Synopsis, edd. i. 

 et ii., and in C. Mueller's Synopsis. A Swede would latinise the 

 name thus : Aongstroemia. But it is our duty to follow t!ie original 

 text. Botanists ought to respect the laws of etymology; but let' 

 them not employ them for the disturbance of botanical landmarks. 

 Again, I do not believe for an instant tliat ^^ Andreda" is correct. 

 I have not been able to consult the original reference {Hann. Mag. 

 1778, p. 1601); but I see that Ehrhart, when repubUshing his 

 description of the genus in 1787 {IJeitrcige zur Naturkunde, p. 15), 

 wrote "Andresea." Again, Anacolia is copied from Schimper's 

 Sy7iopsis, ed. ii,; but in ed. i. the spelling is Anacolium, Again, 



