281 



MISCELLANEA BRYOLOGICA.— VIIL 

 Br H. N. Dixox, M.A., F.L.S. 



(Continued from Journ. Bot. 1921, p. 139.) 

 MlCROTKAMNlUM Mitt. (18G9). 



Much ink has been spilled over this name. Henning-s in 19()2 

 proposed to substitute for it the name Mittenothamniumy on the 

 ground that Mitten's name had alread}^ been pre-occupied in 1S4G by 

 Naegeli for a genus of alga?. In IdOI) Fleischer deprecated the 

 creation of a new name, on the ground that Hampe had already 

 founded Stereo-Hypnum, a Section of ITypnum, for the species 

 placed by Mitten and others under Microthamnium. This was 

 adopted by Brotherus (Engl. & Prantl, PHanzenfam., Musci, ii. 

 1286). Cardot (Rev. Bryol. 1913, p. 20), following also Hagen 

 (Kemarques sur la nomenclature des Mousses, in K. Norske Vidensk. 

 Selsk. Skrift. 1910, no. 3, p. 12), restores Hennings's name on the 

 ground that Stereo-Hypnum was not validly published as a generic 

 name, and gives a page of new combinations required by this change. 

 Fleischer in Nova Guinea, vol. xii., Bot. livr. 2, p. 125 (1914), starts 

 a new hare. He states that the generic name Rliizo-IIyj)num Hampe 

 must be adopted in the place of Stereo-Hypnum Fleisch. and Mit- 

 tenothamninm Hennings, stating that Hampe's name was validly 

 published according to all the laws of nomenclature; "daer(?. ^. 

 Hampe) in Symboke, loc. cit. p. 269, bereits 1877 nach alien Regeln 

 der Nomenklaturgesetze giltig publizirt ist und also die Prioritaet 

 hat ! " Now " Hampe, loc. cit.'''' lands us nowhere, except on more 

 examples of " Hampe, 1. c." But the reference is to the Symholce ad 

 Fl. Brasilice centralis in Yid. Meddel. fra den naturh. Foren. 

 Copenhagen, 1877, p. 269, where we find : — 



91. Uhizo-Hypnum Versipoma, n. sp., Microthamnium Mitt., 

 followed by a full specific description ; tlien 



lihizo-Hypnum caniptorhynclnim Hpe., 



i. e. a citation of a previous species under the same generic name. 



There is no generic description, no suggestion of "gen. nov., " 

 no citation of species intended to be included ; while the succeeding 

 citation of a combination under the same generic name surely con- 

 tradicts the idea that Hampe had the idea of founding a new genus. 

 If he had so intended, he would probably, and should certainly, have 

 adopted Mitten's name, which he cites as synonymous. (It will 

 hardly be suggested that he foresaw Hennings's objection to Micro- 

 thamnium !) 



The fact is that Hampe never troubled himself with meticulous 

 distinctions between genera and subgenera when forming his binomials. 

 A glance at the Symholce (e. g., o;:?. cit. 1870, p. 284) shows that he 

 distinctly states there that the genus is Hypnum ; under that he 

 gives various subgenera or sections, but is entirely careless whether 

 he uses these or the generic Hypnum, or even some other author's 

 generic name, for the binomial ! Thus in this one paper he has : — 



JoUK^sML OF BOTAXT. — YOL. 60. [OcTOBEE, 1922.] U 



