SAGINA SAGINOIDES 59 



both in his genus Spergella, a genus, I may add, which is rightly 

 reduced to Sagina by all modern botanists. The disputed plant 

 was there named Spergella saginoules, its larger ally Spergella 

 macrocarpa. I do not detect the slightest confusion here. 

 Eeichenbach, it seems to me, chose to regard the smaller of the 

 two plants as the Linnaean type of the species ; and the larger 

 plant he separated from it as a distinct species. The only differ- 

 ence here between Eeichenbach and some other botanists is that 

 Eeichenbach regarded the smaller plant as the Linnaean type, 

 and others have so regarded the larger plant. There is nothing 

 in the original Linnaean description to enable anyone to decide 

 which of the two plants is really the Linnaean type : the specimen 

 in the Linneean herbarium, whilst certainly belonging to the 

 species S. sagmo'idcs as I understand it, is too young and too 

 incomplete for me to state to which of the two forms it should be 

 referred ; and therefore it seems to be essentially a case where the 

 choice of the first author who separated the plants is binding. 

 Some authors later than Eeichenbach have perhaps confused the 

 issue by assuming that Spergella macrocarpa Eeichenb. w^as a 

 larger plant than any described form of Sagina sagino'ides ; and 

 perhaps this supposititious plant is the var. macrocarpa or the 

 Sagina macrocarpa of some botanists. This, however, does not 

 apply to all botanists who have taken up Eeichenbach's names ; 

 and even if it did, it would not invahdate Eeichenbach's un- 

 equivocal view of the case. Beck (Fl. Nied. Ost. 358, 1890) is 

 perfectly clear about the matter, for his var. Jiiacrocarpa is 

 definitely Spergella macrocarpa Eeichenb., and his var. typica is, 

 by description, Spergella sagino'ides Eeichenb. In thus reducing 

 Eeichenbach's two species to varietal rank, Beck has in my 

 judgment correctly assessed the relationship of the two forms. 



Brilgger (in Jahresber. Naturf. Granbiind, xxiii.-xxiv. 71, 1881) 

 has recorded a plant from the Bernina district of Switzerland as 

 " Sagina saxatilis xprocumbens," adding in brackets after a short 

 description and note " (S. media Brgg.)." The description given by 

 Briigger is not a very satisfactory one ; and the only specimen so 

 named in Briigger's herbarium at Chur is, as stated by Lindman 

 {op. cit.), neither the disputed Sagina nor any other form of S. sagi- 

 no'ides. Lindman's words (p. 273) are: — "Dr. Thellung has noted 

 on the label [of Briigger's plant] that it is a common [form of] 

 S. procumhens with some pentamerous flowers," and adds that he, 

 Lindman, finds Thellung's identification to be "quite correct." 

 However, from the evidence of unnamed specimens among Briig- 

 ger's plants named S. procumhens, Lindman beheves (p. 274) that 

 " there is in Briigger's herbarium quite sufiicient material of a 

 ' Sagina media ' " ; and he accordingly adopts Briigger's name for 

 the disputed Sagina. This name, I think, should be cited as 

 " X S. media Briigger emend. Lindman." 



Wohlfarth (in Koch's Syn. ed. 3, i. 268, 1892) divides Sagina 

 sagino'ides (sub nom. S. linncBV') into {a) var. micrantha and {h) 



* The point of view which I adopt with regard to the use of small letters 

 for trivial names was stated in this Journal for 1913, p. 21. 



F 2 



