242 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [OCTOBER 
it is so doubtful as an Amblystegium that I have omitted it. 
A. curvipes Bru. & Sch., so far as N. American plants are con- 
cerned, must be referred to A. kochii; likewise all of the N. 
American specimens of A. hygrophilum Sch. that I have seen 
are referable either to Hyp. chrysophyllum or to H. radicale P. B. 
Some European specimens under the name A. hygrophilum must 
also be referred to Beauvois’ plant, which now proves from 
the type ig le to be identical with Austin’s Hyp. bergenense = 
AI, chry lum, var. tenellum of the L. & J. Manual. These 
plants are “both decidedly nearer Campylium than Amblyste- 
gium, and I therefore place them there under Beauvois’ old 
name. I am of the opinion that A. hygrophilum, and possibly 
A. porphyrrhizum as well, must be put with H. radicale. How- 
ever, all the material of A. porphyrrhizum that 1 have had an 
opportunity to examine is only a form of A. varium. A. ortho- 
cladon P. B., from his type material, is A. fuviatile Sw. The dis- 
appearance of A. orthocladon from the list of species of Ambly- 
stegium removes one of the worst tangles in the genus. IIlustra- 
tions and descriptions of Beauvois’ types will appear elsewhere 
at a later date. 
NOMENCLATURE. 
For nomenclature I have gone baek only to Hedwig’s Mus- 
corum Frondosorum. 1 do this because of a quite general disposi- 
tion to make this work the starting point for the nomenclature 
of the Musci. If the Species Plantarum of Linnaeus is to be 
considered the datum line for all plants, then the name of 
Linnaeus should take the place of the name in parenthesis after 
A. serpens and A. riparium. In the list of works cited in the 
bibliography, I have included but three prior to the date of Mus- 
corum Frondosorum 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. 
I hope this paper may be the means of clearing up some, at 
least, of the difficulties attending the study of this genus eee 
by bryologists. Aside from my own efforts, whatever of value it 
SCR ay 2 ae 
