KANTIA 186 
conceived by Kaalaas to be peculiar to Kantia trichomanis. It should, 
perhaps, be remarked that in European, as in American, specimens 
of Kantia trichomanis, we have as yet been unable to discover anther- 
idia іп the axils of the 9 bracts—doubtless due to the fact that most 
of the European specimens of Kantia trichomanis accessible to us are 
in an unfavorable condition for the demonstration of antheridia. 
To what extent paroicous inflorescence prevails in the European 
plants and in how far and how constantly it may be associated 
with other characters are matters which we hope will soon be ex- 
haustively investigated by European hepaticologists. Inasmuch 
as Linnaeus’ specimen of Mnium trichomanis, if he ever had one, 
is not preserved, it would appear that the only way of interpreting 
the diagnosis, “ Mnium foliis distichis integerrimis” is by calling to 
our assistance the only synonym that he quotes, viz.: “Мит 
trichomanis facie, foliolis integris. Dill. musc. 236. 2. 31. f. 5." 
This Dillenian plant Lindberg has declared * to Бе“ Kantia caly- 
регеа (Dood.; Radd.) Lindb. saccifera.—Haec species est autoica, 
К. trichomanis (L.) Lindb. tamen paroica." Оп this showing it 
seems a little strange that Lindberg should not have pinned the 
name “ ¢richomants Сыз” down to Ше autoicous form and given 
his paroicous species a new name. It is, however, to be noted 
that this determination is out of harmony in one or two particulars 
with his earlier determinations of the plants preserved in the Dil- 
lenian herbarium, for he once wrote :+ “ Secundum specimina, in 
herbario ejus nunc asservata, Mnium Dillen. Hist. musc. tab. 31, 
figg. et s et 6 ad X. trichomanis а 2 ззат [afterwards К. calypogeia 
(Raddi) Lindb.] pertinent! Sed (fig. 5) caespes componitur et ab 
hac forma (dioica), 2 et sacculos juveniles gerente, et ab intermixta 
К. arguta, ster. et сош ега |' Опе will observe that the sacci- 
ferous plant is here declared to be dioicous! Whether the determ- 
ination of three years later was a rectification based upon a reéxami- 
nation of the Dillenian specimen we are not informed. But 
Whether autoicous or dioicous, it certainly appears quite unjustifiable 
to limit the name “ ¢richomanis”’ to an exclusively paroicous form. 
Er RF La IE NCC PR 
· * Hep. Utveck. 32. 1877. 
T Not. Sallsk. pro Fauna et Flora Fenn, Fórhandl. 13: 364. 1874 
