20 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
pees 
B ars oe stan aurea Broth., in ‘egiar age as and leaf- 
structure, appears to agree exactly with form { B. Siebert 
wath; like B. =f SHEN ee a variable plant). The tenis, however, 
ues with this species. 
Two Sourn Arrican Species oF MicroTHAMNIUM.* 
_ Paris (Ind. ed. ii.) has the following :— 
(Hpe.) C. M.in Hedwig. 1899, p. 144. 
Chryso-Hypnum eygnicollum Hpe. in Bot. Zeit. 1870. 
Eurhynchium cavifolium Rehm. M. Afr. austr. n. 368; Paris 
Ind. p. 441 (1895). 
This entry contains more than one error. In the first place, 
Chryso-hypnum cygnicollum was not published by Hampe, op. ¢ cut. 
The name is a herbarium one only. Secondly, Eurhynchiwm 
cavifolium Rehm. M. Afr. austr.n. 368 i is not identical with Hampe’s 
C. cygnicollum 
Some time back Mr. Horace A. Wager sent me a te 
gathered by him in nem which led to my examining these 
Mie 
£. cavifolium, but on pee aring Hampe’s specimen of C. cygni- 
in #. canyon highly pro iter at ne k of leaf, while in 
Hampe’s t they are very sparsely and indistinctly papillose, 
so as to bs pases smooth ; and there are other differences. 
* Cardot, in Rev. Bryol. 1913, p. 20, has given reasons for rejecting _ 
tic dikcmniane Mitt. and Hisoshaunta um Ham 
Mittenothamnium Hennings; and has given a long list of new ec 
based on this conclusion. dince then, however, “Fleischer in Nova Guinea, 
vol. xii. Botanique Livr. 2, p. 125) has pointed out that Sear Soe Ham 
pe 
has priority over both these names, and is in bie the Rules of 
Nomenclature. In view of the uncertainty of the case, and the possible excep- 
tion to be ein the list of ‘‘ Nomina conservanda,” now, unhappily sus- 
pended, I have temporarily used the commonly accepted generic name. 
