— 35 — 



EXPLANATION OF PLATE I 

 Photographs of Tortula pagorum (Milde) DeNot., by A. T. Beals 



Fig. I. Edge of leaf of plant from Harpers Ferry including part of costa. Note cells at left show- 

 ing two papillae on each in profile. Magnification about 600 diameters. 



Fig. 2. Leaf of Harpers Ferry plant. Cells at base hyaline and longer than wide; those above 

 smaller, rounded, densely chlorophyllose and papillose. Edges slightly wavy by projecting 

 cells. Magnification about 82 diameters. 



Fig. 3. Edge of leaf from plant collected in Italy by E. Corti. Magnification about 450 diameters. 



Fig. 4. Leaves and brood bodies from Italian plant. Magnification about 50 diameters. 



BARTRAMIOPSIS LESCURII 



John M, Holzinger 



During the war I distributed Bartramiopsis Lescurii (James) Kindb., Rev. 

 bryol., 1894, p. 35, Atrichiim Lescurii James, coll. et det. T. C. Frye, July 26, 

 1913- 



Mr. Kindberg published his characterization of the genus Bartramiopsis 

 in Rev. bry., 1894, P- 33- O^i page 35 he described what he considered Atrichum 

 Lescurii James, evidently constructing his genus for the reception of the plant 

 described by James. Cardot and Theriot, in Proc. Wash. Acad, of Sci., July 31, 

 1902, pp. 325-6, pi. XXI, figs. 2 a- 1, contend that he made his description from 

 sterile specimens collected in Japan. I cannot- find their source of information 

 on this point. But, whatever the facts are here, there is internal evidence that 

 Kindberg's description is a composite. At the end of his description of six lines 

 he writes "Lesq. & James"; a little over four lines are not in quotation marks, 

 when a comparison of the descriptions shows that Kindberg really did quote 

 these lines, with slight changes and an important omission. Then he writes 

 in quotation marks: "capsule erect, short, cylindric ovate, constricted below 

 the mouth; pedicel short." The corresponding part of the description in Lesq. 

 & James' Manual reads: "capsule erect, cylindric-ovate, short, enlarged at the 

 orifice and turbinate when empty; pedicel short and thick." Whence that "con- 

 stricted below the mouth?" 



Kindberg here evidently has some related plant before him: was it a Lyellia? 

 See Engler & Prantl, figs, on p. 678, where both the entire plants and micro- 

 scopic characters of Lyellia crispa and Bartramiopsis Lescurii are reproduced 

 from E. S. Salmon's article in the Journal of Botany, 1902, p. 341. 



James describes the cells of the lamina as "nearly round, obscure." He 

 failed to find that they appeared "obscure" because bistratose. This is one 

 of the essential because generic characters of the plant: James indicated it, 

 accidentally; but Kindberg quite omitted it, p. 35, as he also failed to mention 

 another striking character, the few long cilia at the base of the lamina. 



Cardot and Theriot had reason for stepping in. They made their own 

 description, which is scrupulously correct and sufficient, accepted Kindberg's 

 generic name, and ushered the plant described by James, evidently the same 



