— 88 — 



could be taken into the field. The improvement of the objectives and the sub- 

 stage illumination did not come till about 1830 and it was not till Schimper's 

 Bryologia Europcea was issued a few years later that many species and even genera, 

 in their modern sense, were recognized. 



Furthermore the word 'Hype'' in the sense in which it is here used, meant 

 and still does mean, to many European bryologists, what they consider to be the 

 typical or most common form of a species found in any given locality; and it was 

 not till the Vienna Congress in 1905 adopted the rule for the ''adoption of the 

 oldest specific name'' that it became evident how imperative it is, to find out what 

 the original specimen was to which the name was applied. A critical comparison 

 of specific descriptions will show that various authors had their "personal point 

 of view" and even now it is difficult to coordinate the descriptions of different 

 text-books on mosses. Types of some of the old species still exist in the Herbaria 

 of Dillenius, Linnaeus, Hedwig, Swartz, Bridel, etc., but unfortunately the impor- 

 tance of keeping type specimens has not always been understood, and it has often 

 happened that even these are mixtures, and the authors have frequently dis- 

 tributed various species under one name! 



Methods of preparing and mounting slides also were still in their infancy 

 up to a very recent date! Karl Muller recommended, and used as a handy 

 method for ready comparison, mica slides made by splitting the plates apart and 

 slipping the object in dry! Sullivant used Canada balsam as a preserving me- 

 dium, which resulted in such dismal failures, as far as delicate structures were 

 concerned, that it is not surprising that very few of his slides were preserved for 

 future generations to study! Even now, the French and English moss-books 

 show very little of the influence of new methods in histological study! Lim- 

 pricht's Laubmoose is the only one that gives details of tlie cross-sections of the 

 stem and the leaf and the measurements of cells and spores. To be sure, some 

 students in various European countries have studied cross-sections of the leaves 

 of Andrecea, Grimmia, Orthotrichum, Leucohryum}, Dicranum? and Fissidens^, 

 and realized their value in taxonomic studies, but it is becoming painfully evident 

 that in many genera of mosses, no accurate knowledge of specific characters can 

 be had without sections of the leaves. 



It is also to be remembered that even before this horrible war began, geo- 

 graphical boundaries, linguistic limitations and racial or political antipathies, 

 have been known to have their influence, even in "Pure Science," and that stu- 

 dents of Botany are human, and prefer ''the line of least resistance," sometimes 

 being unable to make long journeys to verify a fact, or were unwilling to write 

 letters, ask questions or exchange specimens with foreign students. The English 

 Channel and the Atlantic Ocean have served as a scientific as well as a political 

 barrier, and some moss-students have been known to be too busy to answer letters; 

 also others who could write English have preferred to answer their letters in 

 German ! 



1 Cardot, Mem. Soc. Sc. Nat. 37: 84. pi. 1-19. 1900. 



^ Limpricht Laubmoose, 1 : 333-378. 1886. 



3 E. S. Salmon, Ann. Bot. 13: 103-130. pi. 5-7- 1899. 



