—50— 



of keen arguments and excellent judgments found on every page of the book^ 

 which make it most stimulating and helpful. In his discussions he leans to- 

 ward Fleischer more than toward any other contemporary; in fact he honors 

 him with the designation of teacher. He does not suppose for a moment that 

 all his expositions wil be uniformly accepted. But he expresses the fair hope 

 that he has been able to indicate in his fundamental view points right directions 

 for further development of systematic bryology. 



Why he did not follow up his multitude of conclusions with the presenta- 

 tions of a moss system of his own, he explains in the following closing quotation 



"The purpose of setting forth, simultaneously with my expositions, my 

 own closed system of European mosses, I have given up as premature. At 

 several places there would remain gaps; at other places the composition (Zuord- 

 nung) of several groups would have to be set down with question marks. In- 

 stead of setting up a ready made system, in which further investigations might 

 make necessary rearrangements even in the near future, I therefore prefer to 

 leave the entire matter for the present in a state of flux, and meanwhile to seek 

 further light among extra-European mosses." 



John M. Holzinger, Winona, Minn. 



Leopold Loeske: Revision einiger Amblystegien aus der Herbare Lim- 

 pricht. (Ungarischen Botanischen Blaetter. Jahrg. 191 1. No. 8-10. pp. 272- 

 7.) 



The author's studies were mainly confined to the specimens of Amblystegium 

 leptophyllum, A. rigescens, A. tricho podium, and A. Hausmannii, preserved in 

 the Limpricht herbarium at Budapest, but comparisons were made with au- 

 thentic specimens and original collections from the herbaria of Juratzka and 

 Blandow. 



The following conclusions are drawn. The specimen from Travemuende 

 mentioned by Warnstorff in the Kryptogamenflora der Mark Brandenburg as 

 Leptodictyum trichopodium (Schultz) Warnst. is in part A. compactum. A A. 

 trichopodium, Kochii, and curvipes belong to the same group of forms, the first 

 being separable only as a subspecies at most. A. Hausmannii is only a form of 

 A. Leptophyllum, and the latter a small, xerophilous form of A. riparium. There 

 is no difference between A. Juratzkanum and A. radicale (P. B.) Mitt, {sensu 

 Limpr.). The type material of A. rigescens shows this to be a depauperate 

 form of A. serpens. The material representing A. hygrophilum in Limpricht's 

 herbarium seems to contain several different forms, and at present it is im- 

 possible to draw conclusions regarding this species. 



Students of the perplexing subject of the American forms of Amblystegium 

 will find much of interest in this paper, especially in the descriptive notes, Herr 

 Loeske promises further notes as the result of studies now in progress. 



Edward B. Chamberlain. 



