THE BRYOLOGIST 



Vol. XV September 1912 No. 5 



NOTES ON NORTH AMERICAN SPHAGNUM, IH 



A. LeRoy Andrews 

 The Subgenus Inophloea Russow (concluded) 

 5. erythrocalyx' collected by Underwood in the vicinity of Cinchona in Jamaica, 

 one of which (no. 160) was named by Warnstorf 5. medium Limpr. and evidently 

 forms the basis of Warnstorf's assignment of this species to Jamaica,^ but 5. 

 medium Limpr. is not found in the West Indies. The second (no. A) Warn- 

 storf named S. mefidense var. versicolor^ and still refers to this species.^ 



With these reductions and corrections the distribution of S. erythrocalyx is 

 largely indicated. Its most northerly stations are in New Jersey, where it was 

 collected by D. C. Eaton at Quaker Bridge and Pleasant Mills and distributed 

 in Sphagna boreali-americana exsiccata (Eaton & Faxon) as nos 171 and 172. 

 From there southward it is found along our Atlantic and Gulf coasts to Lou- 

 isiana and throughout the West Indies, where it is the prevailing species of 

 Inophloea, in fact the only one yet found except 5". portoricense and S. imbricatum. 

 The locality in British Honduras (leg. F. M. Hunt, 1910) is the only one from 

 Mexico and Central America and similarly in South America it seems primarily 

 a species of the eastern part of the continent, being remarkably abundant in 

 Brazil. Within the range indicated it may be sought in relatively small, com- 

 pact plants with short branches, showing, if pigmented, a reddish or purplish 

 brown color, which may even be quite dark. The plants are dioicous and rarely 

 found with fruit. 



7. Sphagnum magellanicum Bridel, 1798. In restoring this venerable and 

 eminently fit name I realize that I stamp myself as a "fanatique de priorite, 

 but the discovery by Camus of the identity of Bridel's species seems to me a 

 great gain in view of the considerable synonymy of the species prior to Lim- 

 pricht's rediscovery of it and of the difficulties naturally associated with old 

 names, which can not always be solved so simply. Nor can I see that Lim- 

 pricht's credit for having "appreciated" this species^ is one wl|it diminished by 



1 Zur Kenntnis der Subsecundum-und Cymbifoliuragruppe i23ff. 1894. 

 - L. c. III. 1911. 

 L. c. 489. 1911. 



C/. Cardot, Repertoire sphagnologique 327. 1896. The re-echo of Cardot's anathema by 

 "Warnstorf (Kryptogamenfiora der Mark Brandenburg I: 338. 1903.) is interesting in view 

 e. g., of Warnstorf's acceptance just four pages before (334) of S. subbicolor Hampe, 1880, instead 

 of 5. centrale Jensen, 1896. I had supposed that priority was a generally accepted nomenclatorial 

 principle. If it be necessary that a first description furnish the ultimately distinctive character 

 of a species one can not but wonder what species of mosses would retain their names, and who is 

 to pass judgment as to the adequacy of a description. Compare also the very pertinent remarks 

 ■of Lindberg (Europas och Nord Amerikas Hvitmossor, p. 41 f.) a propos of 5. compaclum. 

 = Bot. Centralbl. 7 : 313. 1881. 



The July Bryologist was issued July 16, 1912. 



