—71— 



calling it S. magellanicum Bridel. Limpricht got his diagnostic characters from 

 the leaf-section, noting that the chlorophyll cells were central and quite in- 

 cluded by the hyaline ones, which is its most conspicuous feature. For its 

 other characters we must turn again to Russow.^ The pigmentation, a clear 

 purplish red, is unique for Inophloea, but the plants may be green or even brown- 

 ish. The cortical cells of stem show fibrils and one or two good si ed pores per 

 cell. The stem leaves are very long and narrow for Inophloea, often twice as 

 long as wide, and while normally without fibrils have their hyaline cells prac- 

 tically never divided. The branch leaves are usually short in comparison 

 with width, often nearly orbicular, their hyaline cells are small and narrow, 

 especially as compared with those of the last species, with fewer thin fibril- 

 bands. The pores on their outer surface are conspicuous because the cell-walls 

 are here not at all or only slightly convex. In section this lack of convexity 

 of walls of hyaline cells on either surface is striking, giving with the small eld 

 liptical included chlorophyll cells an unmistakable clue to the plant's identity. 

 Unfortunately this character is somewhat variable, as Russow recognized an- 

 Schliephacke had already noted,^ so that mutually approaching forms of this 

 species and S. palustre have caused a deal of trouble.^ This trouble has been 

 increased rather than diminished by the attempt to intercalate a species between 

 the two. The attempt finds its present expression in Warnstorf's 5. suhhicolor 

 Hampe, the stumbling-block of anyone who seriously attempts to secure an 

 understanding of this group of Sphagnum. Hampe seems not to have foreseen 

 just what the characters of his species would prove to be and the trouble begins 

 in 1887 with Russow's S. palustre subsp. intermedium,^ which remained a nomen 

 nudum until Warnstorf^ made it a variety of 5. papillosum, having in mind the 

 forms of the latter species with reduced or rather entirely lacking papillae. Rus- 

 sow showed in 1894^ that his plant was not immediately related to S. papillosum 

 and characterized it at length as S. intermedium Russow. A previously exist- 

 ing S. intermedium Hoffmann rendered the name objectionable, so in 1896 Jen- 

 sen^ rechristened it S. centrale Jensen. Limpricht in 1901^ suggested the iden- 

 tity of S. suhhicolor Hampe, 1880 with such forms and this last name has ac- 

 cordingly since been used by Warnstorf. Limpricht himself took little stock 

 in the species, speaking of it as a second or third class one, which is. I take it, 

 equivalent to none at all. He also speaks of it as being a conglomerate of aber- 



^ S. meridense belongs to the group A cutifolia ! 



2 Die Torfmoose der thiiringischen Flora lof. 1882. 



^ C/. especially Dusen, Om Sphagnaceernas Utbredning 10. 1887; also Russow, Zur Ana- 

 tomie der Torfmoose 32. 1887. 



^ Uber den gegenwiirtigen Stand seiner Studien 312. 1887. 

 ^ Hedwigia 30: 160. 1891. 

 6L. c. 108 ff. 



Bihang till kgl. sv. Akad. Handl, 21. Ill: No. 10: 34. 

 ^ Kryptogamenflora, Laubmoose 3: 6o5f. C/. C. Jensen, Musci Asiae borealis, 3 : 6. 1909. 

 Jensen takes it that Limpricht had not seen Hampe's specimen. I do not know that there is 

 any reason to distrust Braithwaite's identification of 5. subbicolor with 5. papillosum (Journal of 

 Botany 19: 116. 1881). He stated he had received an authentic specimen from Rehmann. 



