THE BRYOLOGIST 



Vol. XVI March 19 13 No. 2 



THE ANNULUS OF TORTELLA CAESPITOSA (SGHWAEGR.) LIMPR. 



E. J. Hill 



Works on bryology show much discrepancy, or even diversity, of statement 

 regarding an annul' is in Tortella caespitosa (Schwaegr.) Limpr. (Barbula caes- 

 pitosa Schwaegr). My attention was called to this on finding in our dune re- 

 gion last July a moss identical in all respects with this quite common species 

 except that it had a well defined annulus of 1-2 rows of cells. The Manual of 

 Lesquereux and James, and the Musci of SuUivant in the second edition of 

 Gray's Manual, both say, "annulus none." Nothing is said about the annulus 

 in the descriptions of the three species of Tortella given in Grout's Mosses with 

 Hand-lens and Microscope. Plate 32, reproduced from the "Bryologia Eu- 

 ropea" to illustrate the species, does not show any in the figures of the peri- 

 stome. Schimper, one of the authors of this work, says of B. caespitosa in his 

 "Synopsis Mus. Europ. " ^'annulus nullus. " On failing to identify the moss with 

 any other Tortella or Barbula that might have an annulus the description of 

 T. caespitosa in Limpricht's Laubmoose was consulted. In this it is stated, 

 that there is an annulus of three or four rows of cells detaching by fragments. 

 This was the behavior in the moss at hand, though I did not find more than 

 two series of cells in any peristome examined. Roth (Die Europ. Laubmoose) 

 says 2 or 3 rows, and more extended examination might have covered this, 

 since the rows of cells in the annulus of many mosses is quite variable. But 

 as both of these authors state, it comes off in pieces. I did not find any part 

 in place after detaching the operculum Other authorities consulted, who men- 

 tion the annulus at all, say there is none or leave it to be thus inferred. Husnot 

 (Muscologia Gallica) says, "pas d'anneau," Boulay (Muscinees de la France) 

 does not give it in his description of Barbula caespitosa, but states that the peri- 

 stome of this is like that of B. tortuosa Web. and Mohr, which is described as 

 without an annulus. 



Statements so directly opposite are not a little disconcerting, especially 

 when made by leading bryologists. The species as first described and since 

 given by the majority of authors would seem to have been without an annulus, 

 or if such a character was sought and yet was present it was overlooked. The 

 statement that it has none implies that examinations have been made for this 

 purpose. It may mean that the moss varies in this respect from a peristome 

 without an annulus to one that has 1-4 rows of cells. 



It seems to be universally conceded that the moss as found in Europe, on 

 which the descriptions of Limpricht and Roth are based, is the same as that 

 from North America. It was described first by Schwaegrichen in 181 1 from 

 specimens collected by Muhlenberg in Pennsylvania. Mosses found in Sar- 



The January number of The Bryologist was published Jan. 20th. 



