— 22 — 



his recent monograph^ reduced it to synonymy with an eadier 5. mexicanum 

 Mitten, 1869. In his identification of these two species Warnstorf is certainly 

 right. But the species in question has two earHer names: S. humile Schimper, 

 1856 and the one I have adopted. The identity of S. humile with our species 

 has already been adequately developed by Cardot,^ who noted that Sullivant's 

 plate and description^ from the type specimen collected by Rugel at Tallahassee, 

 Fla., could not well be anything else than S. Garberi. That a bit of 5. moUe was 

 mixed with the specimen, as is frequently the case with specimens from Florida, 

 is not impossible and is in fact indicated by the fig. 12 as compared with 14, but 

 the correspondence of most of the figure and of the description with the 

 characters of our species shows clearly enough which of the two the author had 

 primarily in mind.* Warnstorf's reduction of 5. humile to synonymy with 5. 

 molle^ rested upon a specimen collected by Lesquereux in Carolina and is conse- 

 quently of no value, as Cardot has noted. I have examined two portions of 

 type material of 5. humile in the Sullivant Herbarium at Harvard University, 

 both received from Schimper, and both are entirely identical with S. Garberi. 

 Warnstorf seems also now to have recognized the facts, but for some reason cites 

 the name, S. humile, merely as a synonym of the later 5. mexicanum^ As to 5. 

 trictum Sullivant, it was based upon a specimen from Devil's Court House in 

 North Carolina and issued as No. 201 of its author's Musci Allegheni- 

 enses. The inadequacy of the original description doubtless accounts for its 

 passing into oblivion as a synonym of S. compactumJ The specimens are, how- 

 ever, entirely identical with what has passed as 5. Garberi and the restoration 

 of the early name, as it seems to me is a decided gain. I have examined the plant 

 in several sets of Sullivant's exsiccati, including that in his own herbarium, which 

 would, I suppose, constitute the type if there were any question. S. strictum 

 Lindberg, 1872, being a synonym of 5. Girgensohnii Russow, 1865, and later 

 than S. strictum Sullivant, can present no seriou obstacle. As to the remaining 

 synonym, S. domingense Carl Miiller, 1898, from specimens collected by Eggers 

 in Santo Domingo in 1887, I have not myself seen it, but it was reduced by Warns- 

 torf already before its publication^ to synonymy with S. Mexicanum, where he 

 still retains it, and I know of no reason to doubt the correctness of the reduction. 



The species is very near 5. compactum, so much so that its value has been 

 called into question, notably by Cardot^, but has maintained itself and is, it seems 

 to me, clearly distinct. It is usually a taller plant with elongated spreading or 



1 Pflanzenreich 51 : 144. 1911. 



^ Repertoire sphagnologique 300f. 1897. 



2 Icones Muscorum 5. pi. III. 1864. 



^ It should be noted, however, that SulUvant in an earlier allusion to 5. humile (Memoirs 

 Amer. Acad. Arts and Sciences, New Series, Vol. IV, Part I, 174f, 1849) described its leaf 

 section incorrectly, as he did also that of 5. strictum. 



^ Bot. Gaz. 15 : 226, and Hedwigia Z9 : 209. 1890. 



^ Pflanzenreich 51 : 144. 1911. 



^ It was in fact reduced by Sullivant himself, Gray's Manual 611. 2 ed. 1856. 

 ^Hedwigia 29: 247. 1890. 

 ^ Revision 11. 1887. 



