— II — 



stated that the capsule was exannulate, but considering that the description 

 was probably drawn without a compound microscope, this is not surprising 

 and is equally untrue of Pte?^ogonm?Ji gracile. It will be seen by consulting 

 the synonymy of this species, that there is also confusion in the older names, 

 and that H. palatinuui is cited by Limpricht as one of its synonyms. As 

 shown above, this is only partially true and t. 1., fig. i, and part of the de- 

 scription would have been omitted. Under the circumstances it seems best 

 to maintain the specific name of repeiis (Brid.) for Platygyriiim. 



Platygyrium brachycladon (Brid.) Kindb. Br. Eu. & N. Am. i :3i. 1897. 



PfERiGYNANDRUM BRACHYCLADON Brid. Mant. Musc. 130. 1819, & Bryol. 

 Univ. 2:185. 1827. 



Pterogonium ascendens, Schw. Supp. 3:1:2, t. 243. 1828. Card. Bull. 

 Hb. Boiss. 7:375. I899. t. 8. 



Platygyrium repens var. orthoclados. Kindb. Mac. Cat. 6:172. 1892. 



The above is the synonomy as indicated by Kindberg and Cardot, but in 

 order to be sure that P. brachycladon Brid., is the same as P. ascendents 

 Schw. it will be necessary to compare the specimens, as Bridel cited (Bryol. 

 Univ. 2:i85)Schwagrichen's plate no and not 243. Both plates have been cited 

 by Sullivant in the Icones as Homalotheciiun subcapillaium, but I agree with 

 M. Cardot that this cannot be true. P. ascendens Schw. seems to be closely 

 related to P. repens as Cardot has stated, differing from it in the smaller 

 size of the plants, the shorter, less acuminate leaves with denser, smaller, 

 transversely elongated, alar cells, the short seta (i cm. long) shorter more 

 cylindric capsules {y^ mm. long), with the peristome much smaller and nar- 

 rower teeth, the markings are different. The parenthetical additions are 

 my own. 



It is evident in studying P laiygyrium repens that the differences noted 

 by Kindberg and Cardot hold true in some specimens. In our set of Sull. & 

 Lesq. Musci. bor. Am. No. 259 would agree with P. ascendens and part of 

 385, but there is a long-pedicelled portion of 385 in which the leaves and teeth 

 are quite different. That there aregreat differences in the European 

 specimens seems also evident, so that the question of whether to separate 

 this species, as Kindberg has done, or to describe the varities under one 

 species as Limpricht does, requires more study, and Bridel's types will have 

 to be seen before we can take up either one of the old names. The original 

 description of P. repens calls for a short pedicel and ovate-lanceolate acum- 

 inate leaves. In the Bryologia Universalis it is further stated that the peri- 

 chetial leaves are serrate at the apex and the pedicel 6-8 lines long. 



The Muhlenberg collection contains three specimens of Platygyrium 

 repens but none of them are named P. ascendens, as this was not described 

 till 1828, so that we cannot help elucidate the uncertainty as to whether it is 

 monoicous. It will be noted that Kindberg states of P, repens that it is 

 * 'dioecious or pseudo-monoecious and of P . brachycladon that it is monoecious T 

 These points also should be determined from Bridel's types. Therefore I 

 have sent duplicates' of critically studied specimens to Berlin for comparison, 

 and hope to be able to clear up this matter at some future time. Any notes 

 and specimens of Platygyrium repens will be welcome. 



