- 64 - 



the costa ceases some little distance below, leaving the apex clearly of one 

 cell layer. And, so far as I have been able to ascertain, this difference has 

 seemed constant. I therefore suggest deliberation before finall)^ uniting the 

 two varieties in question. This seems the more desirable when we consider 

 the wide separation of the stations, and also the fact that both have been col- 

 lected but once, leaving only scant material for a complete comparison. 



In closing I desire to make again grateful acknowledgment both to Mr. 

 H. N. Dixon and to Dr. I. Hagen for helpful suggestions and material for 

 this note. John M. Holzinger. 



Calliergidium vice Pseudo-calliergon Ren, — By an oversight I dupli- 

 cated Pseudo-calliergon Limpr. (Laubmoose III., p. 547) in The Bryologist 

 of Oct., igoi, p. 63. I therefore propose the name Calliergidium, transfer- 

 ring to this new subgenus Hypnum Tundra: Arnell, Hypnum Bakeri 

 Ren., Hypnum pseudostramineuin C. Muell., and Hypnu7n plesiostram- 

 ineuin Ren. F. Renauld, Nice, France, March, 1902. 



THE GENUS SEMATOPHYLLUM. 



By Elizabeth G. Britton. 



Part 21 of Dr. Braithwaite's British Moss-flora has just arrived, having 

 been issued in April, 1902. It will be found that he adopts the genus Sema- 

 tophy/lum Mitt, in its original sense, to include three European species, of 

 which S. deviissum and S. jnicans are described. In a foot-note Dr. Braith- 

 waite gives his reasons for using the specific name of rmcans, instead of 

 transferring H. Novoe- Cesai^ece, as he should have done. We cannot agree 

 with his argument, as H. inicans Sw., 1829, has priority over H. micans 

 Wils. 1833, even though both are referable to other genera. 



On consulting the original place of publication of Sematophyllum^ it will 

 be found that Mitten was guilty of an act of injustice, as he recognized S. 

 aurico7num and 5. deinissuin as typifying his genus, yet concluded his re- 

 marks by saying — "Their affinity is remote from Rhynchostegiuvi Schimp. 

 of which his Raphidostegium was made a section, to include Hypnujn de- 

 missum Wils." He should have taken up Schimper's name, as he had clearly 

 characterized the subgenus, even though he did not raise it to generic rank, 

 as will be seen by the following synonymy : 

 Sematophyllum, Mitt. Journ. Linn. Soc, 8: 5. 1864. 



Hyp7ium (subsect.) Aptychus, C. M. Syn. Muse. 2:325 1851. 



Rhynchostegiitin (subgen.) Raphidostegium, Br. & Sch. Br. Eu. fasc. 



49-51.1852. 



RaphidostegiiunViQ^ot. Cronaca 2: 31. 1867. 



Rhyiichostegium (sect.) Raphidorhyncha, Sch. Syn. Muse. Ed. 2, 678- 

 680. 1876. 



Carl Miiller founded the subsection Aptychus to include those mosses of 

 the genus Hypmwi having ecostate or bicostate leaves and vesicular alar 

 cells, and described H. Kegelia7iU7n, H. Ha77ipeanu7n, H. 7nicrocarpu77i, H. 



