NOTES UPON THE SYSTEMATIC ARRANGEMENT OF 

 THE BOG MOSSES. 



By G. Limpeicht. 

 (Translated.) 



Moved by the latest publication upon tbis subject — " C. Warnstorf 

 die Europaischen Torfmosse " (Berlin, 1881), I here give, without 

 entering into a criticism of this work, a few remarks upon the present 

 arrangement of the Sphagna. 



It is well known that it was C. Miiller who, in the " Synopsis mus- 

 corum" (1849), and in Deutschland Moose " (1853) first called 

 attention to those organs which are to be chiefly regarded in the 

 grouping of the different species of Sphagna. 



Quite according to this point of view, the North American Splmgna 

 Were worked out by W. S. SuUivant in his " Musci and Hepaticae of 

 the United States," in 1856, and in a similar manner Schimper 

 arranged, in his "Monographic" (1858) the European species : Lind- 

 berg, Schliephacke, Milde, &c., worked out further in the same 

 direction. Russow, also, in the ^' Beitragen zur Kentniss der Torf- 

 moose, followed the same lines. 



To recent times belongs the rejection of such characters which can 

 only be observed in microscopically examined sections, and with the 

 use of stronger magnifying power ; and from this has resulted the 

 separation of Sphagnum spectahile, S. laricinum, S. Austini, S. papil- 

 losum, &e. 



From the systematic standpoint each character, even the slightest 

 distinction observable, demands notice, as it is not so much a matter of 

 naming quickly as of getting a thorough knowledge of the plant. 



Thus the disposition of the chlorophyllose cells shows quite dis- 

 tinctive characters to the hyaline ones in the branch leaves, which was 

 already applied by SuUivant to the grouping of the North American 

 Sphagna, and by Russow to the formation of the divisions in the 

 Cuspidata group ; and was also made use of for the separation of the 

 species in the Subsecunda group. 



Since now that cross-sections of the stem are indispensably necessary 

 to the determination of the Sphagna, I find no particular difficulty at 

 the same time in also taking cross-sections through the middle part of a 

 leafy branch. Warnstorf disregards entirely, in his work, this inter- 

 esting disposition of the layers, and where he refers to it with the 

 Cymbifolium group he unfortunately does so unhappily for S. cymli^ 

 folium, Ehr. Schimper describes and figures correctly in the " Mono» 



