142 



The Naturalist, 



Referring to the stem-bark of .S. recurvum. Schliephacke remarked 

 correctly, " Beitrage," p. 13, that the two layers of the same are 

 scarcely different from those of the wood cylinders. Warnstorf says, 

 in different places, something about the same thing ; thus, the 

 following passage surprises me all the more, I.e. p. 65 : — 



''How Schimper and Limpricht can with S. spectabile^ altogether 

 overlook the marginal layer I cannot imagine, since a cross-section 

 through the upper portion of the stem is sufficient easily to convince 

 any one to the contrary. We read with astonishment that the 

 proposer of S. spectabile — who, by the way, is the renowned author of 

 the " Monograph of the Sphagnacea," — in his last publication pro- 

 posed this species, and for which he has especially cienoted the 

 absence of a bark as a character also in the accompanying note." 



Already in my review of the Synopsis," Ed. II. (Flora, 1876, 

 No. 22, I stated that S. spectabile, Sch., was identical with S. specio- 

 sum (Russow), Klinggr. ; and to make this striking form more 

 generally known. I sent specimens in the same year to Rabenhorst, 

 for the " Bryotheca," where it is given under No. 1350. These 

 specimens agree with the description, they possess no stem-bark, and 

 the bark of the branch is normally formed. 



Warnstorf has now widened the idea of ^. spectabile, Sch., since he 

 has also drawn to it *S'. riparium, Angst., which Schimper's '' Synop- 

 sis," Ed. II., p. 830, gives as forma robustior of recurvum. Russow, 

 on the contrary, gives it as var. y majus. 



Judging from the above quotations from Warnstorf, it clearly 

 appears that two series of specimens lay before him to observe, of 

 which he unfortunately only examined the one, S. riparium, with 

 reference to the stem-bark. Although Angstrom may have, at one 

 time or another, accidentally sent out specimens as -S". riparium that 

 agree with S. spectabile, it does not follow that they are synonymous, 

 and that S. riparium deserves the priority ; for the last, according to 

 the text of the original description (Om nagra mindre kanta eller 

 omtvistade, Sphagna, p. 198), possesses a two-layered stem-bark. 



However, I hold the view that S. spectabile, Sch., in spite of its 

 habitaal distinctive character is not specifically distinct from ^. 

 recurmim. The same holds good also with S. fallax, Klinggr. 

 " Topogr. Flor. Westpr." p. 128 (1880), a very distinct form, 

 which reminds one, in its habit and stem-structure, of S. spectabile, 

 but in the stem-leaves, more of the following species. Sphagnum 

 cuspidatum, Ehrh.. which, on the contrary, possesses a distinct 

 stem-bark consisting of two (sometimes three) large layers. 



