— 31 - 
REVIEW 
Die Laubmoose Europas [The Bryineae of Europe] edited by Leopold Loeske 
in association with prominent specialists. The work is illustrated with numerous 
figures, almost uniformly after original drawings, by P. Janzen, Prof. Dr. Gyorffy, 
Prof. Dr. Podpera, and others. 
The prospectus of this new work on the Mosses of Europe is at hand, and 
sets forth for its raison d'etre that even the best of its predecessors — to mention 
only the works of Schimper, and of Limpricht “might have been printed prior to 
the famous year 1859.' .... Even the considerable progress achieved by 
Limpricht in morphological and anatomical respects can not make good this 
defect.” All previous Moss floras might as well have been written before Dar- 
win! 
The work here announced will be found essentially distinct from its prede- 
cessors in the following features: 
1. There is a stronger emphasis on life conditions, on variability under 
change of environment and distribution, that is, emphasis on the biology of 
mosses. 
2. The old principle, of the greater importance of the sporophyte (“ per se" 
and for the system) is abolished, and fundamentally equal value is given to both 
generations. In particular cases, after weighing all points, either of the two 
generations may receive the greater emphasis. 
3. The old principle, of laying greater emphasis on anatomical, as compared 
with morphological characters, is abolished. The former, in spite of their 
protected position, are in many cases only apparently protected against the 
outer world. Particular cases as under “2.” 
4. The systematic units, inclusive of the species, are abstractions, although 
in the fixed, little changeable species, concept and object may correspond fairly 
well. There are no characters which may, at the outset, be assumed as “specific 
characters,” but each group of mosses must, down to species and forms, be at- 
tempted to be studied and classified according to its special peculiarities. 
5. It is proposed to apply all obtainable results to the improvement of the 
system, which remains ever open to further critical study and improvement, 
and which knows no “conclusion,” although in scientific practise such conclu- 
sion must be attempted. In consequence of the lack of paleontological records 
the system of Mosses throughout may assume only tentatively the character 
of a phylogenetic system. However, by the application of comparative methods, 
the natural relationship of Mosses may be expressed in a much higher degree 
in their arrangement than has been the case heretofore. 
6. Synonymy belongs to history, is not a necessary part of the description 
of mosses, and is largely restricted in this work. Nomenclature is an aid in 
systematic work. This system is a useful method for discriminating between 
forms that are to be described according to their structure and life, and at the 
same time for grouping them together again according to their relationships. 
Accordingly even the system is a means to an end, however, in an unequally 
higher degree than lists of synonyms and nomenclature. While snyonymy is 
