— 94 — 
Phascum caulescens L. Sp. pi. ed. I. p. 1570 (1753) non in herb. 
Bryum Pennsylvanicum Brid. Muse. Rec. IV, p. 36 (1803) nec. Mant. 
Muse. p. 119, (1819). 
Splachnum setaceum Hook. & Wils. in Drumm. Muse. Amer. Bor. ed. II. 
No. 27, (1841) fide Sulliv. 
Tetraplodon australis Sulliv. & Lesq. Muse. Bor, Am. No. 151 (1856), 
Tetraplodon caulescens Lindb. Krit. Granskn. af Moss. uti. Dill. Hist. Muse 
p. 14, (1883). 
Delin. : 
Dill. 1. c. Tab. 85, fig. 15; Dicks. h c. Tab. 20, fig. 2; Sulliv. Icon. Muse. Tab. 
58 . 
Exsicc. 
Drum. 1, c,: Sulliv. & Lesq. 1, c, ; Holz. Muse. Aero, Bor.-— Am, No. 68, 
Regarding the citation from Linnaeus it should be noted that his Phas- 
cum caulescens of Sp. pi, is founded on Dillenius’ plant, but in reality he 
did not know this species as Schimper’s examination of his herbarium shows 
Journ, Linn, Soc. XI, p. 246), According to this distinguished bryologist, a 
specimen labeled “ Phascum caulescens lectum in Lapponia cit, Dillen, 550, 
T. 85. f. 15,” belongs partly to Splachnum angustatum , partly to Cynodon- 
tium Bruntoni : and another specimen of which Schimper cites the label as 
follows: “Splachnum — North America, sec. Smith, Splach. caulescens 
Dicks,” is, according to him, a Tetraplodon angustatus forma gracilescens , 
I interpret the latter label as if the word “Splachnum — ’’alone is due to 
Linnaeus, the rest added by Smith, who had bought his herbarium. How- 
ever that may be, it follows from the examination of Schimper, that 
Linnaeus did not have a correct idea of Phascum caulescens , and that the 
name does not refer to his herbarium but exclusively to Sp. pi. Dickson on 
the contrary seems to have correctly recognized the plant in question: he 
says in his “ Observations on the genus of Porella and the Phascum caules- 
cens of Linnaeus”: “The Splachnum which I received at the same time 
with the above when compared with Dillenius’ specimen, proved to be the 
Sphagnum figured on Tab. 85, f. 15 ; the figure is remarkably stiff. This is 
made a Phascum by Linnaeus, but with equal impropriety, it being a true 
Splachnum.” Opdal, Norway, May, 1906. 
