—25 
the necessity for dividing it into two genera corresponding to Raddi’s sec- 
tions, A and B. He proposed the generic name Gongylanthus for section 
A, and reserved the name Calypogeia for section B. 1 In the Synopsis 
Hepaticarum the two genera are understood in this same sense, and they 
continued to be so understood for nearly thirty years. 
Early in the seventies Lindberg revived the generic name Kantia and 
applied it to the genus Calypogeia as restricted by Nees von Esenbeck. 
At the same time he discarded the name Gongy lanthus and restored to this 
genus the name Calypogeia , 2 In other words, while recognizing the two 
genera into which Nees von Esenbeck had divided the original genus, he 
reserved the name Calypogeia for Raddi’s section A, and applied to the 
section B the next oldest available name Kantia . 
Since this time there has been considerable diversity in the usage of the 
names. Some botanists have followed Nees von Esenbeck: others have fol- 
lowed Lindberg; still others, while accepting Calypogeia in Lindberg’s 
sense, have repudiated the name Kantia in favor of the later name Cincin- 
nulus. The course to be adopted naturally depends upon which of Raddi’s 
three original species ought to be considered the type of the genus. 
From the fact that Raddi quotes Jungermannia calypogea as a syno- 
nym of Calypogeia fissa, Levier draws the conclusion that C. fissa is the 
species which furnished to the new genus not only its characters but even its 
name, and that it constituted the primordial type of Calypogeia ten years 
before the other two species, C. ericetorum and C. flagellifera , were estab- 
lished. On this basis he asserts that it would not be justifiable to emend 
or restrict the genus in such a way that C. fissa should be excluded. Of 
course it was precisely this result which was brought about by Lindberg 
when he reserved the name Calypogeia fjpr Raddi’s section A. 
Levier’s position is fully supported by the International Rules of Nomen- 
clature adopted at Vienna by the recent Botanical Congress. Unfortunately 
these rules do not discuss directly the important subject of generic types, but 
Article 45 provides fully for the present case. The first two sentences of this 
article are as follows: When a genus is divided into two or more genera, the 
name must be kept and given to one of the principal divisions. If the genus 
contains a section or some other division which, judging by its name or its 
species, is the type or the origin of the group, the name is reserved for that 
part of it. Applying these rules to Raddi’s genus it is clear that the emended 
Calypogeia must be reserved for section B, because this section contains the 
species Jungermannia calypogea , even though this species be treated as 
a synonym. 
The Code of Botanical Nomenclature which was recommended by the 
Commission appointed by the Botanical Club of the American Association for 
the Advancement of Science treats the matter of generic types more fully. 
Under Canon 15 (e) the statement is made that “the application to a genus 
of a former specific name of one of the included species, designates the 
1 Naturg. der europ. Leberm. 2 : 405. 1836; 3 : 7. 1838. 
2 See Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn. 10 : 506. 1875. 
