— 26 — 
type.” The type of the genus Calypogeia would therefore be C. fissa , 
because a former specific name of this species was colypogea , The fact 
that this specific name has an adjective form while the generic name includes 
an additional letter to convert it into a substantive can hardly be offered as 
an objection to this conclusion. 
It thus becomes evident that neither Kantia nor Cincinnulus can be 
maintained, because both these genera were based upon a species which is 
clearly congeneric with Calypogeia fissa. It is equally evident that Raddi’s 
section A must bear the generic name Gongylanthus of Nees von Esenbeck, 
and that section B must represent the genus Calypogeia in its restricted 
sense. It is a noteworthy fact that these views are becoming more and more 
widely held by European botanists, and it is probable that they will be 
accepted by everybody in time. 
The selection of Calypogeia fissa as the type of the genus is beset with 
certain difficulties but is based on definite principles. It introduces the stu- 
dent at once, however, to difficulties of a more subtle nature, due to the fact 
that European writers interpret C. fissa in very different ways. By some its 
validity is unquestioned ; by others it is considered a variety or even a mere 
form of C. Trichomanis ; by others the name has been applied to plants 
which are evidently distinct from those originally described by Raddi ; by 
still others, who recognize its distinctness jin a provisional sort of a way, 
transitional forms are alluded to which connect it with C. Trichomanis . 
It has already been noted that C. Trichomanis and C. fissa were both 
based on Linnaean species of Mnium. Whether Linnaeus actually distin- 
guished these two species is doubtful. When he first published them he 
drew their characters entirely from the writings of his predecessors, and 
it is natural to assume that he based them upon these writings rather than 
upon a personal study of the plants themselves. As Howe justly remarks 
the only way in which these species can now be interpreted is by means of 
the prelinnaean descriptions which Linnaeus quotes. 1 
Under Mnium Trichomanis the only species referred to is the “ Mnium 
trichomanis facie, folio lis integris”oi Dillen; 8 under M. fissum two spe- 
cies are quoted, viz. : “ Mnium trichomanis facie, foliolis bifidis" of Dillen * 3 
and fungermannia terrestris repens , foliis ex rotunditate acuminatis 
bifidis: apertura pene visibili" of Micheli. 4 Dillen’s herbarium is pre- 
served at Oxford, and the hepatics which it contains were carefully exam- 
ined by Lindberg over thirty years ago. The results of this examination 
have been published in three distinct reports, which appeared in 1874, 1877, 
and 1883, respectively. 5 U nfortunately these reports are at variance with one 
another, at least so far as Mnium Trichomanis and M. fissum are concerned. 
In all probability, however, the last report represents Lindberg’s latest views 
on the subject, and will be the only one here quoted. 
1 Mem. Torrey Club 7 : 135. 1899. 
2 Hist. Muse. 236. pi. 31, f. 5. 1741- 3 L. c. 237. pi. 31, f. 6. 
4 Nov. Plant. Gen. 8 . pl. 5 -.f- * 4 - 1729- 
5 Not. Sallsk. pro F. et FI. Fenn. Forh. 13 : 353-35 6 * - 1S74; Hepaticologiens Utveckling, 
Helsingfors, 1877; Kritisk Granskning af Mossorna uti Dillenii Historia Muscorum, Hels- 
ingfors, 1883. 
