— 27 — 
Among the specimens labeled “ Mnium Trichomanis facie, foliolis 
infegrisi" LindLerg found two species, which he referred to Kantia caly- 
pogea (Raddi) Lindb. and K. fissa (L.) Lindb., respectively . 1 2 3 Dillen’s 
figure, however, is said to represent the first of these species only. Among 
the specimens labeled “ Mnium Trichomanis facie, foliolis bifid is,” he also 
found the same two species but states that this time K. fissa is the one rep- 
resented by Dillen’s figure. Lindberg had already identified the second 
species quoted by Linnaeus under M. fissum as K. calypogea* but no impli- 
cation is made that this determination was based on a study of Micheli’s 
specimens. It should perhaps be emphasized that Kantia fissa Lindb. is by 
no means the same as Calypogeia fissa Raddi, but represents instead 
the species which is commonly known as C. arguta Nees & Mont. K. caly- 
pogea, on the other hand, was supposed to be the same as Calypogeia 
fissa. 
It is clearly apparent from these statements that Mnium fissum L. is 
an aggregate species, but it is difficult to defend Lindberg’s action in restrict- 
ing the name fissum to one' of the component parts when Raddi had already 
appropriated it for the other. Perhaps it was because he considered the 
name more applicable to C. arguta than to what he called K. calypogea , 
perhaps because Dillen’s species was first published* earlier than Micheli’s. 
The second reason might have weight even at the present day, were it not 
for the fact that Dillen’s species, on Lindberg’s own showing, was based on 
an indefinite specific type. That Lindberg had an accurate conception of 
C. arguta is evident from the full description of this species which he pub- 
lished . 4 That he had an equally accurate conception of Raddi’s funger- 
mannia calypogea is not so clear. Although he has never given a full 
description of his K. calypogea, he has repeatedly emphasized the inflores- 
cence as yielding important ditferential characters between this species and 
K. Trichoinanis. According to his statements K. calypogea is characterized 
by an autoicous inflorescence and K \ Trichomanis by a paroicous inflores- 
cence. Why he applied the latter name to a paroicous species after he had 
shown that the Dillenian plant upon which it was based was autoicous is a 
question raised by Howe, but this question becomes of minor importance in 
the light of some of the recent studies which have been made on C. Tricho- 
manis. From a study of a large series of specimens of this species, Douin 5 
has shown that its inflorescence is exceedingly variable, and that autoicous, 
synoicous and dioicous individuals occur along with the paroicous. In 
fact he regards an autoicous inflorescence as perhaps the most normal type 
for the species. These researches show that differences in the inflorescence 
are insufficient by themselves to separate species in this genus, and they 
therefore cast much suspicion on certain of Lindberg’s determinations, mak- 
ing it probable that some of the specimens which he called K. calypogea would 
1 Krit. Gransk. 12. 
2 Hepat. Utv. 28. 
3 In Ray, Syn. Meth. Stirp. Brit. 79. 1724 (Ed. III.). 
4 Not. Sallsk. pro F. et FI. Fenn. Forh. 13 : 363. 1874. 
5 Rev. Bryol. 3 1 : 107, 108. 1904. 
