—28 — 
now be included under C. Trichomanis. For these reasons Lindberg’s inter- 
pretation of the two Dillenian species of Mnium can be accepted only with 
reservations. 
At the present time the Continental botanists who recognize C.fissa as a 
species, although ascribing to it an autoicous inflorescence, no longer make 
this the basis for separating it from C. Trichomanis , and it is worthy of 
mention that they had ceased to do so even before the appearance of Douin’s 
paper. They emphasize rather certain peculiarities found in the leaves and 
underleaves. According to these writers the leaves are variously bidentate 
at the apex, the teeth being sometimes large and conspicuous and sometimes 
barely apparent. The underleaves are relatively small but are character- 
ized by being broader than long: they are deeply bifid with the sinus often 
extending beyond the middle, and their distant and usually blunt lobes, 
although sometimes undivided, often show a blunt supplementary tooth on 
the outside. One of the best of the recent descriptions is that published by 
C. Muller, of Freiburg. 1 
The British hepaticologists, who also recognize the species, emphasize 
the characters which have just been noted. For some reason, however, they 
call the plant Kantia Sprengelii (Mart.) Pears., 2 instead of applying to it 
the specific name of Raddi. The writer has been able to demonstrate this 
fact by comparing a specimen of K. Sprengelii, collected by Slater at Castle 
Howard in Yorkshire, with a specimen of C. fissa, collected by Levier in 
the vicinity of Florence. These specimens fully agree with each other. 
Whether they represent the Jungermannia Sprengelii of von Martius 3 is a 
much more doubtful matter. This species was originally described from 
specimens collected near Nuremberg and was said to differ from J. Tricho- 
manis in its smaller and more deeply bifid underleaves with acute laciniae, 
and in its less frequently emarginate leaves. J. Sprengelii was recognized 
as a species by Dumortier 4 and also by Hiibener, 5 but Nees von Esenbeck 
reduced it to a variety under C. Trichomanis and did not consider it very 
clearly marked. Until very recently the plant has been scarcely recognized 
by either French or German botanists. In 1899, however, Heribaud 6 applied 
the name Sprengelii to what he considered a slender variety of Cincinnulus 
Trichomanis , growing among Sphagna, and Boulay 7 and Douin 8 have 
adopted it in the same sense. It is hardly probable that either this interpre- 
tation or the very different one arrived at by the British botanists was based 
on a study of the original J, Sprengelii , and a comparison of Pearson’s fig- 
ures with those of von Martius will show at once that they could hardly have 
been drawn from the same plant. Apparently a complete understanding of 
1 Beihefte Bot. Centralbl. 13 : 98. 1902. 
2 Hep. British Isles 138. pi. 52. 1900. 
3 FI. Crypt. Erlang. 133. pi. 3, f 6. 1817. 
4 Syll. Jung. 73. 1831 (as Cincinnulus Sprengelii). 
5 Hep. Germ. 63. 1834. 
6 Muse. d’Auvergne 492. 1899. 
7 Muse, de la France 2 : 51. 1904. 
8 Mem. Soc. Sc. Nat. Cherbourg 35 : 271. 1906. 
