—50— 
Ectropothecium Caloosiense (Aust.). 
Hypnurn ( Rhynchostegium ?) Caloosiense Aust. Bot. Gaz. 4 : i 6 i , 1879. 
This species was doubtfully referred to Rhynchostegium by Austin, and was 
placed with the species “insufficiently known and not certainly referable 
to this subgenus” by Lesquereux & James. Recent studies of these genera 
have convinced me that it undoubtedly belongs to Ectropothecium in the sec- 
tion with the leaves having long linear cells near E. globitheca (C. M.). Dr. 
Small has recently collected three species of this genus in Southern Florida. 
Homalothecium and Burnettia. 
In the discussion between Messrs. Cardot and Grout several synonyms 
have been overlooked, notably Pleuropus Griff. 1849, not Gray, 1821! The 
following are also synonyms: 
Pterigynandrum subcapillatum Hedw. Spec. Muse. 83, t. 16, 1801. 
Pterogonium subcapillatum Schwaegr. Suppl, 1 : 1, 107, 1811. 
Pterogonium decumbens Schwaegr. Suppl. 2:i, 32, t. no, 1823. 
Lasia subcapillata Brid. Bryol. Univ. 2:202, 1827. 
Pterigynandrum brachycladon Brid. Bryol. Univ. 2:i8s, 1827. 
Pterogonium ascendens Schwaegr. Suppl. t. 243, 1828. 
Hypnurn subcapillatum C. M. Syn. Muse. 2:352, 1851. 
Homalothecium subcapillatum Sull. Mosses N. A, 63, t. 5, 1856. 
Myrinia subcapillata Kindb. Can. Rec. Sci. 21 : 1894. 
Platygyrium brachycladon Kindb. Can. Rec. Sci. 21 : 1894. 
Helicodontium subcapillatum Kindb. Br. Eu. & N. Am. 1:27, 1897. 
Homalothecium (Homalotheciella) subcapillatum Card. Bull. Herb. 
Boiss. 7:374, 1899. 
Burnettia (Homalothecium) subcapillatum Grout Bryol. 6:65, 1903. 
In my opinion H. subcapillatum is generically distinct from H. seri- 
ceum and H. Phillipeanum , and M. Cardot is right in calling it Homalothe- 
ciella according to the Paris Code. Dr. Grout has cited (Homalothecium) 
in parenthesis as if it were a section of Burnettia , and according to the new 
Philadelphia Code his combination is “ incidental ” and incorrect! Even in 
the last Bryologist, M. Cardot’s name has priority of place, and Dr. Grout 
has used an American name for two European species. 
New York Botanical Garden. 
THE SPECIFIC (?) VALUE OF THE POSITION OF THE REPRODUC- 
TIVE ORGANS IN BRYUM. 
A. J. Grout. 
I have for a long time been of the opinion that the genus Bryum con- 
tains far too many species based chiefty on the position of the antheridia and 
archegonia. From the very nature of the case, if we accept the teachings of 
the theory of evolution, these characters must at some period in the 
development of the genus have been variable, e. g , at the time when dioi- 
cous species developed from monoicous ancestry there must have been a 
period when the species was imperfectly dioicous before it could become 
completely and fixedly dioicous. There are several well known cases in the 
