T H E 
HEW PHYTOLOGIST. 
Vol. IX., Nos. 3 & 4 . March & April, 1910 . 
[Published April 28th]. 
THE INTER-RELATIONSHIPS OF THE BRYOPHYTA 
By F. Cavers, D.Sc. 
INTRODUCTION. 
X N the present series of articles the writer proposes to give a 
summary and discussion of the morphology and affinities of 
the Bryophyta, together with lists of literature, which it is hoped 
may be of use to students interested in the group. For details 
and figures, since no attempt at completeness will be made here, 
reference should be made to the well-known works of Campbell 
(“ Mosses and Ferns ”), Goebel (“Organography of Plants”), and 
Lotsy ( “ Vortrage fiber botanische Stammesgeschichte,” Band 2). 
With some exceptions, the classification adopted in the 
“ Pflanzenfamilien ” of Engler and Prantl will be followed. The 
commonly accepted division of the Bryophyta into Hepaticas 
(Liverworts) and Musci (Mosses) has, however, been challenged by 
several recent writers. The anomalous position of the Anthocerotales 
among the Hepaticae was recognized by Leitgeb in his classical 
work (“ Untersuchungen fiber die Lebermoose ”). Gayet, in a 
paper on the development of the Bryophyte archegonium (which 
will be referred to later), definitely proposed to raise this family to 
the rank of a class co-ordinate with the Hepaticae and the Musci, 
and Howe (18) first defined this class and named it the Anthoce- 
rotes. The propriety of this three-fold division of the Bryophyta 
will be discussed when the Anthocerotales are dealt with. 
I.—S PH/EROCAR PALES. 
Setting aside the Anthocerotales, or Anthocerotes, for the 
present, the Hepaticae have generally been divided into Marchan- 
