296 МЕ. Н. N. DIXON ON А 
whom the above plant (No. 80) was submitted, wrote : “ Votre Leucophanes 
est bien identique à un échantillon que je possède, de l'ile Célébes, étiqueté 
L. albescens, C. M., et provenant de Vherbier Lacoste. C'est sur un 
échantillon du méme provenance que Fleischer a établi sa description du. 
L. albescens, laquelle s'applique très bien à votre plante. Mais je ne connais 
pas le type du Z. albescens de Paulo-Penang, et la description de Müller ne 
parait guère convenir ni à la plante de Célébes, ni à votre plante de Bornéo. 
D'autre part, Brotherus a distribué sous le nom de L, albescens une mousse 
des Philippines qui me parait bien distincte spécifiquement de celle de 
Célébes et de Borneo; peut-être est-ce le véritable L. albescens de Müller. 
Il faudrait voir le type de ce dernier pour pouvoir élucider la question." 
It appeared worth while to go more closely into the problem involved, 
and I asked Herr Fleischer, who was at the time in Berlin, if he could 
examine the types and inform us which of the plants in question was the 
true L, albescens, C. M. Herr Fleischer was good enough to do so, and 
wrote: “ Ihr Exemplar No. 73 ist Leucophanes albescens C. M., und mit den 
Originalen von C. Müll. aus Pinang conform. Die Art is ziemlich verün- 
derlich besonders was die Lünge der Blütter anbelangt, die oft zu bedeutend 
kürzeren Blättern variiren. So befinden sich im Herb. C. Müll. selbst 
4 Exemplare aus (1) Pinang mit längeren Blättern, (2) Borneo (Lacoste), 
etwas kürzeren Bl., (3) & (4) von den Nicobaren & Anambas Eilanden mit 
[den kürtesten Blätter]. Auch das Stereom ist dorsal mehr oder weniger 
gezähnt bis fast glatt. Beiliegend ein von mir vor circa 14 Jahren bestimmtes 
Exemplar aus Singapore. Das Exemplar von den Philippinen, ex herb. 
Cardot, des Brotherus, gehört aber nicht zu L. albescens sondern zu L. glau- 
culum C. Müll.; ebenso wenig mein Exemplar in M. Archip. Ind. No. 406.” 
The three numbers cited above may therefore certainly be taken to be 
the true L. albescens, C. М. Two other gatherings of Mr. Binstead’s appear 
to be somewhat distinct, in the rather more robust habit, and in having the 
leaves more conspicuously spiculose along the dorsal median stereom, as well 
as more strongly toothed at the upper margin; moreover, more chlorophyllose 
below, and therefore showing the hyaline border more distinctly. I do not 
know how far these characters are constant, and am inclined indeed to be 
very dubious, but in so far as they go the plants agree very well with 
LEUCOPHANES SUBGLAUCESCENS, C. Muell. (ined.). "l'imorlaut, 1891, leg. 
Micholitz, No. 8, herb. Brotherus in Herb. Kew. These plants were from a 
tree, Sandakan (No. 24); decayed log in shade, Sekong (No. 74). They are 
strongly spiculose at the back, more so in fact than in Micholitz's plant. 
Several of the species of this group are extremely close to one another, and a 
revision of the genus would probably lead to a considerable reduction, and is, 
as Cardot writes, highly desirable. The degree of spiculosity of the dorsal 
stereom is, for one thing, certainly a very unreliable character. 
