” 
DR. S. O. LINDBERG’S BRYOLOGICAL NOTES. 71 
Habrodon Notarisii, Schimp. Synops. p. 505 (1860), et Musc. Nov. 
Eur. fasc. 3 et 4, Monogr. p. 2 (1866); De N. Cron. Briol. Ital. ii. 
p. 40. n. 141 (1867), et Epil. Briol. Ital. p. 223 (1869). 
Habrodon perpusillus, Lindb. in GZfv. V. Ak. Forh. xx. p. 401, n. 34 
(1863). 
Delin. Schimp. Musc. Nov. Eur. Monogr. t. 1. 
3. CLAsMATODON BERTRAMI (Schimp.), Lindb. 
Neckera (Leptohymenium) perpusilla, C. M. Synops. ii. Suppl. p. 666. 
n. 796, Ecl. Synon. (1851), et Deutschl. Moos. p. 383. n. 10, 
p- p. (1853). 
Anisodon perpusillus, Br. Eur. fasc. 49-51, Monogr. p. 4 (1852); 
Schimp. Coroll. p. 103. n. 1 (1855). 
Anisodon Bertrami, Schimp. Synops. p. 506 (1860) ; Rab. Krypt. Fl. 
Sachs. $c. i. p. 543. n. 295 (1863); Mild. Bryol. Siles. p. 274. 
n. 415 (1869). 
Delin. Br. Eur. Monogr. t. 1; C. M. Deutschl. Moos. p. 384; Schimp. 
Synops. t. 5. 
In his * Obs. Bot.’ p. 27 (1803), Dr. Mohr established the new 
genus Leptodon on Pterygynandrum trichomitrium and subcapil- 
latum, and also added to it Hypnum Smithii, to judge from his 
words :—“ uti Pt. trichomitrium, Pt. subcapillatum, necnon H., 
Smithii Dicks., ef. Sw. in ‘ Diar. Bot.’ Schrad. iv. p. 173.” The 
genus in question must of course first include L. trichomitrius and 
its allies; but among these I cannot admit L. Smithii, because 
that plant shows greater affinity with Alsia abietina (Hook.) Sull., 
having the same habit, involute branches and stems, &c.; and it 
has also an inner peristome, represented by a coroniform mem- 
brane. Hence, in my opinion, H. Smithii is the lowest form of 
the genus Alsia, Sull., not of Leptodon, Mohr, emend. 
Two species of Fubronia have long been known to grow in 
Europe— F. octoblepharis (Schleich.), Schwsgr., and F. pusilla, 
Radd. De Notaris in his ‘Epil. Briol. Ital? (1869) has di- 
vided the latter species into two, of which one, F. pusilla, is a 
more northern species, and, in my opinion, intermediate between 
F. octoblepharis and the more southern F. Schimperi. If this is 
not allowed to be a good species, all three must be united into 
one, because it has the same relation to F. pusilla as this latter 
to F. octoblepharis. 
I will now give the differential characters between the two 
former, but leave unnoticed the distinction between their re- 
