REVUE BRYOLOGIQUE. 99 
distinguitur, — Involucra malura duo, capsula jam delapsa, 
examinavi. Perianthium involucro paulo brevius, ad _ 
alt, cum eodem concretum, apice libero lacerum membrana- 
ceum, Reliquia calyptræ mutilata monstrabant pistillidia 
pauca altiuscule supra basin persistentia. 
In the year 1846 I gathered at Bagnères-de-Bigorre, in the 
Pyrenees, Marsupella (Sarcoscyphus) Funckii in fruit, and 
remarked that intermixed with it, grew a smaller, tenderer, 
and darker-coloured species. The latter I found afterwards 
near Castle- Howard, in England, and on careful examination 
came to the conclusion that, if any described species, it 
must be the Gymnomitrium adustum Nees, of which I had at 
that time no description beyond the meagre specific character 
in the Synopsis Hepaticarum, p. 3. In my doubt, I sent spe- 
cimens, so-named, to D'° Gottsche and Montagne, with the 
observation that, as it had a perfect perianth, it should be 
placed in the genus Sarcoscyphus. They confirmed the name 
and agreed with me as to the removal of the species from 
Gymnomitrium. 
Nees’s original description, in his great work , Naturges- 
chichte der Europäischen Lebermoose, I, 120 (1833), is NOW 
before me; as are also Limpricht’s valuable contributions to 
our knowledge of these minute plants, in the « Flora » and 
in the « Annual Report ofthe Natural-History Society of 
Silesia, for 4881. » According to Limpricht, Nees's « species » 
is à composite one, including three species, all gathered ori- 
ginally by Funck, viz. 4. what he would now call Gymnom. 
adustum N. verum (having the perianth-leaves in a state of 2 
imperfect cohesion), in the Untersberg; 2. Sarcosc. Sprucet 
* Limpricht (with a perfect monophyllous perianth), in the 
Fichtelgebirg; 3. Sarcosc. pygmæus Limpr. (= Jg. brunnea 
Spreng. ?—dioicous—perianth perfect), in the Carinthian Alps 
and elsewhere (1). à _. 
Limpricht supposes the plant he has called S. Sprucei the 
same as the S. adustus of my « Musci and Hepaticæ of the 
Pyrenees »; but I cannot recognise it as such from his descrip- 
_ tion. One of the chief differences of his plant from mine is in 
the much larger medial leafcells; unless indeed he has 
measured them in an iuvolucral leaf ({ whether male or 
__ female), where they are always larger than in an ordinaryÿ 
a) Nees had previously named in Funck’s herbarium, and in Schleicher's 
