REVUE BRYOLOGIQUE 91 



■ ^ 



hand, there is no appreciable widening of the kind^ so 

 that the line of insertion is as wide, or nearly so, as tf)e 

 whole base of the leaf; in IL circinale the leaf is at its 

 widest at a point above the line of insertion, and is consi- 

 derably wider at that point than where it joins the stem. 

 Taken in conjunction therefore with the difference in the 

 alar cells this character may be looked upon as a reliable 

 test of the species. On the other hand I doubt very much 

 whether in the absence of fruit H. canariense can be safely 

 distinguished from forms of //. cupressi forme with sharply 

 serrated leat-points (as in var, mamillatum). though the 

 short capsule of the former clearly separates the two when 

 fertile. 



If this distinction between the two plants in question be 

 accepted, and I know of no other distinguishing character 

 that has been pointed out (except the erroneous description 

 of /y. circinale as monoicous), then the existence of both 

 species at Killarney would appear to be established. Both 

 of them seem to have been gathered by Moore ; H. cana- 

 riense '' on decayed trees, Cromagloun, Killarney" ; //. 

 circinale on ^^ rochers humides, Killarney " as cited by 

 Cardot in Rev. Bry. (L c). They were distributed by Moore 

 as H. hamalosum B et S. ; under which guise also they 

 appear in the " Synopsis of the Mosses of Ireland. " H. 

 canariense has also been gathered at Killarney by Wilson 

 and other bryologists. I also refer to //. circinale a barren 

 plant gathered on a rock near Muckross, Killarney, June 

 1896, by the Rev. G H. Binstead. 



I must now refer to some plants collected by Lindberg 

 at Killarney, and distributed by him as Stercodon cana- 

 riensis Mitt. The plant most widely distributed in this way 

 appears to be the fruiting plant a specimen of which is in 

 the British Museum Herbarium labelled " Slereddon 

 canariensis Mitt., Ireland, Killarney, in arbore juxta 

 O'Sullivan^s Cascade, c fr., Julii 22, 1879.S 0. L '' If this 

 had been barren it would have been difficult to prove that 

 it was not fL canariense, though I can see no adequate 

 grounds for considering it distinct from //. cuprcssi forme, 

 judging from the vegetative characters alone; but the 

 presence of fruit appears to me to decide the question 

 without any doubt in favour of the latter species The 

 capsules are exactly those of small forms of H. cupressi- 

 forme, not by any means the shortly oval turgid capsule 



of //, canariense ^ 



Another, barren specimen, "67. canaricnsis,ad arbores, 

 Muckross, July 24, 1873. S. 0. L. ", I should refer also to 

 the polymorphous H. cupressiforme, of which it is a 

 slender form, approaching the var. rfistrpmntum. The 



