REVUE BRYOLOGIQUE 81 



+ 



Mitten (Journ. Linn. Soc. (Bot.), XXII, 307 (1886) has since 

 stated as his opinion that />. giyanteum and B. grandifo- 

 lium (Tayl.) are most probably ((states induced by some 

 different conditions » of B. roseum, it may be well to 

 point out another important difference in the leaves of 

 jB, roseimi and B, giganteum. In the former species, in a 

 transverse section of the nerve (fig. 22), we find accom- 

 panying the central group ot thin walled c(begleiter» cells, 

 a number of thick-walled stereid cells ; in B. gigan- 

 . teum the ((begleiter )> cells are more numerous, but there is 

 an entire absence of stereid cells. 



Relying on these two leaf-characters, i.e. the nature of 

 the serration and the structure of the nerve, I have found 

 that specimens referred to B. roscum from Japan really 

 belong to B, giganteiun. 



4. Microdus macrorrhynchus (Mont.). 



Specimens in the Kew Herbarium (Singapore, ad parietes 

 argillosas, XII, 63 Kurz 1205) named Dicranella Mique- 

 liana Mont. {Seligeria Miill. Syn.; Microdus Paris, Index 

 Bryol.) by Mitten agree well with Montagne's description 

 of his « Weissia mcm-orrhifncha » in Ann. sci nat. 3 ser. 

 (Bot.) IV, 117 (1845). Miiiler (Syn. Muse. Frond. 1, 423) 

 unites the two plants, remarking under S. Miquehana 

 K W. macrorrhijncha Mont, e spec. auth. hue pertinell » 

 Montagne gave to W. macrorrhyncha the characters 

 « foliis .. nervo crasso continue percursis », and to H. 

 'MiQticlianan foliis... nervo sub apicem serrulatum evanes- 

 cente, » and later in the Sylloge, p. 48 (1856) maintained 

 that the two were distinct species. The dilTerence in the 

 leaves of the two plants can be seen by comparing the 

 figure given (Fig. 24) of the Singapore plant with Uiose of 

 M. Miqueliana given in Bryol. Javan., I, Tab LXXIV In 

 M. Miqueliana the perichaetial leaves are more or less 

 obtuse with a vanishing nerve, in M. macruniiymha 

 acute and stoutly cuspidate with theexcurrent nerve. 



r 



5. Rhacdopus acanlis Mitt. „. , , ,^ t ■ 

 Mitten (in Stapfs Fl. of Mt. Kmabalu (Trans. Linn. 



Soc. sec. ser. IV, 258 (1894) in describing this moss from 

 North Borneo (W Burbidge, 1877-8), says « Size that of 

 n. pilifer, but foliage entirely different. » Comparing the 

 leaves of the Bornean plant, however, with those of 

 authentic specimens of/?. piUfcr, I can find no difference. 

 The specimen of « R. acaalis » exists m the Kew Herba- 

 rium under the mss. name of R. cnervis Mitt. Probably 

 the plant mentioned as « R. inennis Mitt. mss. tid. L. M. » 

 by Paris in the Index Bryolog., and referred as a synonym 



/ 



