-^ REVUE BRYOLOGIQUE 



llie interest of the present record lies in the fact that it is in 

 the nciglibourhood of the original station for R. tenellum B. S 

 (Pterigynandrum algnianum Brid.). I cannot help thinking that 

 the occurrence of/?, litoreum in the headquarters, as one may say 

 of IL tenellum is some slight confirmation of the view I have 

 always held, from my first acquaintance with the plant, tliat to 

 whatever rank it he entitled its affinity is rather with Jl. lenellum 

 than with 7?. curviselum. The silky habit, the usually finely point- 

 ed leaves, the frequent golden colour, to say nothing of minor 

 characters, markedly recall/?, lenellum, while the elongated areo- 

 lation, exactly that of /?. tenellum, and distinctly longer than in 

 B. curviselum, is a structural character of no small importance. 

 Ihe habit, and the broader, more shortly pointed leaves of R li- 

 toreum in its more southern stations give it some title to be con- 

 sidered specifically distinct ; but in onr British plant {H. scabrel- 

 lum Mitt ) the habit and foliage are in no way different from 

 forms of R. lenellum that frequently occur, and it differs in nothing 

 but the scabrous seta; and I have a plant precisely similar to 

 our English forms from Viareggio, collected by the Rev. E. D. 

 Heath CO te,m 1890. Moreover the seta varies considerably in the 

 degree of its papillosity, very frequently being only very slightly 

 ^abrous, and indeed at fmcs quite smooth. I may add that 

 certam secondary characters which have been given as distin- 

 guishing /?. luoreum from R. lenellum, I have found to be incons- 



tant. 



To judge from he bulk of the Mediterranean plants alone, R. 



hloreum might well lay claim to an independent rank ; but when 



one lakes into account the British forms, and such a plant for 



nstance as the Yiaregg.o specimen referred to above, I do not 



bnlwL T ^!^ ,f "^^t«^ that a very close affinity is established 



between .and the widely distributed /?. tenellum. As the Mar- 



chese Bottin, writes to me, Dec. 1903 : « II s'agit dun lihynch- 



tenellum avec ped.celle plus ou moins scabre, et des feuill/s qui 



lienneut le miheu enlrecelles du /?. lenellum typique et cellos du 



Rlujnch. {Eurhjnch.) curviselum. Mais comme les feuillcs du /?. 



tenellum var.ent beaucoup, vous avez raison do dire que la seulo 



difference constantc consisle dons le p6dicelle plus 



scabre. .> \\hether or not it should be allowed to maintain its 

 mdepcndent rank, or should be subordinated to R. tenellum either 

 as a variety or subspecies, must of course be largely a matter of 

 individual opinion. ^ 



wiy^t^'^^'^'^^/^*•''^^'^^'''' of roughness of the seta, together 

 Milh the diversity displayed by different specimens in the leaf 



