Î 
M REVUE BRYOLOGIQUE 
it forms very fine, 
dense tufts, with copious tomentum ; the stems moreover (or 
- «above », Lat. insuper) are slender, branched, and with distant 
small leaves, etc. 
Cinclidium arcticum from Spitzbergen ; that 
Mn. hymenophyllum is retained in Cinclidium by Limpricht, 
Roth, Bryhn, and Hagen, but I have not seen any grounds for this 
treatment beyond such as are given by Lindberg in the above 
passage ; which do not appear to me very cogent. They would 
* apply, surely, with equal or greater force to M. punctatum or M. 
subglobosum. ; 
I have gathered M. hymenophylloides in Switzerland, and in 
Southern Norway, but until this visit had never seen M. hymeno- 
phyllum in the field. 1 had therefore an open mind as to their 
relationship, and certainly approached {he question with no 
suspicion of their identity. M. hymenophyllum however occurred 
in several spots about Abisko; and we soon noticed in two or 
_ three localitiés where it occured on rocky bauks that some of the 
stems showed a distinct resemblance to M. hymenophylloides ; 
and à closer examination of the plant in situ led to the suspicion 
that M. hymenophylloides is a variety at most, in fact not much 
more than a rupestral form of M. hymenonhyllum, a suspicion 
ÿ which a careful study of the structural characters of the plants has 
_ entirely confirmed, 
M. hymenophyllum is lypically a plant of wet ground, as Lind- 
berg remarks. We first gathered it on Nuolja, in a peat bog, with 
Sphagnum, Paludella, Camptothecium nitens, etc.; but subse- 
_ quently met with it more frequently on wet banks among 
and at the foot of rocks. A conspicuous feature of its normal 
forms is the tendency for the stem lo run out into slender, 
_ Somewhat flagelliform shoots, with small, oblong-ovate, appres- 
_sed leaves; these are probably at certain periods or under cer- : 
tain conditions, fragile, and to be looked upon as « Brutorgane ». 
This is perhaps what Lindbery refers to in the description quoted 
above ( « Caulis insuper est gracilis, ramosus et remote parvi- 
_ folius » ). IL hardly think so, bowever, as in that case the passage 
_is scarcely marked by Lindberg’s usual accuracy of description ; 
_ for these flagelliform shoots are in my experience rarely bran- 
= Ched, and the leaves are by no means remote, bul more closely 
_ arranged than on the lower part of the stem. It probably refers 
= to the whole stem. : S 
_ {n two places at least M. hymenophyllum passed gradually into 
forms entirely indistinguishable from M. hymenophylloides. Ît was 
these gatherings which led primarily to the conviction. that 
