REVUE BRYOLOGIQUE : | 59 
A Contribution to the Bryology of Tornean Lapland; 
with a discussion on the relationship of Mnium hy- 
menophyllum and M. hymenophylloides (continued 
from p. 36). 
By H. N. Dixon 
In any case the fact that they are clavate (though in differing 
degrees) in both the plants under discussion, and not filiform, 
argues a close relationship between the two. For in this respect 
they differ in common from all the other European species of 
Mnium and Cinclidium; in all the dioicous species of which the 
© paraphyses are constantly filiformi and not clavate. Even in the 
_ synoicous species those paraphyses surrounding the archegonia 
retain this shape when those about the antheridia are markedly 
clavate. 
It has been suggested to me by Mr. Nicholson that the differences 
such as they are, between the {wo plants, may be in part due to 
secondary sexual characters, M. hymenophylloides being so far as 
is known exclusively © ,and M. hymenophyllum almost entirely © 
when not sterile, I do not think {his will account for the whole 
difference, although it may account for certain of the characters. 
The fact that the © plant has been found with the kymenophyllum 
characters would appear to weaken the case to some extent. 
The above remarks, I think it will be agreed, reduce the diffe- 
rences between the two plants Lo à minimum, and certainly leave 
nothing that can be considered of specific value, even were the 
practical identity of the two plants not established by the cases of 
intergrading seen by us about Abisko. One or two general consi- 
_ derations with regard to their distribution may be added which 
I think tend to confirm this conclusion. 
The distribution of the two plants as given by Brotherus is as 
_ follows : 
M. hymenophylloides. Scandinavia, Finland, Kola Peninsula, 
- Alps, Siberia, Northern parts of N. America. 
M. hymenophyllum. Norway and Lapland, Spitzhergen, Swit- 
. zerland, Siberia, Northern parts of N. America. 
That is to say the distribution of the two is practically identi- 
cal. Moreover this similarity of distribution on a large scale is 
paralleled on a smaller and detailed scale. I have compared the 
distribution of the two plants in the lists of mosses collected on 
different islands given by Bryhn in the Report of the Second Nor- 
