_ King Oscar’s Land 
:_ North Devon 
00 | REVUE BRYOLOGIQUE 
M. hymenophyllum. M. hymenop hylloides. 
_Greenland Le 0 ne 
_ Ellesmere Land 
North Liacoln 
Co+++o 
OSEO 
North Kent 
-Thus it will be seen that, except in one instance, wherever the 
one was gathered the other occurred also, and wherever the one 
was absent the other was absent too. This would hardly be 
expected if the two plants belonged to two distinct species ; it is 
_ precisely what we should expect were one merely a rupestral 
form of the other ! 
That the older bryologists have not always found the two plants 
ci so distinct as might be ïinferred from the descriptions is 
clear from a specimen in Hampe’s herbarium in the British mu- 
seum, from the Dovre, leg. Lindbom, which was first labelled 
M. hymenophyllum and subsequently altered to W. hymenophyl- 
loides ! It is one of the less well marked, intermediate forms. 
If my conclusion be accepted, the name M. hymenophylloides 
must be retained in accordance with the Vienna Rules, even if the 
plant be retained under Cinclidium. 1 do not however think there 
is any good ground for so doing. The genus Cinclidium is a very 
homogeneous one, the species all being nearly allied to one 
another with very close resemblance in habit, which resemblance 
the plants in question do not share, No considerations of the kind, 
on the other hand, tend to exclude them from Mnium (1). 
The synonymy will then stand : 
MNIUM nYMENOPHYLLOIDES Hübener, Muscol. Germ. p. 16 (1833). 
— Syn.: Bryum hymenophylloides Hartm. (4838). Mnium hymeno- 
phyllum Bry. eur (1846). Cinclidium hymenophyllum Lindb. (1867). 
Astrophyllum hymenophylloides Lindb. (1879). 
Cinclidium stygium Sw. cfr. — £, arclicum B. etS. Boggy spring 
. near Abisko Hut, cfr., soc. cum C. stygio. We gathered this plant 
in some quantity, taking it (o be in all probability €, stygium; but 
(1) Since the above was in print, my attention has been called to a 
_ note by Jensen (Hedwigia, 43, p. 289), in which he shows that the 
_ nerve section is practically identical in M. hymenophyllum and M. 
hymenophylloides, and differs entirely from that of the group Integer- 
_ rimae. This observation greatly strengthens the argument as to the 
identity of the two plants, while it somewhat supports the reference 
of the two to Cinclidium, — a question which, perhaps, can only be 
definitely solved by the discovery of the fruit. 
