454 
by me from Mount Mackay and Kakabeka Falls, named F£. celzata, 
duplicates of which I have in my herbarium, are also referred to 
this species, I have re-examined them lately, and still insist that 
the name I originally gave them is correct. Number 133 of Ma- 
coun’s Canadian Mosses was distributed as /. MJacouniz, collected 
“on rocks at Wellington Mine,” Vancouver Island, by Macoun. 
These specimens in our set prove to be Excalypta vulgaris vat. 
pilifera. If these are the specimens on which Kindberg bases 
his remarks, it is not surprising that he could not find the charac- 
ters indicated by Austin. 
Under the heading of £. ciliata he says (Macoun Cat. 6: 94): 
“Encalypta ciliata Hedw. and £. Macounii Aust. are very 
difficult to distinguish apart. The descriptions of the best authors 
are also not consistent.” He then quotes from them to show that 
the position of the teeth does not agree in all the descriptions. 
From this he says: “It is probable that the authors are confound- 
ing both species, also occurring in Europe. F#. ciliata is princi- 
pally found in the lower mountain districts. /. Macounii seems 
to be an alpine species also collected by Kindberg in the Nor- 
wegian Alps and considered a new species, &. dorealis Kindb. 
Laubm. Schwed. & Norweg., but exactly agreeing with the orig!- 
nal specimens of &. Macounii sent by Prof. Macoun.” 
It is interesting to know what Norwegian bryologists think 
about this, and we would refer to the remarks by Chr. Kaurin in 
the Bot. Centbl. 41: 358 (1890). He states that in the contribu- 
tion referred to by Kindberg the specimens which were called £x- 
calypta Macounii are found to differ from the portion of the type 
which I sent him. 
_ To continue the quotation from Macoun’s Catalogue, page 95+ 
“The description made by Austin, cited by Lesq. & James, 15, 
however, not completely exact; ‘calyptra densely papillose, pedi- 
cel reddish, papillose, the leaves muticous ;’ such characters are 
not to be found, the calyptra and the yellow pedicel are nearly as 
smooth as in the true &. ci/iata, to which the descriptions of the 
peristome by Schimper and Braithwaite probably belong. The 
descriptions by Lesq. & James and Boulay could partly be re- 
ferred to £, Macouni, although all authors agree that in the 
description of £. ciliata,‘ without a distinct collum;’ £. Macount 
has a distinct collum and the margins of the leaves distinctly Te 
flexed. I possess no specimens of the true £. ciliata from No 
America. It may not occur there.” 
Now it seems evident from all this that Macoun has sent Kind- 
