46*2 Sir J. E. Smith's Remarks on Hypnum rccognitum, 



what surprised at the obscurity in which it is involved in the 

 Muscologia Britannica, where it is not allowed the rank of a spe- 

 cies, or even of a variety, beino: altogether confounded with the 

 common Hypnum proliferum. Neither are the above works, 

 where alone it has hitherto been announced as a British plant, 

 cited at all ! I am very sure this omission, like several similar 

 ones, arises from no disrespect, either to these books or their 

 author. The confusion and mistakes in the references given in 

 the Muscologia, which I must now correct, prove this article not 

 to have received the usual attention of the able writers of that 

 work, Professor Hooker and Dr. Taylor, to which alone I attri- 

 bute every omission as well as mistake. 



Hypnum proliferum, so admirably delineated in the Flora Lon- 

 dinensis of Mr. Curtis, fasc. i. t. 72, stands in p. 103 of the 

 Muscologia with the following references, the figure just men- 

 tioned being unaccountably neglected. 



" II . proliferum. Linn. Sp. PL p. 1590. Turn. Muse. Hib. 

 " p. 156. Engl. Bot. t. 1494. H. tamariscinum. Hedw. St. 

 " Cr. v. iv. t. 3. Moitg. et Nest I. n.4i. H. recognitum. Hedw. 

 " Sp. Muse. t. 67. f. 1 — 5. H. delicatulum. Hedw, St. Cr. v. iv. 



" t. 35. H. parietinum. Willd. . Dill. Muse. t. 35. 



"f. 14. et t. 38./. 6." 



Of these, Turn. Muse. Hib. should be 157, a matter indeed of 

 little importance. The synonym is correct, as are the refe- 

 rences to Linnaeus, and English Botany, and to H. tamarisci- 

 num of Hedwig ; but it should be his Sp. Muse. t. 61. f. 1 — 5, 

 as quoted in Fl. Brit., not his Stirpes Cryptogamica. H. delica- 

 tulum of Hedw. Stirp. Crypt., which is t . 33 of that work, not 35, 

 and which is also t. 83. /. 6. of Dillenius, not 38. /. 6, is as- 

 serted by Hedwig to be undoubtedly a different species ; nor 

 have I a doubt that what he received from Dr. Muhlenberg, and 



has 



