113 Mr. T v r n e a' s R emarks upon 
73. L. affinis.. Dicks. From the description in the Hist or ia 
■Muscortim, it must be concluded that Dillenius, like most other 
botanists, confounded this with L. plumbeus, Fl. Scot. 
75. Not L. centrifi/gus, Linn, but conspersus, Achar., as quoted 
by that learned author. 
77- and 78. both belong to L. olivaceus, differing only in the 
edges of the scutellae being smooth in the one and ciliated in 
the other. 
Of 79- there is no specimen ; nor is there of 82., the famous 
L.ampullaceus; which is very singular, the circumstances attending 
its being stolen, and afterwards restored by Professor Von Jac- 
quin to Dr. Sibthorp, being sufficiently known to the botanical 
world. It is, I believe, now satisfactorily ascertained that the 
plant is only a variety, or rather lusus natura, of L. glaucus ; but 
still the replacing of the original specimen in the Herbarium as 
a curiosity, and almost an unique, is very much to be desired. 
From No. 84. to No. 95., inclusive, the specimens are all want- 
ing ; of Nos. 110. and 112. there are no specimens. 
117-, referred by Acharius to his L. hirsutus, is L. miirinus of 
that author : Dr. Withering on this number rests his L. Dillenii ; 
so that these two plants are to be joined. 
The specimens of Nos. 132. 133. 134. and 135. are wanting. 
SPHAGNUM. 
Nothing like capsules, nor like what Dillenius took for cap- 
sules, now remains on the specimens of Sphagnum alpinum, Linn. 
preserved in the Herbarium : from the observations, however, 
of the Rev. H. Davies, who examined it while they were still in 
existence, I am authorized to say, that what Dillenius considered 
the fruit was certainly not so, nor had it any real connexion with 
the plant. From Avhat I observed myself last summer in the neigh- 
bourhood 
