PHYTOLOGY. 



BEYOLOaiOAL NOTES. 

 By Rev. J. FERGUS SON. 



Though one cannot be too thankful to have such a work 

 as the Second Edition of " Schimper's Synopsis," published last 

 year, one cannot help being a good deal surprised and 

 disappointed at many omissions which it makes. With regard 

 to Scottish Bryology, Schimper appears to have learned very little 

 since Mackinlay died and Dr. Stirton abandoned the study of 

 mosses for that of lichens. What is still more strange, he 

 seems to have forgotten or ignored some of his own recent 

 species. 



For instance, in a paper published in vol. xi. of the " Trans. 

 of the Bot. Soc. of Edin.," Dr. Stirton notices Zygodon Stirtoni 

 Schpr., and briefly, but clearly, points out the characters 

 which distinguish it from Z. im'idissimus. Specimens of this 

 moss, and named Z. Stirtoni, were sent by me to many botanists, 

 particularly to Dr. Braithwaite, who, in the Jour, of Bot. 1873, 

 referred them to Z. viy-idissivms, var. rupestris Lindberg, which 

 again he held to be identical with Molendo's var. saxicola, 1864. 

 On turning to Milde's Bryologia Silesiaca, one finds Molendo's 

 variety saxicola, 1861, held to be identical with Z. rupestris of 

 Schimper, not Lindberg. Knowing nothing of Z. rupestris at 

 that time, and possessing specimens showing remarkable 

 variability in the length of the nerve, I adopted Dr. Braithwaite's 

 views, and distributed Z. Stirto?ii sometimes under that name, 

 sometimes as Z. rupestris. Mr. Hobkirk, who had asked and 

 received a series of these specimens, connecting, as I thought, 

 Z. vtridissimus with Z. Stirto?ii, read a paper on Z. rupestris 

 (Stirtoui in reality) at the meeting of the Cryptogamic Society 



