MISCELLA>'EA BRYOLOGICA 283 



Rules — " When the difference between two names, especially two 

 genei-ic names, lies in the termination, these names are to be regarded 

 as distinct, even though differing by one letter onl}'." 



There is surely no loop-hole ot esca})e from this, and Mtcrotham- 

 iiiuin Mitt, may be considered as securely established. 



DiDYMODOX RECURVUS (Mitt.). 



Mitten, in the M. Ind. Or. p. 37, describes Desviafodon recurvvs 

 Mitt., based on a specimen " In Himalaya reg. trop., Sikkim, J. 

 D. Hooker^ He cites as a synonym " Gymnostomum recurvum 

 Griff. JS'of. p. 897 ; Ico)i. Plant. Asiat. ii. t. xcii, f. 11 ; errore 

 typographico G. longirostro ad pedem tabulae adscriptum." 



This is misleading. In the first place, xcii should read xcv ; and 

 the figure referred to is II, not 11. The legend at the bottom 

 of plate xcv undoubtedly lacks lucidity : it reads " I Gi/mnosfomum 

 atroviride Gr. 1 II III G. longirostriim. IV. Diastoma denticu- 

 lata.'''' It certainly appears as if the name for fig. II had dropped 

 out, though it is by no m«ans certain that Griffith was not figuring 

 two diiferent sj^ecimens of his G. longirostriim. However this may 

 be, there is no evidence that Griffith intended to represent his 

 6r. recurvum by fig. II. In fact, the evidence is all the other way. 

 G. recurvum Griff, is alread}^ figured in the Icones on pi. xcii, fig. II, 

 and this reference is cited b}^ Mitten {op. cit. p. 33) under Barhula 

 rufescens^ to which species Griffith's G. recurvum undoubtedly 

 belongs. It is quite a different thing from the plant figured by 

 Griffith on pi. xcv, fig. II, which, however, may well be conspecific 

 with the plant described by Mitten as Desmatodon recurvus. 



The synonymy should read thus : — 



{a) DiDYMODON EECURVUS (Mitt.) Brotli. in Engl. & Prantl, 

 Pflanzenfam. Musci, i. 405 (1902). 



Desmatodon recurvus Mitt, in Journ. Linn. Soc, J3ot. iii., Suppl. 

 p. 37 (nee Gymnostomum recurvum Griff.). 



? Gi/mnostomum longirostrum Griff, p. p., Icon. PI. Asiat. ii. 

 t. xcv. fig. II. 



(5) DiDYMODON RUEESCEis's (Hook.) Broth. op. cit. p. -106. 



Gymnostomum rufescens Hook. Icon. PI. rar. t. 17. 



Gymnostomum recurvum Griff. Not. p. 397 ; Icon. PI. Asiat. ii. 

 t. xcii. fig. II. 



Paris (Ind,, ed. 2) under Didymodon recurvus has copied Mitten's 

 s^'nonymy, and needs correcting as above. 



Hooker's specimen of D. recurvus Mitt., from Sikkim, at Kew, 

 is a tall robust plant. Mitten, I think, a little exaggerates the 

 unaltering of the leaves when dry. The}' are strongly — and at the 

 apex frequenth^ circinately — incurved. The cells are rather large, 

 slightly smaller towards margin, forming a verv inconspicuous border, 

 scarcely comparable Avith that of D, Wallicliii (Mitt.) ; and generally 

 practically entire. Mitten has overlooked one character of some 

 importance. The apical leaves frequently have the mucro of the 

 excurrent nerve clothed with a tuft of brown septate gemmae. The 

 reddish-brown colour of the plant is xery marked. 



V 2 



