MISCELLAXKA BRYOLOGICA 285 



and I find it identical with F. Zippelianus. F. silvaficiis was 

 published in 1841, and must tlierefore have precedence over F. Zip- 

 pellanus, which dates from 18/34. Mitten, it is true (Muse. Ind. Or. 

 p. 1-38), gives as a synonym of F. sUvaticus, F. javanicus 13ry. jav. ; 

 but Fleischer yop. cit. 49) lias shown that this is quite an error, how- 

 ever it may have arisen. Unfortunately, Fleisclier had not access to 

 Griffith's plant, but only the description and figures (on which latter 

 too much reliance must not be placed), or he might have gone furcher 

 and detected the actual affinity of Griffith's species. The synonymy 

 must therefore stand thus : — 



FissiDENS siLVATicus Griff. Not. p. 429 (1841), et Icon. PL 

 Asiat. ii. t. 81, fig. 1. 



F. Zippelianus Doz. & Molk. in ZoU. System. Yerz. p. 29 (1854), 

 et Bry. jav. i. 2, t. 2 (1855). 



F. tenninijlorus Thw. & Mitt, in Journ. Linn. Soc, Bot. xiii. 322 

 (1872). &c., &c. 



OiiTHOTRiciiu.Ar LEPTOCAEPUM Br. & Schp. e C. M. Syn. i, 706. 



Schimper's specimens of this are at Herb. Kew. C. Mueller 

 describes the capsule as " immersa, .... angusta, distinct e octics 

 striatal Brotherus, on the other hand, places it in a Section with 

 *' capsule smooth (or rarely indistinctly striate), exserted." It 

 seemed desirable to clear up the discreJ)anc3^ 



Schimper's specimens fill nearly a sheet. They consist of {a) the 

 type, Schimp. iter Abyssin. no. 429/;; several tufts {b) do., no. 488, 

 from a different locality. ((') " Orthotrichum molluscum mihi (in 

 Bruch's hand) Abyssinia; hb. Schimper." And three other speci- 

 mens, all from Abyssinia ; two at least, and probably all, collected by 

 Schimper. 



All these gatherings, with the exception of a tuft on no. 488, 

 have nearly exserted, perfectly smooth capsules, indistinguishable 

 from O. speciosum. The vegetative characters appear to agree with 

 O. speciosuiii. 



it may be assumed that this plant was the one intended hj 

 Bruch & Schimper by " O. Jeptocarpum.''^ But it is clearly not that 

 described by 0. Mueller. Now part of one of the tufts of (i6) no. 488 

 consists of a different species, agreeing well with C. Mueller's descrij)- 

 tion. The capsules are, to be literally exact, not fully immersed, but 

 they are far more nearly so than in the other plant, and indeed would 

 by many authors be described as immersed. Tliey are strongly 

 striate. The leaf form and structure appear to be identical in both 

 plants, except that the leaves in the former when moist are some- 

 what recurved-sqiiarrose, while in the plant with subimmersed 

 capsules they are widely patent, but straight, not recurved. The 

 stomata in both are superficial. 



The two species evidently grow together, and one must assmne 

 that C. Mueller's s[)ecimen of 429 h consisted partly or entirely of 

 the ribbed subimmersed form. It is clearly this latter which C. M. 

 describes, and which must bear the name O. leptocarpuin, though, 

 under the circumstances it would appear more correct to call it 

 0. hptoearpuni C. M. than 0. Jeptocarpum B. ^ S. 



