MISCELLANEA BIIYOLOOICA 287 



from Japan and also from Scandinavia. For the present, however, 

 it is best kept apart, as 



BiiniNiA DECUKYAiS^s (Mitt.) Dixon comb. nov. 



Hi/pnum deciirvaus Mitt, in Journ. Linn. Soc, Bot. iii., Suppl. 

 p. 78 (1859). 



Brachytheciiim decm^vans Jaeg. Adumbr. ii. 410. Girripliyllum 

 decurvans Broth, in Engl. & Prantl, Pflanzenfam. Mnsci, ii. li54<. 



Syrriiopodox rufescens Hook. & Grev. 

 In publishing a list of Mr. Binstead's Borneo Mosses (Jom'n. 

 Linn. Soc, Bot. xliii. 298) I recorded no. 87, from Sekong, as 

 Si/rrhopodoii honieusis (Hampe) Jaeg. This I find was an error; 

 it is S. rufescens Hook. & Grrev. Fleischer has pointed out the 

 difference between the two ; in S. boriiensis the leaves when dry are 

 straight, erect, and appressed ; in S. rufescens the lamina is re- 

 flexed, with spreading, flexuose, almost twisted acumen. S. rufescens 

 is new to Borneo ; specimens so named from Pontianak belong, 

 according to Fleischer, to >S'. revoluitcs. 



Thysanomitrium Richardii Schwaegr., and its allies. 



Paris (Ind. ed. ii.) gives 



PiLOPOGOX UMBELLATUS (W. Am.) Broth. 



Gampylopus umhellatus W. Arn. Disp. p. 24 (1826). 



The entry, however, is incorrect in two respects. The paging 

 should be 84, not 24. Moreover, W. Arnott published the plant 

 under Thysanoniitriuni (spelt Thesanomitrium), not Campylopus. 

 Cardot (PlantcB HochreutinerianjB, Musci, in Ann. Conserv. et Jard. 

 bot. de Geneve, vol. xv.-xvi. p. 161) has pointed out that the name 

 Thysanomitrium must stand, as having priority over Filopogon, if 

 the species of the subgenus Eupilopogon Broth, and those of sub- 

 genus Thysanomitriuni Broth, are united ; while if, as he suggests, 

 they are better separated, the species of Eupilopogon will remain 

 under the generic name of Pilopogon, while those of subgenus 

 Thysanomitrium will retain that generic name — unless reunited with 

 Campylopus, for which arrangement there is a good deal to be said. 

 For the present I pi-efer to keep them distinct, under the name of 

 Thysanomitrium. 



Thysanomitrium umhellatum was founded on a specimen collected 

 by Gaudichaud "In insulis Sandwicensibus (alt. 350-450 hexapod.)," 

 and described by W. Arn. {loc. cit.). It was published by Sch waegrichen 

 as Trichostomum umhellatum in Freycinet, Voy. de I'Uranie, p. 233 

 (1826). Each of these authors cites the other's work, which must 

 have been published almost simultaneously, but W. Arnott's was the 

 earlier. He describes it as only differing from T. Richardii in the 

 longer peristome teeth, which are, moreover, split to the base. It may 

 be assumed that the comparison with T. Bichardii is based on 

 Schwaegrichen's figure (Suppl. ii. pt. i. t. 118). While, however, 

 the figures Schwaegrichen gives of the stem and macroscopic charac- 

 ters afford a very good idea of the plant, both the description of the 

 peristome ("dentes .... lineari-lanceolati, solidi .... brevissimi, 



