28S THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



fusco-rufi") and the figures of it are very incorrect, and in all pro- 

 b ibility must have been taken from a partially destroyed peristome. 

 The teeth in T. Richardii are longly filiform in their greater part, 

 the crura sometimes separated for the greater part of their length, 

 united below — sometimes for only a short distance — and there trans- 

 vers.dy barred. 



As a matter of fact, the Hawaiian plant shows no difference from 

 the Central and S. American species in the peristome. I have 

 examined an origiiral specimen gathered by Gaudichaud in Herb. 

 Bescherelle, and I find the teeth precisely similar to those of T. 

 Richardii; and this is the case with other Hawaiian specimens I 

 possess. The specimen is labelled "Kauwaek," i.e. in the Moluccas, 

 where G-audichaud also collected ; b\it neither W. Arnott nor 

 Schwaegrichen, in the description of Gaudichaud's Mosses, refers to 

 its having been collected there, and I think the locality must be an 

 error. Dubv's figure of his Campi/Iopiis nigrescens (Mem. Soc. 



Phys Geneve, xix. 292 (1868) tab. i. e), which Mitten found 



inseparable from T. Richardii, gives a very fair idea of the peristome, 

 though the teeth are represented as perhaps too regularly barred, and 

 united further up than is at least usual. 



There is no suggestion that T. lunlellalum differs from T. 

 Richardii in any other respect ; and there can be no doubt that it is 

 the same species. 



The reduction, hoAvever, by no means ends here. C. Mueller 

 appears to have overlooked T. umhellatum W. Arn. altogether. It is 

 not included in the Synopsis, nor is there any reference to it in the 

 Rryoloqia Hawaiica. In that work he describes Thysanomitriuni 

 haa'aiicam, n. sp.; and as he does not make any comparison with 

 T. umhellatum, while the description applies perfectly to that species, 

 the conclusion is obvious that he was unaware of Arnott s species, 

 and was unconsciously describing the same plant. In the Bry. 

 Hawaiica C. Mueller describes as his ty^^e a slender plant, and as 

 var. rohusta a much larger plant which he had formerly labelled 

 T. R/ildwinii. In the posthumous Gen. Muse. Frond, he reverts to 

 tlie earlier view, and considers T. Baldwinii as distinct. They 

 re n-esent two i-ather extreme forms of T. Richardii. 



Paris (Ind. ed. ii. p. 898) has confused Thijsanomifrium haivaii- 

 cum C M. { Fl o r a, \xxxii. 4: i:0) with Dicra a urn haicaiicum C. M. (Bot. 

 Zeit. 1862, p. 328). It is the former plant which is Pilopocjon 

 hawaiicus Broth. The latter should appear under CampylojJus as 

 C. hawaiicus (C. M.) Jaeg. Adumbr. i. 140. It is the same with 

 T. Powellii C. M., from Samoa. Even C. Mueller can only say of 

 that plant that it "relative solum differt" from T. hawaiicum, which 

 for that author is conceding a good deal. The Samoan plant, in fact, 

 differs in no way from the Hawaiian T. Richardii. 



There is some confus'on over this name. Paris gives Thysanomi- 

 trium Powellii C. M. in Engler's Bot. Jahrb. 1896, p. 320. In 

 that place (vol. xxiii.), however, C. Mueller does not describe the 

 species, but cites a previous reference as " loc. cit.''^ This runs 

 down to the Musci Polynesiaci, where, however, the name does not 

 appear. It seems probable that the name was never actually published. 



