357 



BRYOLOGICAL NOTES. 



By Eknest S. Salmon, F.L.S. 



(Continued from p. 3il.) 



(Plate 427.) 



(16). TORTULA PROSTRATA Moilt. 



In 1842 Schwaegricheii (Sp. Muse. Frond. Sappl. iv. pL cccx6) 

 published the description and figures of a new moss from Chili 

 under the name of Barhiila innioUh's. In 1845 Montague (in Ann. 

 Sci. Nat. iii. ser. iv. 107) described a moss from Chili under the 

 name of Tortula {Si/)itrichia) prostrata. In 1849 Miiller, in his 

 Sy7topsis (i. 632), placed Montague's plant as var. yrostrata under 

 the species Barhula mnioidcs Schwaegr. In 1856 Montague, de- 

 scribing his plant in Syll. Crypt. 40, gave the synonym " Barbnla 

 vmioidef< (3 pwstrata C. MuelL," with the following remark, "Hie 

 adesse confusionem suspicor." In 1879 Mitten (Phil. Trans. Roy. 

 Soe. clxviii. 33) created a new section — Calijptopogon — in the genus 

 Streptopogon for the reception of B. mnioides. In the Genera Mns- 

 coriun Frondosonun, published in 1901, Miiller remarked that Mitten 

 was in error in placing B. mnioides in the genus Streptopogon, as 

 the moss in question was a true Sgntrichia. 



Investigating the point, however, it appears quite clear that 

 Miiller, although using the name B. mnioides and quoting Schwaeg- 

 richen's excellent pi. cccxb, has described in the Synopsis not that 

 plant, but Montague's Barbula prostrata ; consequently his remark, 

 quoted above, on the affinity of " B. mnioides'' does not apply. 



In comparing the description given by Miiller with the original 

 one by Schwaegrichen of B. mnioides, we notice these points of differ- 

 ence : Miiller gives the characters to his plant, "folia caulina 

 recurvo-patula . . . margine revoluta . . ." ; the perichsetial leaves 

 are described simply as " longiora, erecta " ; and the capsule is 

 provided " annulo arete adhgerente latiuseulo." In Schwaegrichen's 

 description we fiud, "folia erecta; folia calycina longissima . . . 

 exteriora tria pedunculo longiora." Schwaegrichen makes no 

 mention of a revolute margin to the leaf, nor to the presence of 

 an annulus, and these two features are not shown in his plate. On 

 the other hand, in Tortula prostrata Mont., the leaves are recurved- 

 patulous, the leaf -margin is recurved, and there is a conspicuous 

 persistent annulus. Through the kindness of M. P. Hariot I have 

 been able to examine the type-specimen of Montague's T. prostrata, 

 and at Plate 427 I have given figures of this species. If these are 

 compared with Schwaegrichen's fine plate of his B. mnioides, the 

 great difference between the two plants will be at once seen. 



The fact that both species come from Chili and have marginate 

 leaves, may have led to their being thus confused. It is possible 

 that we know the very specimens which Miiller had before him 

 when describing the " Barbula mnioides " of his Synopsis. Dr. R. 

 Giessler has been kind enough to send me, from the Botau. Garten, 



Journal of Botany. — Vol. 39. [Nov. 1901.] 2 d 



