120 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



On examining the material at Kew, I found a great confusion 

 of specimens. Neither Gardner's plant nor Griffith's is there 

 represented ; the specimens of Sevi. acutirameum determined by 

 Mitten are Thwaites's C. M. 239 and 2396 (with others of Bed- 

 dome's from the Nilgiris). It was at once evident that there were 

 at least two species represented here, and it was necessary to 

 ascertain which, if either, was Mitten's species. Mrs. Britton 

 was kind enough to search Mitten's herbarium, and to send me 

 specimens of Gardner's plants (Ceylon, No. 110 — the type, and 

 Ceylon, No. 71) as well as of Thwaites's No. 239. 



Gardner's two plants are identical, and on examination prove 

 to be the same thing as S. monoicum (Bry. Jav.) Jaeg. The 

 authors of the Bry. Javanica, it may be recalled (ii. 208), say 

 of their species, " affinis videtur Stereodon acutirameus Mitt." 

 Authentic specimens of S. monoicum agree exactly with Gardner's 

 plant, and it may be pointed out that there is absolutely nothing 

 in either the figures or the description of Hijimum monoicum at 

 variance with the diagnosis given by Mitten. Why then did the 

 authors of the Bry. Jav. describe the Javan plant as new ? The 

 answer is no doubt to be found in the note which accompanies 

 Mitten's description of his S. acutirameiis, " S. Braunii simillimus, 

 sed foliis angustioribus et florescentia diversa." Now, as >S. Braunii 

 (C. M.) is not by any means closely like S. acutirameiim (i. e. S. 

 monoicum), and has leaves very distinctly narrower than in Mitten's 

 species (it is in fact one of the markedly narrow-leaved species), 

 it was natural that the authors of the Bry. Jav. should consider 

 their plant M'ith its widely oval leaves as distinct, in spite of the 

 applicability to it of Mitten's diagnosis. The problem remains, 

 what led Mitten to describe his type from Ceylon as having leaves 

 narrower than in S. Braunii (C. M.) ? This is easily solved, since 

 it is quite clear that Mitten entirely misunderstood S. Braunii, as 

 is plain on referring to Gardner's No. 784, which Mitten records 

 (M. Ind. Or., I.e.) as Ster. Braunii, but which is quite a different 

 plant with distinctly wider leaves, and is, I have little doubt, 

 /b'. Nietnerianum (C. M.) Jaeg. {Hyimum Nietnerianum C. M. in 

 Linn. 1869-70, p. 64), with the description of which it entirely 

 agrees. The seta is smooth above, not scabrous as in S. Braimii, 

 the capsule very small. 



We may go a step further, and find the explanation, with great 

 probability, of Mitten's misunderstanding of S. Braunii. It must 

 be recollected that Mitten had not, at that time, the Bry. Jav. 

 with its excellent figures to consult, and had to depend for his 

 knowledge of S. Braunii on C. Muller's description in the Synopsis 

 (ii. 687), and on any available specimen. Now the specimen of 

 " Hy2J. Braunii MiilL, Herb. Dz. & Mb., Java," in Hooker's Herb., 

 is probably the only specimen which would be available to Mitten 

 at that time, and is no doubt that on which his conception of 

 S. Braunii would be based. But this unhappily is not S. Braunii 

 at all. The leaves are much wider and more shortly pointed than 

 the figures in Bry. Jav., and the seta is smooth, or only indis- 

 tinctly roughened at apex. It is a small specimen, and I do not 



