132 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



headmaster of a grammar-school at Strasburg, eventually became town 

 physician at Hern ; he also produced copious theological writings, 

 which must have consumed much time and energy. If these occupa- 

 tions left him the leisure to become an artist of the calibre of the 

 draughtsman of the Herbarum vivce eicones, he must have been 

 indeed an Admirable Crichton ! 



But in this problem we are fortunately not obliged to rely only on 

 internal evidence. When Dr. Church suggests that to identify the 

 wood-engraver of the Herbarum vivee eicones with the draughtsman 

 is like confounding the process-engraver with the artist in the case of 

 modern work, I think he is both forgetting the position which certain 

 wood-engravers occupied in the sixteenth century, and ignoring what 

 we know about Weiditz himself. Heinrich Rottinger's critical 

 monograph— Hans Weiditz der Petrarkameister, published in 

 1904-— has put us into possession of a mass of detail about his work. 

 He was by no means an obscure craftsman, but a wellknown illus- 

 trator who was responsible for the figures in a long series of books. 

 After discussing the woodcuts in the Herbarum vivce eicones, Hettin- 

 ger concludes that Weiditz must "be expressly honoured as the 

 draughtsman of the plant-figures." He founds this opinion more 

 particularly on a passage in the introduction to the German edition of 

 Brunfels's' herbal which was produced by Schott in 1532 under the 

 title Contrafayt Ereuterbuch : in this passage the plants are described 

 as " delineated and portrayed by the highly illustrious master Han* 

 Weiditz of Strasburg." I think the verbs used— " gerissen, und 

 contrafayt "—are open to no other interpretation than that Weiditz 

 himself was the draughtsman as well as the engraver. 



MISCELLANEA BRYOLOGICA.— VII. 



Bt H. N. Dixon, M.A., F.L.S. 



(Continued from Journ. Bot. 1919, p. 80.) 



Hypnum repltcattjm Hampe. 



In a paper on South Indian mosses in 1914 I described as a new 

 species of Sematophyllum a Cevlonese plant of Father Queste's as 

 SematoptyUum pilotrichelloides Card. & Dixon. I was not then 

 aware of the existence of Hypnum replicatum Hampe, which has not 

 been hitherto placed under Sematophyllum. Jaeger and Pans retain 

 it under Hypnum. Brotherus (Musci, ii. p. 1119) suggests its 

 identity with Trichosteleum ramulinum (Thw. & Mitt.). 



In 'looking through some specimens of Hampe's at the British 

 Museum recently I accidentally came across his R. replicatum, and 

 found that it was identical with our S. pilotrichelloides. Hampe's 

 type differs in one or two minor characters— the leaves are more 

 widely spreading on the branches, and slightly more concave with 

 margins more convolutely enrolled,— but the differences are too slight 

 to constitute a specific distinction. It is a very striking plant, with a 

 quite unusual habit for the genus. 



Trichosteleum ramulinum is a very different plant, with the 



