HYPNUM (BRACHYTHECIUMj SALEBROSUM AS A IJIUTlSH :.10feS. o07 



origiual specimen lie had figured and described. It consisted of 

 four plants, or small tufts, glued on paper, and marked " Near 

 Forfar, Drummond, 1824." I numbered, and then examined them, 

 with the following result : — 



Nos. 1, 2, d. = H. salebrosum, verum ! florescentia monoica — 

 Acre S" in caule et ramisprimariissaepe juxta fl. ? posito ; pedicello 

 Iffivissimo ; fol. acumine breviore magis seiTato quam H. (jIareosL 

 — No. 4:.=^H. lutescens, Huds., sterile, floresc. dioica; foliis con- 

 fertisstrictioribus, siccitate adpressis, striis^jrofundioribuspercursis, 

 acumine brevi. 



That specimen doubtless still exists in Greville's herbarium, 

 and I venture to predict that its re-examination by any competent 

 bryologist would confirm my own report on it. 



We have, therefore, at least two reliable stations for Hi/pnum 

 salebrosum in Britain, and I can hardly doubt that a careful search 

 would reveal others ; for the plant is so like some states of 

 H. rutabulum that, unless the smooth pedicel and the silky and 

 somewhat slenderer foliage be noted, it is very likely to be over- 

 looked for that ubiquitous species. 



BrachytJiecium Mildeanum, Sch., I do not find that I gathered 

 at all in the Pyrenees, although I found the very similar Br. cam- 

 pestre, whose pedicel is always somewhat scabrous. Schimper, in 

 the 2nd edition of his ' Synopsis,' says that he founded the 

 Br. Mildeanum of his 1st edition on a solitary imperfect specimen, 

 and his ultimate decision on it (Syn., ed. ii., p. 642), is " nil aliud 

 esse videtur quam forma Br. salebrosi robustior in locis humidis vel 

 inundatis degens." Whatever its specific merits maybe they have 

 nowhere been more clearly stated than by Mr. Eenauld, in the 

 memoir already cited, and I translate his diagnosis for the benefit 

 of those who may not possess the original. 



" The differences are evidently slight, and yet the habit of 

 Br. Mildeanum is sufficiently distinct from that of Br. saJehrusum. to 

 make it recognisable at first sight. The characters that distinguish 

 the two plants may be summed up as follows : — 



" Brack, salebrosum. — Tufts silJiu, green or yellowish. Stems 

 radiculose, often pinnately branched. Leaves running out to a 

 long slender acumen, denticulate, rarely subentire, strongly jjUcate. 

 Flowers monoicous, Male bracts oval acuminate. — Hab. on stones, 

 the ground, and rotting trunks, under bushes, and in woods. 



" Brack. Mildeanum. — Tufts a fine [/olden yellow. Stems destitute 

 of radicles, not pinnate, the few branches being erect or erecto-patent. 

 Leaves erecto-patent or imbricated, a little wider at the base, 

 triangular, gradually narrowed into a shorter acumen, entire or 

 nearly so, feebly plicate. Flowers monoicous or polygamous. 

 Male bracts abruptly narrowed into a lony filiform acumen. — Hab. 

 moist clayey grassy sites." (Eenauld, /. c.) 



It must be confessed that the above differences seeni rather local 

 than specific, and merely sufficient to entitle the plant to rank as var. 

 Mildeanum of Brack, salebrosum. Our Yorkshire plant, however, is 

 not that variety, but exactly tyx^ical Bracliytkecium salebrosum. 



