MISCELLANEA BRYOLOGICA 327 



when fully moistened they frequently become more or less com- 

 planate, in which case it is difficult to get the back of the nerve 

 in profile, and the cristate structure may easily be overlooked. 



Through the kindness of Mrs. Britton I have been able to 

 examine more than one of Mitten's specimens of his T. erosulum, 

 including the type (Fiji Islands, Milne, 48) and co-type (Samoa, 

 Powell, 14), and to compare these with the original gathering of 

 H. faulense (Novara Exped., leg. Eeichhardt, Faule, No. 50, in 

 Mus. Brit.). The differences are not very great, but they appear 

 to me to be quite constant and well-marked. The leaves in 

 T. faulense do not flatten out on moistening to the same extent 

 as in T. erosulum, the branch leaves are more pointed, the cells 

 of lamina more pellucid, and the nerve on the contrary more 

 opaque, so as to show darker, by transmittent light, than the rest 

 of the lamina. In T. erosuhim the cells are obscure with papillae 

 and more opaque, while the nerve is on the contrary pellucid, and 

 shows as a pale translucent line against the darker cells. The 

 ultimate branch-leaves are oval and very obtuse. 



Mr. G. Webster has seat me two plants, labelled "No. 563, 

 Tongoa Santo, New Hebrides, leg. Eev. F. Bowie, 1909," and 

 " No. 760, Wintoa S. Bay, Makalula, New Hebrides, leg. Eev. E. 

 Boyd, 1912," both of which are certainly Mitten's species. A 

 further specimen, " No. 582, Atherton, Cairns, Queensland, leg. 

 Allen, 1906," is quite indistinguishable from T. erosulum. It is 

 sterile, and it is possible, of course, that fruiting characters might 

 reveal some differences from the Oceanic plant, but I do not think 

 this likely, and I should refer it to Mitten's species with little 

 doubt. It is not the Australian T. plumulosiforme (Hampe), 

 which has more closely plumulose ramuli with the leaves scarcely 

 altered when dry. In T. erosulum and its allies the branch leaves 

 when dry are curled and strongly incurved. 



Thuidium faulense (Eeichdt.). Although T. faulense is dis- 

 tinct from T. erosulum, it is not, I think, a good species, but is 

 identical with T. Meyenianum (Hampe) Bry. Jav. I have compared 

 it with Hampe's type of that species, leg. Meyen, and I can find 

 no difference. A comparison of Eeichhardt's figures of his T. 

 faulense with Bry. Jav. tab. 224 (T. Meyeniannm) shows very little 

 difference, except in the form of the stem leaves ; but examination 

 of the actual specimens does not bear out this difference ; in the 

 type of T. Meyenianum they are rarely so longly accuminate as 

 figured in the Bry. Jav., but in T. faulense, where well developed 

 — i.e., where the stems are well branched and not stoloniform 

 — they are quite identical with the corresponding ones in T. 

 Meyenianum. 



The distribution of the two species, so far as I am aware, is 

 as follows: T. erosuhim — Samoa, Fiji, New Hebrides, Queensland; 

 T. Meyenianum — Philippines, Saparcea, Banca, Java, Faule 

 (Stewart Atoll, Solomon Islands). 



Thuidium plumulosiforme (Hampe) Jaeg. This species was 

 described by Hampe from specimens in the Melbourne Museum, 

 collected in New South Wales by S. Johnson, and also in Eastern 



