328 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



Australia by Eaves. A specimen from Victoria recently sent me 

 for determination by Mr. G. Webster, " No. 775, Johnsonville, 

 Gippsland, 1906, leg. Edgar," is certainly Hampe's species. It 

 differs from T. plumulosum (Dz. & Mb.) Bry. Jav. principally, if 

 not entirely, in the smooth seta. 



T. plumulosum is separated by Brotherus from the remaining 

 species of Eu-thuidium by the rough seta, for the purposes of 

 the key. It may be remarked, however, that the branch leaves 

 possess the cristate nerve precisely as in T. plumulosiforme and 

 its allies, and it certainly belongs to that group. 



A further species of the same group, and one somewhat uniting 

 it with the group containing T. erosulum, &c, is T.campbellianum 

 (Hampe) Jaeg. A specimen of Thuidium from the New Hebrides, 

 also sent me by Mr. Geo. Webster, " No. 768, Wintoa S. Bay, 

 Malakula, leg. Kev. E. Boyd," is certainly Hampe's plant, agreeing 

 quite well with the type in Hampe's herbarium. It differs from 

 all the others of the group that I know (I am not acquainted with 

 T. lauterbachii Broth, from New Guinea) in the character of 

 the branch leaves, which are large, elliptical-oblong, somewhat 

 flattened out, and spreading when moist, not acuminate and 

 appressed as in T. ramentosum Mitt., &c. ; with nerve pellucid 

 as in T. erosulum Mitt, (which, however, has much smaller and 

 more obtuse branch leaves), and bearing one or two sharp denti-' 

 culations at the back above, towards the apex. The leaves, also, 

 are sub-crisped and incurved when dry, as in the latter. It 

 is a dioicous species, and Mr. Boyd's specimen is sterile, with 

 perichsetia, one of which, perhaps the only fertilized one, has the 

 bracts strongly ciliate. 



Thuidium bifarium Bry. Jav. A further plant received from 

 Mr. Webster, " No. 657, Tongoa Santo, New Hebrides, Kev. F. 

 Bowie, 1906," appears to me to be quite inseparable from T. 

 bifarium of the East Indies. The New Hebrides plant is some- 

 what more robust, with the leaves at times exceptionally large, 

 but that is the only difference to be detected. In this it agrees 

 with T. subbifarium Broth, from New Guinea, but there the cells 

 are smaller and more obscure than in T. bifarium, while here they 

 are, if anything, larger than the normal forms of that species, 

 and frequently much more pellucid and distinct. The gathering, 

 however, shows considerable variation in these respects, even on 

 the same stem, and I am not inclined to lay great stress on this 

 character of the cells, especially as a Himalayan plant, which 

 Mons. Cardot thinks cannot be separated from T. bifarium, has 

 the cells distinctly larger and more distinct than in Javan speci- 

 mens {e.g., Fleischer, M. Fr. Arch. Incf. No. 479). 



Thuidium suberectum (Hampe) Jaeg. A Thuidium from Mount 

 Cook district, alt. 2500-5000 ft., South Island, New Zealand, leg. 

 Jas. Murray, No. 97, has given me considerable perplexity. In 

 my account of these New Zealand mosses (Journ. of Linn. Soc, 

 Bot., xl. 457) I referred it with hesitation to T. denticulosum Mitt., 

 which I had not then seen. A specimen of Mitten's type, how- 

 ever, kindly sent me by Mrs. Britton, shows this determination 



