194 O:^ ANOMOCLADA. 



Flores dioici, iis 0. Sphagyii parum diversi ; bractea fl. 5 intimce foliiii 

 mediis apquilongoe, apicc recuno-squarrosa:^ bifidoe, intogerriraae v. 

 denticulate. 



Perianthia foliis 3-plo longiora, anguste fusiforniia trigona, pallida, 

 saepe infra medium purpureo-zonat.-i, apice conniventi-clauso 

 breviter fimbriata, dt^mum irregiilariter rupta, ccllulis elongatia 

 pachydermibus Itevissirais conflata. Cah/ptra plus duplo brevior 

 pyrif'ormis tenuis, demum bilabiatim rupta, basi etperpaulo altius 

 pistillidiis sterilibus circumdata. Capsida . 



Amenta $ in planta propria, e caulis facie postica orta, albida tenera 

 julacea, subrecta decurvave — nunquam circinnata ; hractecu pauci- 

 vel sa3pe multi- (ad 2 0-) jugje, iis O. Sphagni sat similes. 



Var. andina. Pulchre roseo-purpurea, sterilis. Cum planta Pyrenaica 

 bene convenit, solum difFert foliolis stepe apice crosulis v. etiara 

 bifidulis biciliatisve. Ad surculos gemmiparos assurgentes folia 

 Buperiora sensim minora, foliolis subrotundis vix majora, iis plantae 

 nostratis accurate convenientia. 



Eah. M. Campaua Andium Peruvianorum, ad terram liumidam sub 

 Ericearum umbra, sociis Jungermannia hetcracria. Spruce, et 

 Sphagno pcruviano. Mitt. — In Andibus nusquam alibi — iaplanitie 

 Amazonica nuUibi — inveni. 



Odontoschtsma denudatum was first distinguished by Martius in bis 

 excellent " Flora Cryptogamica Erlangensis " (1817)— not, however, 

 as a species, but as a variety of Jung, scalaris, which it rather re- 

 sembles in habit, in the round leaves and the conspicuous stipules ; 

 for the lateral inflorescence was not then (as now) esteemed of such 

 importance as to separate even genera, although he was quite aware of 

 its existence, as appears from his description, " ^T. scalaris., Schmid., 

 Q. denudata mihi. Caulibus elongatis filiformibus erectis, foliis 

 minoribus, sursum decrescentibus, calycibus lateralibus " (op. cit., 

 183) ; and his figure (t. C, f. 6), though rude, is characteristic. Nor 

 did Nees at that epoch properly appreciate the lateral inflorescence, 

 when, in the preface to Martins' work (p. xii ), he advocated the claim 

 of the plant to rank as a species, but compared it to J. emarginata. It 

 had, however, already (in 1814 ?) found its true place, by the side of 

 0. Sphagni, in Hooker's unrivalled monograph. Unfortunately the 

 two species were confounded and mixed up on the same plate (t. 33) 

 without any doubt being expressed as to their identity. That all suc- 

 ceeding authors should have failed to distinguish them (with almost 

 the sole exception of Dumortier, who first separated the group from 

 Jungermannia, and called it Odontoschisma — a name ignored by Nees 

 when some years later he substituted that of Sphagnoecetis) — that even 

 Nees himself should !)avc lost faith in J. denudata — is, I think, owing 

 to their having taken Hooker's figures as final proof of the identity of 

 the two plants ; whereas, whoever looks carefully at those figures, 

 with copious examples of the two plants lor comparison, will see in 

 them direct evidence to the contrary ; the fertile and gemmiparous 

 plants represented being 0. denudatum, aud the sterile 0. Sphagni. 

 We owe to Professor Lindberg the deserved rehabilitation of 0. denii- 

 datuni. in the " Notiser ur Siillsk pro Fauna et Fl. Fennica, xiii. 

 1874," to which I refer the reader for the full synonymy of the two 

 species aud a list of all the habitats known to the author. 



