HYOPH[LOPSIS, A NEW GENUS OF POTTIACE^ 147 



nata, una cum costa excurrente longe subulata ; areolatio angustior, 

 elongata, juxta marginem ssepe in pluribus seriebus angustissime 

 linearis. 



Hab. On a stone pillar, Mahableshwar (with the type, no. 61), 

 Jan. 1909 (no. 62), c. fr. ; on earth-banks, Fort Purandhar, May, 

 1910 (no. 94), c. fr. ; leg. Sedgwick. Frequently found with the 



type. 



Strikingly different from the type in leaf-form and areolation, 

 and it is indeed only the extreme variability of the typical form 

 in these characters, together with the lack of any distinctive 

 characters in the sporogonium, that has induced us to consider this 

 plant as a variety only. It is quite possible, however, to find on 

 the typical plant leaves with an approach to the outline and with 

 almost the identical areolation of the variety. The fruiting 

 characters present no differences. Derivation, from Satara, the 

 district in which Mahableshwar is situated. 



Bryum ghatense is a very distinct species, at once separated 

 from the allied species of Areodictyon by the slender habit and 

 narrow, delicate leaves, with excurrent nerve ; the leaves for the 

 most part at least tend to a narrow acuminate outline quite foreign 

 to others of the section. B. sahyadrense, while resembling it in 

 the leaf-form and structure, is a more robust plant, with larger 

 leaves and a quite different peristome. 



While, however, it is easy to point out the difference from the 

 allied species, B. ghatense presents many perplexities, and con- 

 siderable doubt as to its true position. Mons. Cardot indeed 

 considers it to be a Brachymeninm. The fact is that in its 

 peristome (as well as in its vegetative characters) it exhibits a 

 very wide range of variation, so much so that it is scarcely too 

 much to say that, judged by the peristome alone, it would be 

 often necessary to refer two plants from the same tuft, the one to 

 Bryum, and the other to Brachymeninm, while a third plant might 

 quite justly be placed in Haplodontium ! In fact, I have several 

 times in the course of examination been driven to wonder if there 

 were not two or three species inextricably mixed up, identical in 

 all other characters, but differing only in peristome ! It is not 

 only the endostome that varies in development, but the dorsal 

 surface of the outer teeth presents notable differences in sculptur- 

 ing. Usually they are papillose, with the papillae irregularly 

 scattered (and it is this character principally which leads Mons. 

 Cardot to place it in Brachyvienium) ; at other times, however, 

 they are almost smooth, while in other cases, and usually where 

 the endostome is most highly developed, tliey present a striolated 

 appearance, more or less distinct, and curiously resembling, in the 

 varying direction of the striaj, those of B. sahyadrense, already 

 described (though in other points entirely distinct). I am there- 

 fore inclined to consider this as indicative of the true position of 

 the plant under Areodictyon. It is evidently a very plastic type, 

 and one is inclined to hazard the suggestion as to whether we 

 may not see in it a sort of starting point for tlie two groups of 

 Brachymenium and Bryum ? Areodictyon. Apart altogether from 



