12 TMK JUlli.NAL ur EOTAXY 



The superficial ivseiiil)lanee of the plant to CepJialoziella inie- 

 gerriina ( Linb.) W'anist. deceived for a time no less a bryologist 

 than the late l)r. E. Levier, but the incrassate rounded cells of the 

 present pknt are different from those of the CephalozieUa. The 

 bracts also are relatively larger and, the uppermost pair form an even 

 more complete cup. IJicliiluu has generally been classed among the 

 Epif/oniauthcw as defined by Spruce, but M. Douin tells me that he 

 j)Lices it in his new sul)family Cephaloziellacece^ essentially cha- 

 racterized by the perianth with four to five folds and a seta with 

 four rows of large external cells. When I first saw the plant at 

 Carbis Bay in its immature state, I was strongly reminded of 

 Lophozia excisn (Dicks.) Dum. by the colour and general appear- 

 ance, and it is probable that the plant is often overlooked. 



^I. Douin has described (Bull. Soc. Bot. de France, vol. liii. 

 ]). k)2) a closely allied species, D. gallicum Douin, differing prin- 

 cii)ally from D. califculatum in the presence of underleaves on the 

 sterile stems, the larger less incrassate leaf -cells, and the perianth less 

 contracted at the mouth. 



C'rj)Ji(i/oz/r/fa Massalongi (Spruce) K. M. This plant occurs in 

 some (juantity on the trap co]>per-bearing rocks at Carbis Ba}^ 

 Ci rowing near it and often intermixed with it is a plant with stouter 

 stems, i)roix)rtionately smaller leaves and nmch shorter underleaves 

 with larger, smoother cells 12-15 /i and more, while those of C. Ilassa- 

 loHf/i are 8-10 fi. M. Douin has distinguished this plant as a distinct 

 s])ecies under the name of C. Nichohoni Douin & Schffn. (Kev. Bry. 

 1911, ]). 17). I was until recently inclined to regard it as a mere 

 accidental form of C, Massalouyi, but a further examination of the 

 j)lant and of the conditions under which the two grow tend to prove 

 the correctness of M. Douin's view. C. Nicholsoni affects rather 

 drier and more exjxjsed situations than C. 3Iassaloju/i, and the diff'er- 

 ences in the cliaraeters, which appear to be very constant, are the 

 reverse of what one would expect from the habitat. Unfortunately 

 no 2 bracts are ])resent by which the validity of the species might be 

 further tested. 



Dr. K. Midler (Muse. Hep. Abt. ii. p. 193) does not accept the 

 validity of C. Nichohoni, but I find that this form is very scarce in 

 the gatherings which I made at Carbis Bay in 1907, and it is ])ossible 

 that inadvertently none of the plant now recognized as C. JS ichchoni 

 was inclu<led in the s])ecunens which 1 sent him. 



JAMES FORBES, F.R.S. 

 Bv .Iamks Bkittex, F.L.S. 



In the bi(.gnij)hy of Forbes Watson by the late Canon Ellacombe, 

 prefixed to tlie second edition (1901 J of his Floiccrs oud Gan/rns, it 

 is mentione«l that '* on his father's side he was descended from James 

 Forbes, F.H.S., (1719-1S19), of Stanmore, who was a well-known 

 student in Indian bot;iny."' A reference to our JSiofjraphical Index 



