MISCELLANEA BUYOLOGICA 355 



HooKERiopsis suMATRANA (Bry. jav.) Broth. 

 This was described in Bryologia javanica (under Lepidopilum) 

 and distinguished from L. uticaimmdiana (Mont.) Mitt, by the 

 green — not purple — colour, autoicous inflorescence, and much 

 narrower cells. The two species have been kept separate by sub- 

 sequent authors, mainly or altogether on the ground of the 

 inflorescence, which in the Indian plant is described by Montague 

 as dioicous. The colour is too variable to form a specific cha- 

 racter, and the cell structure shows no distinction. Fleischer, 

 Musci .... voiBuitenzorg, iii, 1031, v^Yites oi H.ntica7nundia7ia 

 that it is stated by Mitten to have dioicous inflorescence, but that 

 Ceylon specimens determined by Mitten are autoicous. It 

 seemed desirable to go into the question, and I examined original 

 specimens in the British Museum collection. Montague, it may 

 be remarked, makes no reference in his original description to the 

 inflorescence, which is referred to only in his later work (Syll. 

 p. 13). I examined one or two fruiting stems without finding 

 any trace of male flowers. However, M. Cardot later kindly sent 

 me a portion of the original gathering, leg. Perrottet, and here the 

 inflorescence is indubitably autoicous. It may be mentioned that 

 Montague lays stress on the " operculo conico-truncato obtusis- 

 simo " of his species, and this appeared to me to raise a further 

 objection to the union of the two species, as the lid of H. sumatrana 

 is rostellate ; but Perrottet's specimens show a distinctly rostellate 

 lid, and therefore the last vestige of reason for separating the two 

 disappears, and H. sumatrana must enter the synonymy of 

 -H". uticaynundiana (Mont.) Broth. 



BaRBULA RUBELLA (Hoffm.). 



Paris under Didymodon rubellus gives as synonym : *' Barbula 

 rubella Mitt, in Journ. of the Linn. Soc. 1869 [xii.] , p. 162." 



The reference isto the Musci Austro-iVmericani. The only men- 

 tion of the species there is under Tortula cenea (C. M.), under which 

 Mitten has the note: " T. rubellcs simillima, sed robustior." It is 

 hard to see how^ any perversity of reasoning can find in this an 

 authority ior ''Barbula rubella" ! Braithwaite (Brit. Moss Flora) 

 gives the same erroneous reference, Paris no doubt citing from 

 that work. 



The true authority for the combination appears to be Lindb. 

 Muse. Scand. 22 (1879), as also given by Braithwaite. The citation 

 runs thus : 



"42. Barbula Hedw., Lindb. 



A. Erythrophylhcm Lindb. 

 216. B. rubella (Hoffm.) Mitt." 



The attribution to Mitten appears to be without justification, 

 and the combination to be due to Lindberg himself, in this 

 passage. It may be objected that Lindberg does not actually 

 fulfil the demand of Art. 37 of the Vienna Eules, which for 

 effective publication of a new combination requires, in default of 

 diagnosis, "reference to a former description under another 



