194 
up later if more material were obtained. Or they may represent 
plants that he had in his tient but of which he had not 
sufficient quantity to distr 
Still, there are possibly a score or two of numbers probably 
issued but not occurring in any of the herbaria to which we have 
had access; and it is much to be hoped that the present publica- 
tion may lead to further search, in herbaria possessing sets, 
which may result ultimately in the completion of the list. Any 
additions will be gratefully received. 
The bulk of the labelling has been copied verbatim and 
literatim from Rehmann’s lithographed labels. A certain number 
however of the S. African labels were abbreviated by Dr. Sim, 
when originally copied for his own use, as there was then no 
thought of publication; and in the case of one of the collections 
the labels were typed out for him by an assistant without tech- 
nical knowledge, and errors have no doubt crept in. The bulk 
of these labels, however, have been verified (by A. G.) at the British 
Museum, and for the most part the data are exactly as given by 
Rehmann. The lithographed writing is by no means always easily 
legible; and the spelling of the same locality on different numbers 
is not always consistent. This accounts for some vicissitudes of 
spelling in the specific names which have given rise to a good 
deal of confusion; a notable example will be found under 42, 
Campylopus Inczangae, A few notes have been added on these 
and similar poin 
It may be agen nee that Paris, who in the Index Bryologicus 
cites many, at least, of Rehmann’s numbers, the unpublished 
species as well as the published ones, has made a good many 
errors, most of which we have been able to correct here. More- 
over C. Mueller in the Contributiones ad Bryologiam austro- 
afram (Hedwig. xxxviii, 1899) has several errors in the numbers 
cited, most of which are copied by Paris. This is due, in several 
cases at least, to C. Mueller’s citation of Rehmann’s collecting 
numbers (as “ Rehm. coll.”’), as if they were numbers of his 
Musci austro-africani, which he cites in the same manner. 
‘These corrections give an additional reason for the publication 
of the list. 
Rehmann’s own herbarium might throw light on some of the 
missing numbers; but its present location is not known to us, 
and enquiries on the continent, and particularly at Cracow 
(where Rehmann was at one time a Professor of the University— 
ef. Rev. Bryol. 1878, p. 68), have hitherto failed to obtain the 
information. 
The arrangement of the genera is that of J: — & Panam 8 
Adumbratio. This fact reduces the problem of the 
numbers to within very narrow limits. The macs No. 112, C.9-5 
which comes in the middle of Barbula, would ~— belong to 
that genus; while No. 180, between Hntosthodon and Funaria, 
would (if actually issued) as certainly belong to one or soreghie of 
genera, 
