112 Mr. Turner's Remarks upon 



73. L. affinis. Dicks. From the description in the Historia 

 Muscorum, it must be concluded that Dillenius, like most other 

 botanists, confounded this with L. plumbeus, Fl. Scot. 



75. Not L. centrifugus, Linn, but conspersus, Achar., as quoted 

 by that learned author. 



77. and 78. both belong to L. olivaceus, differing only in the 

 edges of the scutellae being smooth in the one and ciliated in 

 the other. 



Of 79. there is no specimen; nor is there of 82., the famous 

 L.ampuUaceus; which is very singular, the circumstances attending 

 its being stolen, and afterwards restored by Professor Von Jac- 

 quin to Dr. Sibthorp, being sufficiently known to the botanical 

 world. It is, I believe, now satisfactorily ascertained that the 

 plant is only a variety, or rather lusus naturce, of L. glaucus ; but 

 still the replacing of the original specimen in the Herbarium as 

 a curiosity, and almost an unique, is very much to be desired. 



From No. 84. to No. 95., inclusive, the specimens are all want- 

 ing ; of Nos. 110. and 112. there are no specimens. 



117., referred by Acharius to his L. hirsutus, is L. rrmrinus of 

 that author : Dr. Withering on this number rests his L. Dittenii ; 

 so that these two plants are to be joined. 



The specimens of Nos. 132. 133. 134. and 135. are wanting. 



SPHAGNUM. 



Nothing like capsules, nor like what Dillenius took for cap- 

 sules, now remains on the specimens of Sphagnum alpinum, Linn. 

 preserved in the Herbarium : from the observations, however, 

 of the Rev. H. Davies, who examined it while they were still in 

 existence, I am authorized to say, that what Dillenius considered 

 the fruit was certainly not so, nor had it any real connexion with 

 the plant. From what I observed myself last summer in the neigh- 

 bourhood 



