a 
SALMON: SOME SPECIES OF ECTROPOTHECIUM B10 
measure a little under 1 mm. wide. Very rarely indeed a branch 
occurs which bears a very short branchlet. The dorsal and lateral 
branch-leaves are entire, or minutely denticulate at the extreme 
apex ; they commonly approach roundish-ovate in shape, with the 
apex shortly and often abruptly apiculato-acuminate. These 
leaves do not exceed 0.75 mm. in length. 
In the same year (1827) Bridel published a moss, from St. 
Domingo, as a new species under the name Leskia (Omalia) 
rutilans, I have seen the type of this in Bridel’s herbarium. 
The sheet containing it bears two labels; on one is written ‘‘ Pteri- 
Sophyllum rutilans N. Leskia rutilans N. L. Omalia rutilans Bryol. 
Univ, Saint Domingo. Balbis. Lyon. 1820." There are examples 
of two mosses pasted down above this label, one being the type of 
Bridel’s species, while the other is a species of the genus Hookeria. 
Over the first moss has been written in Miiler’s handwriting, 
“Om. rutilans ; over the second, “ Alia species.” 
Now this type-specimen of Bridel’s ‘Z. rutilans” agrees 
€xactly with Schwaegrichen’s type-specimen of “ 4. vesiculare.” 
One indeed was prepared for the fact of the identity of the two 
plants on reading Bridel’s description of his plant (‘ Laete virens, 
complanata, simpliciter pinnato-ramosa, ramis brevibus parallelis. 
Folia duplici serie disticha, subrotundo-ovata, subintegerrima, 
laete viridia, laxissime ovato-areolata, diaphana”’) and comparing 
it with the description and figures given by Schwaegrichen. 
It is most probably the erroneous statement made by authors 
with regard to the inflorescence of &. rutilans which has caused 
the two plants to be regarded as distinct species up to the present 
day. Bridel in his diagnosis makes no mention at all of the inflor- 
“scence. In Miller’s “Synopsis,” however, Bridel’s plant is des- 
cribed as “ dioicum >” In Mitten’s ‘‘ Musci Austro-Amer.” we find 
E. rutilans separated as being dioicous from the monoicous species 
£. vesiculare, E, amphibolum, etc. As a matter of fact Bridel’s 
plant is monoicous, and the type-specimens bear abundant male 
and female flowers. Miiller in his “Synopsis” compares “ H. 
rutilans” with H. subdenticulatum, H. conostegum, and H. Poepfi- 
Stanum, but not with A. vesiculare ; we may infer from this that it 
‘S Most probable that Miiller had not seen at the time Schwaegri- 
chen’s plant. 
