HYPNUM EXANNULATUM AND H. ADUNCUM. 229 
he acknowledges the liberality of Sir Hans Sloane in giving him the 
free use of the Hortus Siccus of the Rev. Adam Buddle. Buddle’s 
plants may therefore be considered, at least when they are specially 
referred to, as typical for that edition of Ray. The species figured by 
Dillenius is ** Hypnum palustre, erectum, sumitatibus aduncis, Syn. St. 
Brit. ed. 3, p. 82, n. 15 ;" and, ** Museus palustris, scorpioides, ramosus, 
erectus, Doody, Buddl. Hort. Sice. vol. ii. fol. 22," is given as a 
synonym both in Ray and in his own ‘ Historia. The specimen re- 
ferred to in Buddle's Herbarium (now in the British Museum) is cer- 
tainly H. exannulatum. In his manuscript Flora, Buddle says it was 
collected ** on the boggs behind Charlton,” and he adds the descriptive 
character “cum foliola eum sumitates huie reflexee.” It thus appears that 
IT. aduncum of * Flora Suecica’ is H. uncinatum, Hedw. ; and it is also 
certain that the British species first noticed by Ray (Syn. ed. 2, p. 38, 
n. 13), and more fully described by Dillenius (Syn. ed. 3, p. 82, n. 15, 
and Hist. Muse. p. 292, t. 37, f. 26), is H. ezannulatum. Omitting the 
intermediate writers, we find that Wilson in his * Bryologia Britannica’ 
names and describes this plant as H. aduncum, L. His description 
When examined in the view of both species will be found as applicable 
to the one as the other; and his figure seems nearer H. aduncum, as 
now limited, than M. exannulatum. Schimper in his * Synopsis Muscorum 
Europeorum ’ (1860), gives only five references to H. aduncum in other 
authors, because, as he says, of the great uncertainty regarding it, but 
one of the five which he quotes without any doubt is H. aduncum (L.), 
Wilson Bryol. Brit., and he does this notwithstanding the specimen, 
sent by Wilson with this name, had been determined by his associate 
Gümbel to be M. ezannulatum. To Schimper then the figures and de- 
scriptions in Bryol. Brit. appeared to be H. aduncum, L.; but that 
Wilson could not have meant this species is evident from the fact that 
it was first noticed as a British plant in 1858, that is three years after 
the publication of the *Bryologia. When the authors of the ‘ Bryo- 
logia Europea’ distinguished the two species, it would probably have 
à good name for that which they considered new, it would only create 
More confusion to alter the names. Mr. Berkeley in his recently pub- 
lished * Handbook of British Mosses’ gives H. aduncum, L., as the 
common species, quoting Wilson’s description and plate, and H. exan- 
