I860.] ORTHOTRICHUM ANOMALUM. 355 



" We first found it ou rocks near Edinbro' twenty-two years ago 

 (1782). It grows in dense perennial tufts of a dull brownish- 

 green. It agrees with O. nudum, t. 1235^ in having no in- 

 ternal fringe, but differs in its revolute leaves and hairy veil, 

 which becomes toothed or torn, and at length loses its hairs by 

 age. The fruit-stalks, when fully grown, are longer than in most 

 of the genus (!). The lid is flat, with a slender beak." 



Such were the ideas respecting this species entertained by the 

 accomplished writer of the above description at the commence- 

 ment of the present century. That there are here strong indica- 

 tions of confusion and error must be obvious on the most cursory 

 reflection. The figure, though badly executed, is sufficiently cor- 

 rect to show that the plant is not 0. anomalum of the present day, 

 either of Bry. Brit, or Bry. Eur., as is sufficiently evident by the 

 obovate immersed capsules. The number of strise as figured are 

 indefinite ; the peristome, consisting of sixteen free distinct teeth, 

 may either represent that of 0. cupulatum or O. anomalum of Br. 

 Eur., but certainly not that of O. anomalum of Hook, and Tayl., 

 and of all other British writers. On the other hand, the rather 

 amusing remark as to "the fruit-stalks when fully grown " and 

 the FLAT lid, coupled with its supposed resemblance to 0. nudum, 

 would undoubtedly seem to indicate that 0. anomalum of either 

 foreign or native authors had been seen, although not recognized 

 as distinct from 0. cupulatum. It is thus quite clear that at the 

 time Smith wrote, the two species were confounded with each 

 other ; and it does indeed appear most strange how it came to 

 pass that Smith should quote Hedwig^s O. anomalum as synony- 

 mous and identical with his own, seeing that the one he had 

 figured and described was truly 0. cupulatum. He could hardly 

 have fallen into this error if he had really seen authentic speci- 

 mens of the plant described by Hedwig, unless indeed, as has 

 been asserted, Hedwig himself had confounded and misunderstood 

 the two species. The whole matter at this time would appear to 

 have been involved in chaos, which however is not to be much 

 wondered at, considering the obscurity that then existed in the 

 definition of species, and the very vague and unsatisfactory manner 

 in which they were then understood and described. It is how- 

 ever a matter of far greater surprise to find that much of that 

 obscurity in reference to the identity of Hedwig's plant still re- 

 mains and enshrouds our ideas with a darkness almost as impe- 



