358 ORTHOTRiCHUM ANOMALUM. [^December, 



erecto-patent or spreading, straight when dry, lanceolate, carinate, 

 reflexed at the margin. Nerve strong, extending to the apex. 

 Areolation minutely punctiform. Vaginula oblong, naked or 

 hairy. Capsule on an elongated pedicel, twisted to the left when 

 dry, ovate-oblong, with a short ventricose neck, with sixteen ribs 

 alternately long and short. Operculum with a short, erect, obtuse 

 beak, from a convex base. Calyptra conic-campanulate, strami- 

 neous or pale brown, hairy. Teeth of the peristome sixteen, 

 geminate, united in pairs in a bi-geminate manner, ultimately 

 separate, free, almost equidistant, lanceolate, pale yellow, smooth, 

 perforated in the median line, often entire, erect when dry." 



The description in the Synopsis is much the same, excepting 

 that the capsule when dry and empty is described as " versus 

 medium coarctata /' it is in the following words, — " Capsule 

 much exserted, ovate-oblong, with a spurious or scarcely evident 

 neck (e collo spuria instructa), with sixteen strise, when dry and 

 empty contracted in the middle. Calyptra brown, hairy, etc." 

 Here then it is evident that there exists an irreconcilable dis- 

 crepancy in the description of the species as compared with that 

 of our native plant, more particularly in reference to the number 

 of strise on the capsule, its general form when ripe and after the 

 evacuation of the spores, and in the ultimately separate and equi- 

 distant teeth of the peristome. The circumstance of the different 

 number of ribs assigned to this species by Bruch and Schimper 

 had already been noticed in Bry. Brit, in the following words : — 

 " This species is readily known from 0. cupulatum by its red, 

 oblong, and exserted capsule, which we have never seen with more 

 than eight ribs, though it is said in Bry. Eur. to have sixteen 

 strise." And yet it does appear somewhat singular that notwith- 

 standing this manifest discrepancy in a character so obvious, the 

 Moss as thus described in Bry. Eur. is quoted as synonymous 

 with that of Hook, and Tayl., and would thus naturally lead to 

 the supposition that the two were identical. To me this has been 

 a source of great perplexity, for I could not avoid suspecting that 

 tivo essentially different species had been and still were comprised 

 under one and the same name. I have on more than one occa- 

 sion brought this fact under the notice of my friend Wilson, who 

 could give me no further explanation of the matter at that time, 

 than that it was most probably an error of description, — an al- 

 most necessary conclusion from our not being then acquainted 



