362 ORTHOTRicHUM ANOMALUM. [December, 



favouring this view of the matter, for it is pretty clear that 

 Bruch and Schimper had never actually seen specimens of the 

 latter, and that, consequently, they might inadvertently have 

 adopted erroneous views or conclusions respecting it. It remains, 

 however, to be proved that the species they describe is essentially 

 distinct from it, and that their plant is really and incontestably 

 the veritable O. anomalum of Hedwig, as they assert that it is. 

 We shall then be placed in a much more favourable position as 

 to the recognition and determination of our native species, and 

 as to whether it will be able to hold its position, or give place to 

 some other. Until this is done, the Avhole subject is one that is 

 filled with perplexity, and surrounded with difficulties apparently 

 insurmountable. It is, however, only by "well ventilating^^ the 

 matter, as observed by my friend Wilson, that we are at all likely 

 to be in such a position as will enable us to clear up so very 

 knotty and intricate a question. It is, indeed, one tbat is full of 

 interest, and well worthy all the efforts and learning that can be 

 brought to bear for its elucidation. 



I have pretty strong convictions that the Aberdour plant, or, 

 in other words, O. anomalum of Bry. Eur., as I believe, will even- 

 tually be found to occur not unfrequently, and that the reason 

 why it has not before been detected, will be found in the fact of 

 its having been overlooked or considered only as a variety of O. 

 cupulatum with more exserted fruit-stalks. The presence of the 

 sixteen stria on the capsule would very much tend to promote 

 this error; in addition to this cause, the fact of the peristome 

 when quite ripe and after the fall of the operculum, being divided 

 into sixteen separate, free teeth, may also have contributed consi- 

 derably to prevent its recognition. This may probably account 

 for the reputed error and confusion into which Hedwig had been 

 supposed to have fallen, and in a great measure explain away the 

 accusations brought against him by Bridel, and Hook, and TayL, 

 of "having figured the peristome of O. cupulatum for that of O. 

 anomalum/' as noted in my friend Wilson's letter. But on this 

 peculiarity of the peristome I consider one of the best and most 

 essential characters of the species is justly made to depend. The 

 difficulty, as it appears to me, is not to distinguish 0. anomalum, 

 Br. Eur., from our British species, but from 0. cupulatum, depend- 

 ing as it does upon the presence of two such obvious characters 

 closely similar in each species. And, as Mr. Wilson observes, the 



