1859.] EXTRACTS FROM CORRESPONDENCE. 105 



characteristic feature as separating it from H. speciosum. In no 

 other respects however does the plant differ, either as to the cha- 

 racters ascribed to it, or from specimens which I have from Mr. 

 Mitten and Mr. Carroll, at any rate so far as I can judge. 



Are we then to trust to this character of the difference in the 

 inflorescence, as one that is subject to no variation, and look 

 upon it as an infallible test of specific indentity in all instances ? 

 Doubtless where such difference does exist, it would lead us, as 

 experience has already sufficiently proved, to infer other organic 

 and essential variations in structure, hitherto passed by unnoticed, 

 or deemed to be of so trivial a character as not to be valued or 

 taken into account in studying the relations of species to each 

 other, and the almost insensible gradations they assume under 

 different and varying circumstances, frequently giving rise to 

 doubts and queries in the mind of the observer, of the most 

 puzzling and perplexing character. I should feel much obliged 

 either to you or any of your readers, if you could furnish me 

 with an accurate description of H. remotifolium, and also with 

 their views in regard to this peculiar and very interesting sub- 

 ject. 



From the same. 



Broughton, 26th Jan. 1859. 



Since writing to you on the subject of Hypnum speciosum, 

 Bridel, lately found at Southport, I have submitted to the in- 

 spection of my friend Mr. Wilson the specimens then gathered. 

 He at once and without any hesitation admitted them to be 

 identical with such as he himself had collected, as also with the 

 Sussex and Irish examples before alluded to. It appears that 

 those species, naturally monoicous or synoicous, are predisposed, 

 though but rarely, to have an admixture of what I believe to be 

 the reproductive organs, so that the circumstance of a species 

 essentially or generally monoicous, or another whose character is 

 to possess synoicous flowers, having in the one case an admixture 

 of synoicous flowers, and in the otiier of monoicous organs, does 

 not necessarily invalidate the rule as such. In either of these 

 cases they then become what, for want of a better term, are 

 known as polygamous. H. polygamum, for instance, is a species 

 which will aptly illustrate my meaning. A person examining 



N. S. VOL. III. p 



