Hypnum.'] D I P L O P ER I S T O M I. 171 



more ovate with a single or double nerve at the base, lid 

 conico-rostrate. (TAB. XXV.) 



Hypnum proliferum. Linn. Sp. PL p. 1590. Turn. Muse. Hib. 

 p. 157. Smith, Fl Brit. p. 1297. Engl Bot. t. 1494. Hook. Fl. 

 Scot. P. II. p. 145. Hobson, Brit. Mosses, v. 1. n. 81. Drummond, 

 Muse. Scot. v. 1. n. 91. Btid. Metk. p. 163. Arn. Disp. Muse. p. 

 64. 



Hypnum tamariscinum. Hediu. Sp. Muse. p. 261. t. 67. f. 1 5. 

 Schwaegr. Suppl. v. 1. P. II. p. 236. Brid. Meth. p. 164. 



Hypnum recognitum. Hedw. St. Cr. v. 4. t. 35. Smith, Fl. Brit, 

 p. 1298. Engl. Bot. t. 1495. 



Hypnum delicatulum. Hedw. St. Cr. v. 4. t. 33. Schwaegr. Suppl. 

 v. 1. P. II. p. 236. 



Hypnum fuciforme. Brid. Meth. p. 163. 



Hypnum parietinum. Willd. Dili. Muse. t. 35. / 14. and S3. f. 6. 



HAB. Woods and banks in heathy places, abundant. 

 Stems reddish, leaves yellowish-green, dark, and opaque. 

 This moss has been found in every part of Europe ; as well as 

 in Jamaica, New Holland, and on the mountains of Nepaul.* 



* We are sensible of the errors in the synonym of this plant in the first 

 edition of our Muscologia, which Sir James Smith has corrected in his " Re- 

 marks upon Hypnum recognitum," &c. published in the Thirteenth volume of 

 the Transactions of the Linnsean Society, p. 459. But we cannot so readily 

 subscribe to the correctness of the observation on U. recognitum there made : 

 " This moss, being, as I trust, clearly defined in the Flora Britannica, and 

 figured in English Botany, t. 1495, I am somewhat surprised at the obscurity 

 in which it is involved in the Muscologia Britannica, where it is not allowed 

 the rank of a species, or even of a variety, being altogether confounded with the 

 common Hypnum proliferum. Neither are the above works, where alone it has 

 been hitherto announced as a British plant, cited at all !" 



If, indeed, we could for a moment bring ourselves to believe that the H. 

 recognitum had characters that would entitle it to rank as a species, or even a 

 permanent variety, we should think that by omitting it we had obscured the 

 subject ; and if our valued friend had only given himself the trouble to refer to 

 our account of Hypnum proliferum, published in the new edition of the Flora 

 jLondinensis, he would have assured himself that we had by no means neglected 

 references to his works, (of whose well merited fame none can be more sensible 

 than ourselves,) and farther, that we had given the subject the attention it 

 deserved, although we have come to different conclusions from himself. Those 

 remarks, too, were published long before our Muscologia Britannica, and we 

 here subjoin some of them : 

 This species is, according to Sir James Smith, to whom wo must ever 



