172 DIPLOPERISTOMI. [llypnwn. 



34. //. prolong um ; stems subbipinnate, leaves distantly placed 

 patent cordate or ovate acuminated serrated the nerve disap- 

 pearing below the summit, capsule ovate cernuous, lid rostrate. 



(TAB. XXV.) 



Hypnum prselongum. Linn. Sp. PI. p. 1591. Hedw. St. Cr. v. 4. 

 t. 29. Turn. Muse. Hib. p. 160. Moug. et Nestl n. 422. Smith, 

 Fl. Brit. p. 1299. Engl Bot. t. 2035. Hook. Fl Scot. P. II. 145. 

 Hobson, Brit. Mosses, v. I. n. 82. Drummond, Muse. Scot. v. I. n. 89. 

 Funck, Deutschl. Moose, t. 48. / 60. Schwaegr. Suppl. v. \. P. II. p. 

 277. Brid. Meth. p. 156. Am. Disp. Muse. p. 64. 



look as the highest authority in such cases, the true Hypnum proliferum of 

 Linnaeus, although confounded by him with the Hypnum splendens of Hedwig- 

 As a further proof of the correctness of Sir James Smith's assertion, it may be 

 remarked, that Linnaeus refers to a figure in Dill. (t. 35. f. 14.) which it is 

 impossible should be mistaken. We cannot, therefore, but wonder at what 

 Wahlenberg has said in his Flora Lapponica, under his Hypnum parietinum, 

 (Schreberi, Hedw.) : " H. Tamariscinum, Hedw. (our prolif.J in Suecia vix 

 crescere videtur, itaque Limueo incognitum f uit ; nee dubitandum quin inse- 

 quens (H. splendens, Hedw.) ejus H. proliferum constituent. " p. 373. Swartz 

 has, nevertheless, given it a place in Muse. Suecica." 



" Authentic specimens of H. recognitum in Mr. Turner's valuable Herbarium, 

 have satisfied me that Hedwig's plant, published under that name in the 

 Stirpes, differs in no particular from H. proliferum. It is true the specimens 

 which I examined did not possess their opercula, in which a character is said to 

 exist ; but in this particular Mohr will set us right, for he had the opportunity 

 of seeing perfect specimens of H. recognitum, and says " nee levissimum discri- 

 men est inter haecce specimina et ea H. tamarisc. Operculum prse primis 

 minime, prout Hedw. deliniavit, conicum, sed reapse ut in H. tamarisc. 

 rostratum. Procul omni dubio itaque posthac H. H. recogn. et tamarisc. 

 Hedw. unam tantum speciem sistunt." We must add, too, the opinion of the 

 learned author of the Muse. Hib. in confirmation of our own : " Statura 

 minore operculoque conico differre videtur H. recognitum Hedw. muscis Brit- 

 tanicis a eel. Smithio nuper ascriptum, sed, pace Hedwigii, dubitare ut specie 

 vere discrepet." Sir James Smith, indeed, seems to have satisfied himself of 

 the distinctness of his H. recognitum, founding that distinction almost entirely 

 upon the shape of the lid ; a circumstance which, we have already observed in 

 our description, is somewhat variable, and we have seen it to be so in different 

 capsules on the same individual plant, although not to that degree that is ex- 

 pressed in the figures in Engl. Bot. of the plants in question. We have neither 

 seen in any specimens the operculum so short as in the recognitum represented 

 in Engl. Bot. or so long as in the proliferum of the same work. We may add, 

 that the operculum in many mosses, especially if the capsules be not quite ripe, 

 is shorter in the dried specimen of the plant than when the vessels are filled 



