D 1 P L O P E R I S T O M I. 173 



Hypnum Stokesii. Turn. Muse. Hib. p. 159. t. 15. /. 2. Smith, 

 Fl. Brit. p. 1300. Engl Bot. t. 2036. 



Hypnuin Swartzii. Turn. Muse. Hib. p. 151. t. 14. f. 1 and 2. 

 Smith, Fl. Brit. p. 1293. Engl Bot. t. 2034. 



Hypnuin atrovirens. Swartz. 



Hypnum strigosum. Funck, Deutschl. Moose, t. 46. / 54. Dill. 

 Muse. t. 36. f. 15. 



Hypnum speciosum. Brid. Meth. p. 156. 



with juices in their fresh state ; and this will account for some difference. 

 The leaves are the same in both, though neither of them is well figured in 

 Engl. Bot., nor is either of them three-nerved as they are there said to be." 



" The next species to be considered is the Hypnum delicatulum of Hedwig; a 

 native, indeed, of Pennsylvania ; yet according to specimens we have received 

 both from Dr. Muhlenberg and Professor Richard, differing only in its smaller 

 size from our H. proliferum. An excellent figure of this is given in Dillenius, 

 (t. 83. / 6.) The differences noted by Hedwig are of small moment; and 

 what he says of the larger segments of the internal peristome being perforated, 

 is a circumstance that varies in different individuals. In H. proliferum they 

 are sometimes entire, and sometimes perforated. Linnaeus, in speaking of H. 

 delicatulum, remarks " Prsecedenti (H. prolif.J simillimum, sed longe tenerius et 

 forte sola varietas." 



In addition to what in the above extract refers to H. recognitum, we need 

 say no more, than, that since these remarks were published, we have seen Sir 

 James Smith's own specimens, and are only the more confirmed in our opinion 

 that they are merely varieties of H. proliferum, and such as would be likely to 

 arise from the situation of the plant, " clothing the surface of shady broken 

 rocks, and filling up many of their interstices, in loose patches or tufts. "Smith 

 says H. delicatulum of Hedwig is not the recognitum of the same author ; but 

 Schwaegrichen, the possessor of the Hedwigian Herbarium, and the steady 

 follower in the steps of his great master, unites the two in his late supplemen- 

 tary volume, and adds "operculi rostrum magis vel minus acuminatum in 

 utroque." 



Some reply is still required to another passage in the same Memoir by Sir 

 James Smith, in allusion to our not having in our first edition referred 

 to the Flora Britannica " which might, perhaps, according to general 

 usage, and not without advantage, have been quoted in the Muscologia." To 

 this we answer, that since it was a professed object with us to bring the 

 volume to as small a compass as possible, (see Introduction to the first edition, 

 p. vii. at bottom,) and since the English Botany contained the latest opinions 

 of the author upon almost every species, accompanied by figures, we did deem 

 it sufficient to quote that alone. We omitted every synonym that we thought 

 unnecessary, even our own labours in the Flora Londinensis 1 and for the same 

 reason. 



