ss AD ans eet Age 
See, Pa 
Mr. R. Spruce on the Musci and Hepatice of the Pyrenees. 269 
account of its manifestly fruticose habit, and the different struc- 
ture of its flowers: with Brachistus it appears to correspond suf- 
ficiently, although nothing is yet known of its fruit. Willdenow 
considers this plant the same as that figured in Miller’s Dict. 
tab. 206. Tab. 20*, but Nees holds a contrary opinion (Linn. loc. 
cit. p. 441), principally on account of its leaves being opposite ; 
it is however most likely that its geminate leaves may have been 
mistaken by Miller as opposite. 
The leaves are said to be 2 inches long, 1 inch broad, on a 
_ petiole 1-3 inch in length; the peduncles are 2-2} lines long, 
the calyx scarcely 24 lines ; the corolla, including the lobes, is 
33 lines in length. 
15. Brachistus ? Linneanus. Physalis arborescens, Linn. Sp. Pl. 
161; Spr. Syst. Veg. i. 696 ;—caule arborescente ; foliis ova- 
tis, subangulatis, subtus lanatis ; floribus solitariis.—Mexico. 
This species is excluded by Nees (Linn. vi. 483) from Physalis, 
and considered by him as altogether distinct from the foregoing. 
From the above short character it is impossible to come to any 
decided opinion on the subject. 
XXXITI.—The Musci and Hepatice of the Pyrenees. 
By Ricuarp Spruce. 
[Continued from-p. 106.] 
Tue abbreviations made use of in this Catalogue are (besides 
those above-mentioned for the zones of altitude) P. occ., P. c. 
and P. or. for Pyrenei occidentales, centrales and orientales, re- 
spectively; M. P. for “ Musci Pyrenaici quos in Pyrenezis cen- 
tralibus occidentalibusque, necnon in Agro Syrtico, a.p. 1845 
—46 decerpsit Richard Spruce. Londini: 1847 ;” and H. P. for 
a similar fasciculus of the Hepatice of the Pyrenees, and of the 
same date. 
I have made a point of citing the original description of each 
species, and one good figure of it, where such exists: the few 
‘synonyms that are occasionally given have been in most cases 
ascertained from authentic specimens. 
As to those localities which I owe to the observations of my 
friends, I have affixed an autopsial mark (!) to the finder’s name 
im all cases where I have had the opportunity of examining his 
specimens ; and where I have not only done this but have also 
observed the same species in the very same place, a similar mark 
* “« Physalis foliis ovato-lanceolatis, integerrimis, oppositis, caule fruti- 
coso.”” 
