274 Mr. R. Spruce on the Musci and Hepatice of the Pyrenees. 
Presuming the identity of our plant with the Pterogonium hetero- 
pterum of Schwaegrichen, and its diversity from the Hypnum catenu- 
latum of the same author, to be sufficiently established, I have further 
to remark that the Pterigyn. heteropterum of Brid. J. c. is surely a 
different plant from that of Schwaegrichen; for it has “ rami inor- 
dinate fasciculati,”’ and ‘‘ theca erecta oblonga, omnino Pterigynan- 
dri,” to which is added “Inter P. gracile et filiforme intermedium.” 
These characters point rather to a form of P. filiforme, with which 
species we find Schwaegrichen identifying it, at the close of his de- 
scription, in these terms: ‘‘ Hunc muscum propterea pingi cura- 
veram, ut botanicorum cure commendaretur et fructus completi 
exquirerentur; sed acceptis nuper a Bridelio speciminibus, illud a 
Pt. filiformi non differre convictus sum.” He erred, however, in 
supposing his moss the same as Bridel’s, and consequently a var. of 
P. filiforme, which may be excused him from the circumstance of his 
possessing only barren specimens. 
It still remains to inquire what is the veritable Hypnum catenulatum 
of Bridel and Schwegr. ; but I fear this question can only be settled 
by a reference to the herbaria of these authors. The moss pub- 
lished under that name in Schimper’s ‘ Stirpes Normales,’ &c. 
agrees with Schwaegrichen’s description in the “ folia obesa et 
mollia ....stria utrinque marginali brevi,” and in the nerve, &c., 
but the inflorescence is certainly dioicous, while Schwaegrichen, 
whom it is difficult to suppose mistaken on this point, states that of 
his moss to be monoicous. A moss agreeing perfectly with Schimper’s 
has been found by Mr. Ibbotson on Pen-y-ghent in Yorkshire, and 
the H. catenulatum of Drummond’s ‘ Musci Americani,’ No. 219, is 
possibly not specifically distinct. These three mosses are all sterile, — 
and their identification is consequently the more difficult, if not quite 
impossible. I gathered the same moss in the Pyrenees in numerous 
stations, extending between the extreme limits of my explorations 
to the westward and eastward, yet always sterile, which would be 
inconceivable in a monoicous species distributed over so wide a space. 
However, rather than propose a new name for it, I am willing for 
the present to receive it as H. catenulatum, 
16. H. catenulatum, Brid.? Mant. Muse. p. 167; Schwer. ? 
Suppl. P.2. p.218. “ Leskea Vaucheri, Schimp.” M. P. 82. 
Hab. Z, sx, m saxis arborumque radicibus per Pyrenzos occi- 
dentales et centrales, haud raro cum Leskea attenuata et nervosa 
sociatum. 
I gave this moss in ‘ Musci Pyrenaici’ as Leskea Vaucheri, Schimp., 
from a comparison with specimens under that name in Dr. Montagne’s 
herb. at Paris; but I have since learnt that M. Schimper really in- 
tended by Leskea Vaucheri the species mentioned in this catalogue as 
I. nervosa, and it is therefore not improbable that the tuft I examined 
contained both species, for they frequently grow intermixed and are 
quite similar in habit. Very lately I have received from M. Schimper 
fertile specimens of H. catenulatum ; the capsule and operculum are 
much of the same form as in H. heteropterum, and the processes of 
