500 Mr. R. Spruce on the Musci and Hepatice of the Pyrenees. 
Florescentia monoica: flores faminei constanter trigyni; flores 
masculi polyandri, paraphysibus claviformibus preediti. Folia in di- 
midio superiori plerumque (in varietate Grimsulana precipue) e 
seriebus cellularum duabus conflata. 
M. Philippe’s specimens have the terminal leaves distinctly re- 
pando-dentate, and thinner than in the ordinary form of the species. 
387. A. rupestris, L. Sp. Pl. p. 1601 (sub Jungermannia) ; 
Hedw. Sp. Muse. t. 7; M. P. 330. ; 
Hab. Z,_4P.c. cum priore ; etiam in rupibus dict. Chaos prope 
Gavarnie. 
Florescentia monoica: flores feminei di-trigyni; flores masculi 
tetrandri, paraphysibus carentes, nonnunquam in planta propria 
pseudo-alares. 
Ordo HEPATIC A. 
Tribus 1. JunceERMANNIEA, Nees ab E. 
Hemicyclum 1. Foliose. 
Subtribus 1. Gymnomirria, N. ab EH. 
1. Gymnomitrium, N. ab E. 
1. G. concinnatum, Lightf. Fl. Scot. 2. p. 786 (sub Junger- 
mannia); Gottsche, Lindbg. et Nees, Syn. Hepat. p. 3; H. P. 1. 
Hab. Z._, in rupibus humidis P. occ. et ¢., locis Pont @ 
Espagne et Port de Bénasque. | 
2. Sarcoscyphus, Corda. 
2. S. adustus, N. ab E. Europ. Leberm. 1. p. 120 (sub Gymno- 
mitrio) ; Syn. Hep. p. 4. 
Hab. Z, P. c. ad saxain monticulo Olivet prope B.-de-Bigorre, 
socio S. Funckit. 
The habit of this species, the difficulty with which it is distin- 
guished from small forms of S. Funckii, and above all the structure 
of the perianth, demand that it should be removed to the genus Sar- 
coscyphus. I find in all cases a true perianth present, the origin of 
which is derived from the union of two leaves quite concealed by the 
perichetial ieaves, with which it is concrete for nearly half its length : 
it is pale and of very delicate texture (cellules three times. as large 
as those of the perichetium), erose and inflexed at the summit and 
sometimes 2-lipped. The perianth of S. Funckii is formed on the 
same type. In some true Gymnomitria (e. g. G. concinnatum) I ob- 
serve within the perichetium two leaves (rarely only one) which are 
mueh shorter, wider and more tender than the perichetial leaves, and 
unequally trifid with toothed segments ; but these are neither connate 
with each other nor concrete with the perichetium, hence they can- 
not be called a perianth, although obviously supplying the place of 
one. Still it would perhaps be more logical to consider Gymnomi- 
trium as only a section or subgenus of Sarcoscyphus. I am happy 
