1887. | BOTANICAL GAZETTE. 31 
F. rufulus.—The upper leaves are usually much abraded ; 
of some, the thick borders and costa alone remain. 
F. Floridanus.—This species has been severely criticized by 
Austin,’ and no specimens of it are extant in this country. 
F, decipiens and F, adiantoides.—I can not agree with Mit- 
ten’? in changing the application of Hedwig’s name. The 
characters which distinguish adantoides trom decepiens are 
stature, size of leaf-cells, character of leaf-border, monoicism 
and habitat. Of these Hedwig mentions but one, and that one 
about which it was easy to be mistaken by reason of the 
scarcity of male flowers. If indeed he had both specimens 
e merely confused them (as many subsequent writers did), 
as is shown by his citing Dillenian and Linnzan figures and 
descriptions of the palustral species under his description, 
<*femineus ttidem alaris proprit individui.’’ As the only 
edwigian character is somewhat in doubt, it seems unwise 
and unnecessary to introduce confusion by transferring Hed- 
wig’s name from a plant with which it has been associated 
for a century to a plant which it is possible, but not proved, 
that he mean 
F. grandifrons.—The description of the fruit is supplied 
from Himalayan specimens collected by Falconer. 
DOUBTFUL OR EXCLUDED SPECIES. 
F.impar Mitten: Jour. Linn. Soc. 21. 554.—/. éryordes 
Drummond: Musci Am. No. 113 in part. 
‘‘Similar to small F. bryoides, but with more oblong 
leaves, having shorter and wider points, the inferior edge ot 
the vertical lamina not continued to the base, mostly only 
half way ; limb very narrow or almost obsolete on the verti- 
cal lamina; capsule oval or oblong; male flowers bud-like, 
very minute. 
‘*¢ Canada, Prof. Macoun.”’ 
have examined this plant in Drummond's collection, in 
which it is recognizable. I have not been able to find it, 
however, in collections kindly loaned by Prof. Macoun. It 
seems to me to be only depauperate F. bryoides. 
F. inconstans Schimper.—This form seems to be a mere 
sport of F. incurvus, dependent on the decaying or not of 
the older stems. ‘To the latter species it is reduced. 
1Buall. Torr. Bot. Ciub, vii. 6. 
“Jour. Linn. Soc. xxi. 559. 
