MUSCI PRETERITI. 17 
The alternative of considering Scopelophila an aptychous 
member of the subtribe Zyyodontee seems scarcely admissible, if 
all the other differences, above-enumerated, be duly estimated ; 
and if C. Miiller had possessed the fruit of ‘Geopeliplid he would 
(I ee a no more have laced it in Zyy oe than I should in 
or C. Miller 
of the Loge Pottia, Ehrh., which he divides into the four sections 
following, viz., Anacal. alypta, Eupottia, Hyophila, and Hymenostylium. 
His deGeition of Hyophila is prey —" than Mitten’s, an 
thus:—‘*Theea gymnostoma, rarissime peristomata. Folia plus 
minus lata, marginibus involutis, coned pllueie superne minute opace 
areolata, plerumque facile emollien fl. dioica. Calyptra 
plerumque angusta subtorta.—A Pottia nunquam discerni potest, 
nam areolatio folii omnino Hupottie est.” There is no denying 
Dib icliyn atural. 
Returning to Mitten, op. cit., we find ae not admitting Pottia 
even as a section, but merging it in his Tortula § 8, Desmatodon. 
If we consult now the ef of new bryological rere viz., 
Lind ’s*M ositi,’ 
we te the genus Tortula of Mubo, ‘Brit.— Barbula of Bevo. rman 
ivi mainly into three genera, Tortula, Mollia, and Barbula ; 
the areneat fruited 7’. squarrosa having a genus to itself (Pleurochete, 
and aes of those three oT is ares vs undry 
Schrank. Lindb.” i is ee of sates sir swt genera of 
Bryol. Europ. and Syn. Muse. Europ., in the following order :— 
1. Barbula tortuosa and fragilis ; 2. Trichostomum flavovirens, Bruch. ; 
8. Didymodon cylindricus, brach ydontius, 3 4, Eucladium verti- 
ae 5. can atein: curvirostrum and tenue ; 6. Weista viridula 
€., controversa), Hymenostomum microstomum, &C¢.; 
8. Phaseum (Systegium) crispum.* 
* The species grouped under Mollia by Schrauk ,were—as I griber from 
Miller's ‘Synopsis,’ for I have not Schrauk’s ‘Baiersche Flora’ (1789) at ae 
the five following :—muralis, ruralis, su ta, tortuosa, and w i es 
therefore corresponded to the Tortula of Hooker and Taylor, and to the oni 
and api combini i i 
wig; and was 
sought to be re-instituted. Is there to be no limit to this disinterment and 
attempted stcnaheepep of fossilized NE especially o of ean most cases 
used by their modern restorers in a much-modified, and sometimes in a very 
different, Modis from that of the original propounder ? If the use of names be 
to enable us to divasars about things, it is plain that every change of a 
to the oS and tends to retard his acquiring a perfect knowledge of the 
sie its 
D 
