18 MUSCI PRETERITI. 
If, with Mitten, we consider Scopelophila and Hyophila congeners 
of Hymenostomum and Weisia, then they might be Mollie of Lind- 
berg; but if, following C. Miller, we put Hyophila with Pottia, 
they would be Tortule of Lindberg. 
e see, then, that there is great discrepancy in the views of 
our most eminent bryologists, and that many genera are at present 
in what can only be styled a state of very unstable equilibrium ; so 
that it seems preferable to retain Scopelophila, pro tem., as a genus 
apart, by the side of Hyophila, until some agreement can be come 
to as to its collocation in a more comprehensive genus. There can 
be no doubt that since the ancient Gymnostomum was (very properly) 
broken up, and the members thereof turned adrift, they have been 
—from the barren plant only—as a new genus:—‘ Merceya. Genus 
valde paradoxum, cum n europeo commutandum, clar. A. de 
Mercey, flore bryologice hyerensis et pyrenaice scrutatori 
acutissimo, dedicatum.”’ et he had had in his possession for 
several years good, fruited specimens (furnished by myself) of the 
dine species, which, as I have gs i 
; otherwise, to his experienced eyes, 
the genus would surely no longer have appeared paradoxical. 
e of my objects in drawing up the foregoing account has 
been to vindicate the priority of Mr. Mitten’s name, which, whether 
8 or subgenus, has a right to be respected. When an 
y succes who—possibly aided by ampler materials—ma 
judge it desirable to elevate any of those sections to the k of 
separate genera. - de Mercey’s name, therefore, remains 
available for some genus hitherto unnamed, and (it may be hoped) 
whose claim to generic rank is indisputable. 
(To be continued). 
