MUSCI PRETERITI. 37 
into Borrer’s hands, who thereupon sought the aid of W. Wilson, 
for the Musei and pong When Borrer entered on the office 
of many of the Arsen he had figured in Eng. 
when I visited him at Henfield in the spring of 1846 he Siow me 
to examine those specimens, and gave me a scrap of a few that 
were divisible. Among the latter was 7. minutissima, Sm., E. Bo 
t. 1683. I examined it, and found it exactly what Taylor had 
called five years before J. ulicina. The specimen is now before me, 
and it is indisputably Taylor's plant. At that time Borrer, and 
especially Wilson, a the testimony of an authentic specimen 
supreme, however much it might vary —_ the author’s own 
account of it; and Wilson would. rarely name a moss unless after 
compariso n with ecimen from the ostben himself.. I, as a 
J.ulicina to J. minutissima, Sm.; and for _ other “J. nestor 
which differed from Sowerby’s on n the monoicous inflo- 
rescence, the absence of underleayes (or Gidea. sad the smaller 
peel a shortly seb and not winged at the fold,—I coined 
me Lejeunea Taylor 
hee erby’s figure serpiguenica J. minutissima in fine fruit. 
had never seen the fruit, or even the perianth of J. wlicina, but 
only the ? involucres; yet we hoped fruit might be found, and 
there was no @ priori reason why it should not correspond to 
still unknown, I procured the Eng. Bot. ae ure of L. minutissima, 
and, comparing it closely with Sowerby’s specimen, I became con- 
vineed that the figure never could have been made from that 
monman. The figure does not reproduce J. sidchinden mee 
ever especially as to the stem and branches, which a 
ler straight, instead of zigzag (as they ought to be), wise 
there is a slight hint of the oto in the lowest a ge figure (of 
& portion of a stem, with t 0 leaves in situ). The stipules, if 
Present, might have been ia ; but the teed siaee of the 
lant being in fruit assures us that it could not be J. ulicina. The 
Sharp keels of the perianth are shown clearly enough, and contrast 
Well with the almost ecarinate perianth of J. ulicina, now that we 
have been able to compare the ati 
ooker’s ‘ British Jungermannie,’ being founded on far more 
accurate observation and fuller cotuuaes of the pe vgn either 
Smith or Sowerby could pretend to, was naturally most relied on 
before him specimens of both species, and have failed to distin- 
Suish them. It is very usual to see the two species growing inter- 
