BKITISH HEPATIC^. 7 



Antheridia axillary, 1 to 3 together, oval, seated on a slender 

 footstalk. 



The enlarged figure of tlie stem in Brit. Jung. t. iii. f. 3, is very ciaracteristio, 

 except where the iavolucral leaves are represented as imbricated on all sides of the 

 stem. The inner involucral leaves (f. 6, 7) are also incorrect in outline. Nor are 

 some of my own figures more accurate. The barren shoot (t. ii. f. 2) is badly shaded, 

 so that the outline appears four-sidBd, and the involucral leaf (f. 5) should have been 

 more deeply emarginate. When the engraver is ignorant of the minute structure 

 of the plants he delineates, it cannot be expected that he should comprehend the 

 importance of reproducing every minute line and cell. Unfortunately few possess the 

 industry or artistic skill of Dr. Gottsche, who has learnt the art of the engraver, so 

 as to reproduce his own accurate drawings the more faithfully. 



A longitudinal section through the apex of the fruiting stem will prove that it is 

 dilated and hollowed as far as the third pair of leaves. 



The " Lichenastrum alpinum, bryi julacei argentei facie " (DUl. Muse. p. 506, 

 t. Ixxiii. f. 38), as far as respects the figures, which are very characteristic, should be 

 referred to J. julacea. The description may comprehend both species ; and as they 

 grow together on Snowdon and Glydr, where Dillenius collected his specimens, it is 

 riot improbable he looked upon them as forms of the same species. The comparison 

 with Bryum a/rgenteum is more applicable to our species. The white pruinose or 

 floccose appearance sometimes met with in J. julacea depends on the presence of a 

 microscopic confervoid growth which is parasitic on the leaves. The true colour is 

 olive-brown, and it differs further in the trifarious arrangement of the leaves, which 

 are cleft almost to the base into lanceolate lobes, and in possessing a perfect colesule. 



M. Danica, t. 1002, was published under the name of J. julacea ; indeed, until 

 the time of Lightfoot the two were generally confounded. 



The male plant seems to be comparatively rare ; I have'only met with it twice, 

 and it was unknown to Hooker. Jfees. ah Es. (Leherm. Ewr. ii. p. 52) published it as 

 a distinct species, under the name of Jung. gymnormPrioides. 



Pl. I. Fig. 2. — 1. Stems natwral sise. 2. The same x 16 diam. 3. Stem-leaf 

 X 60. 4. Perigonial leaf enclosing two antheridia. 5. Capsule a/rising from the 

 convolute involucre, one of the bracts removed (the form of the outer leaf is incorrect). 

 6. Inner involucre laid open, showing the young capsule invested hy the calyptra, and 

 abortive pistUUdia. 7. Outer involucral leaf, to which is attached a hifd swpplementa/ry 

 lobe {amphigastrimn). 8. Young capsule. 9. Spores and elaters. 



2. Gtmnomiteium coealloides, N. ab E. 



Pl. I. Fig. 4. 



Barren shoots irregularly fasciculate, much compressed, lance- 

 olate, suhfalcate, sometimes deformed ; leaves crowded, closely 

 imbricated, roundish-ovate, retuse ; margin broad, scariose, seldom 

 entire. Pertile shoots clavate ; involucral leaves obscurely emar- 

 ginate ; margin plane erose-denticulate., 



N. ab Esen. Europ. Leberm. i. p. 418, et seq. 



Ea/rtm. Scand. Fl. ed. x. 2, p. 128 (1871); Qottsche & Rah. Ep. Eur. Ex. 

 n. 79, 383, 513. 



