Fig. 3. Mnium antiquorum. 



tendency to be elliptical. These characters are probably quite sufficient to indicate a 

 specific difference; but the relationship is close, and the fragment bears out in an 

 interesting way the indications given by the rest of the plant remains. 



MNIUM ANTIQUORUM Card, et Dixon sp. nov. 



The second from Reuver is perhaps still more interesting. It is a species of Mnium 

 of the § Tvachycystis, represented at the present day by two 

 species only, both confined to China (including Saghalien and 

 the Amur region) and Japan. It differs however from both 

 of these, and in conjunction with Mons. Cardot, who has 

 kindly examined it, I propose the following name for it. 



Mnium antiquorum Card, et Dixon sp. nov. A M . micro* 

 phyllo Dz. et Molk. differt cellulis minoribus, parietibus magis 

 incrassatis, atque foliis limbo incrassato bistratoso circumscrip* 

 tis; a M. flagellari Sull. et Lesq. proximo foliis minoribus, 

 irregulariter, obscure, simpliciter dentatis, nee spinulis bige* 

 minatis armatis. 



"Besides these occurred a fragment of a Harpidioid 

 Hypnum, a Brachythecioid moss belonging to Homalothecium 

 or one of the allied genera, in all probability distinct from any 

 of the existing European species, and a further pleurocarpous 

 moss with single nerve, species and genus indeterminable. 



del H N.Dixon 



1. Stem X 3. 



2. 3. Leaves X 25. 



4. Leaf, restored, X 25. 



5. Apex of Leaf, X 100. 



6. Basalareolation, X 100 



"The Tegelen mosses do not indicate any definite 

 association, and in some respects appear to be a little hetero* 

 geneous; the bulk of them are hygrophytic, and do not 

 indicate anything different from what might be expected in any Central European 

 low lying marsh or river valley at the present time. Associated with these are however 

 two, Homalothecium sericeum B. et S. and Ditrichum tortile Hampe, which are rupestral 

 and terrestrial species respectively, neither being hygrophytic, while a third appears to 

 me to be entirely inseparable from Pseudoleskea atrovirens (Dicks.) (Ps. patens Limp.), 

 having exactly the irregular isodiametrical cells with single central papillae of that species, 

 which however is an alpine rock plant, and could scarcely be associated with such 

 species as Eurhynchium speciosum. There are two branches slightly differing in leaf* 

 margin and outline, and I was inclined to consider one of these as Leskea polycarpa, 

 the presence of which would be quite in accordance with expectation. I am however 

 inclined to think them both forms of the same species, and the distinctly denticulate 

 margin and sharply papillose cells would seem to preclude the identification of the 

 second fragment, at least, with L. polycarpa. If I am right in referring these to Pseudoleskia 

 atrovirens (Dicks.) it must in all probability have been transported from some distance." 



52 



