14 BRYOLOGY OF NEW ZEALAND. 
I am fully in agreement with Mitten’s expressed ai that D. poly- 
setwm (Hampe) is not specifically distinct from D. dicarpum. I have been 
tempted to retain it as a variety, treating the more shee: leaved form — 
usually two capsules in each perichaetium and on short setae as the t 
the robust plant with _ leaves, longer setae, and several —. 3-8) 
in a perichaetium as the variety; but comparison o number of 
specimens shows so many intermediate forms, and so little correlation 
between number of ages and length of setae, that I think it is quite 
impracticable to separate them. 
The var. spinosum H ft & W. (described os the “Handbook of the 
New Zealand Flora” as “a large variety with numerous (3-8) longer 
setae”) is clearly the same thing as D. polysetum. 
Dicranoloma Whitelegge: (C. M.) Par., from New South Wales, is con- 
sidered by Renauld to be a regional race of D. dicarpum. In vegetative 
characters and structure it is identical, but differs in the erect, symmetrical 
non-strumose capsule. In the absence of intermediate states Ehiiaa 
characters can hardly be neglected, but if the specific rank be admitted 
the name must certainly be changed. I have examined the type of 
Dicranum argutum in Hampe’s herbarium, from New South Wales, and 
find it absolutely identical with D. dicarpum in its vegetative characters, 
and, as the single capsule known is “ coe eee recta,” it is certainly 
identical with D. Whiteleggei. Hampe’s species was published in Linnaea 
for 1869-70, and has, therefore, priority over Leucoloma Whiteleggei C. M. 
(1897). 
Dicranum chlorocladum C. M. in Hedw., 1897, p. 362, must also fall into 
the synonymy of D. argutum. The type in C. Miiller’s herbarium exhibits 
no difference from D. Whiteleggei. This is the more surprising as the two 
were described in the same paper. Under D. chlorocladum ©. Miiller makes 
no comparison with any other species, but under Dicranum (Leucoloma, | 
Oncophoroloma) Whiteleggei he writes, “ Orthodicrano chloroclado ex habitu 
similis, sed haecce species ad Leucolomatis tribum non pertinens ”—i.e., 
D. chlorocladum differs from D. Whiteleggei in the fact that the former 
belongs to Dicranum and the latter to Leucoloma! He gives, however, 
absolutely no reasons in support of the statement that D. chlorocladum 
belongs to Dicranum and D. Whiteleggei to Leucoloma. Whatever the 
reasoning might be worth, it is invalidated by the fact that, as Renauld 
has shown, D. ay tere like D. — is not a species of Leucoloma 
DIcRANOLOMA ARGUTUM poole ee Pag one li, p. 24 (1904). 
in Linn., 
Syn. Dicranum argutum Hampe in Lin 186 9-70, p. 516. Leuco- 
loma argutum Broth. in Hagler and ay Musci, p- 322 (1901). 
Dicranum Whitelegge: C. M. in Hedw., 1897, p. 3 Dicranoloma 
get Par., op cit. “Tewolona Whitelegge Par , Ind., p. 234 
Stace rater chlorocladum Bay Ind., ‘ed. ii, 25 (1904 
loma chlorocladum Broth., 
D. argutum has not, I believe, ae ae in New Zealand. 
