20 BRYOLOGY OF NEW ZEALAND. 
specimens are rene ; No. 1 is more robust and dense-leaved, though 
shitiete er than No. 7, and more closely resembles the type, but both are 
identical in wie They were originally sent to Dr. Brotherus for 
determination, and were returned as D. Billardieri, but this was certainly 
an oversight, as neither in nerve nor general leaf-structure are they near 
that species (though No. 7 resembles robust forms in general habit 
D. chrysodrepaneum is very close to D. robustuwm, and principally differs 
in the upper areolation, which is hare very distinctly shorter; the nerve 
also is narrower and of heey different structure, and the leaf- base smaller, 
shorter, and narrower. e perichaetium also is somewhat longer, and 
the seta shorter than in the fruiting D. robustwm which I have seen. 
9. Dicranoloma leucolomoides (C. M.) comb. nov.* [Plate III, fig. 11.] 
. Syn. Dieranum leucolomoides C. M. in Bot. Zeit., 1851, p. 540. Leuco- 
loma dicranoides Broth. in stngien and Prantl, Muse, p. 323 (1901). 
Dicranoloma dicranoides Par., Ind., ed. ii, p. 26 (1904). 
Distribution —New Zealand: Kaipara, leg. Mossman; North Canter- 
bury, 1892, leg. Beckett (det. C. Miller) ; Mount Cook district, alt. 2,500— 
5,000 ft., leg. Murray, December, 1907; Tapanui, Otago, 1891, leg. D. 
Petrie (sub nomine D. setosum); in large patches on the ground in Fagus 
forests, Kowai, Mount Torlesse, leg. Beckett, No. 165b (det. C. Mil ma 
Rough Gully, Bealey River, leg. Beckett (cf. Beckett in Trans. N.Z. Ins 
vol. 26, 1893, p. 277). (The above are in my herbarium 
I have in my dagen! a specimen from Mitten’s herbarium, kindly 
sent me by the New York Bot. i. labelled “‘ Dicranum (Oncophorus) 
leucolomoides C. M., on trunks of trees and damp forests near Kaipara, 
- 
N.Z., Mossman ; 715. pe.” This is entirely dicarpum, in good fruit- 
ing condition, and explains why Mitten has referred the present plant to 
D. dicarpum—owing, no doubt, to Mossman having gathered the two 
together, and only the pile: having been received by Mitten. D, leucolo- 
moides is quite a different plant, and its relationship seems closer, perhaps, 
to D. setosum and D. te than to an nie of the other species. It is a very 
much smaller leaves narrower at the base. In other respects it differs scarcely 
at all from D. pungens, and may ultimately have to be reduced to that 
species as a small and slender form. The upper cells, however, exhibit some 
slight difference, being small, narrow, and distinct, resembling those of 
D. grossialare, the pele shorter, oblique, and forming the denticulations. 
From slender forms of D. setoswm it is best distinguished by the narrower 
nerve, remaining narrow and comparatively well defined in the subula; 
and by the more distinct less incrassate upper areolation. I have not been 
able to detect any distinguishing fruiting characters. The nerve is quite 
different from that of D. Billardieri (I find it rather Heteronewron than 
Toxoneuron sh aeattbed by Renauld, but it may be doubted if he had seen C. 
Miiller’s true plant), and the upper perichaetial bracts are distinctly aristate. 
* N.B.—Brotherus altered C. Miiller’s specific name to dicranoides on referring the 
species to to avoid the absurdity of the combination 
It is not evident Sty 1 Paris, placing it under Dicranoloma, retains Brotherus’ s name ; 
I have here restored C. Miiller’ 8, as having the Priority. 
* 
