28 ; BRYOLOGY OF NEW ZEALAND. 
—a slender form with comparatively distant leaves, and a robust form with 
densely set, longer leaves. From each form I suppose a series tending to 
have leaves more entire, more erect, and less falcate, the more robust form 
culmmating in D. integerrimum, ae D. Burchardi as an intermediate, 
the more slender form in D. entella, having the plant nia as 
D. Weymouthi as its stcisiadiate fend probably D. confine Hampe as a 
further link, still nearer to D. Billardieri). We have thus the parallel 
series :— 
D. Billardiert (slender form). D; ie (robust form) 
| 
D. Weymouthi. D. Burchardi. 
D. Pungentella. D. integerrimum. 
The sporophyte appears to be absolutely identical, so far as known, in 
all these forms, which in itself is a strong indication of their close affinity. 
EXCLUDED AND DoUBTFUL SPECIES. 
Dicranum Speightii R. Br. ter. in Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 29, p. 461, pl. 32, 
fig. 22. 
The herbarium of Robert Brown, unfortunately, contains no specimen 
opinion, but there is nothing to indicate a difference from several of the 
known species, notably D. Ceo a the erect, symmetrical capsule, 
which would — on the face of it to be a character of some value. In 
the absence of specimens, however, it is Mihaila to determine its true 
place 
Dicranum confine Hampe & C. M. in Linn., 1856, p. 206. 
This species has eins recorded from New Zealand “ leg. H. Krone, 1874 ; 
ex herb. Geheeb.” It was described originally from a plant of F. Miiller’s 
collecting, at Sealer’s Cove, Australia. The description compares it aan 
D. Biliardieri and D. leurclomoides: and, according to the authors, it differs 
the latter in having the leaves loosely patent, hardly secund, with 
base, fragile, denticulate only and not serrulate at back and margins 
above, with the upper cell-walls not incrassate but porose, the perichaetial 
bracts ending in an elongate denticulate subula. There is no specimen 
of the original gathering in Hampe’s herbarium, but I have examined an 
— specimen in the possession of Dr. Brotherus, and I am quite unable 
to separate it from D. Billardieri. I do not detect any difference in the 
upper cells from that species, and the perichaetium shows the upper bract 
entirely muticous in an apparently intact specimen. am aware how 
almost: i inconspicuous pee in D. ardieri), and this is quite contrary to 
what one would expect if the inated bract had originally a red or 
Krone’s New Zealand plant exists in Hampe’s herbarium, and I ha 
a specimen in my own collection of the original gathering. This slacit 
(which was only found sterile) is certainly only a form of D. Billardieri. 
ae a rg — though mostly suberect (as described for D. — are on some 
stems in Hampe’s specimen falcato-secund. The | eaves are often 
