BRYOLOGY OF NEW ZEALAND. 
on Pichincha and Chimborazo, in several of the subantarctic islands, and in 
New Zealand. The plant originally recorded as this species in the Flora of 
New Zealand was not the true plant, and was later identified by Hooker and 
Wilson with Ditrichum strictum (Trichost. australe H. t. & W.). tiven then, 
however, it had not found its true place, as the New Za and specimens for 
the most part proved to iia to a distinct species, already described as 
Ditrichum punctulatum 
The true Distichium Ae however, gathered by Sinclair and Haast in 
the Southern Alps, specimens of which are now in Hooker’s herbarium at 
Kew. I have it, too, in my collection from Otago, re also from Westland, 
leg. D. Petrie. The truly distichous leaves in the best-developed stems 
give a very marked, flabellate and flattened appearance to the stems (Phor- 
distant it may casily be confused with D. punctulatum Mitt.; though even 
then the leaves of the Distichium preserve their truly distichous arrange- 
ment. 
The small, scarcely curved or quite symmetrical capsule, with very 
Hes conical lid (conical-rostellate when dry), is also a good distinguishing 
character. 
PsrevpopisticHiuM Card., Not. prélim. in Rev. Bryol., 1905, 2B 45, et Fi. 
ryol. des Terres Magellaniques, &c., p. 
Sporophytic characters of Distichium. Leaves in 15 rows, not disti- 
basal marginal cells extremely narrow and thin-walled, forming a distinct 
hyaline border to the leaf-base 
n examining R. Brown’s specimens of Trichostomum described in 
Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 29, p. 478, I felt some doubt about the ine position 
of T. Buchanani. It is placed by Brotherus (who had not see 
peer Aon narrowing border for some nae up fe ee ee leaf, in 
fact, showed an almost exact resemblance to some forms of Campylopus, 
which was heightened by the leaf-apex being usually marked by three or 
four coarse, sharp denticulations. 
A second plant of R. Brown’s, Weissia Brotherusii, showed— 
different espacio very much the same type of leaf, but with the listings 
ing characters still more strongly marked; and I had decided to cre 
new genus for the two species and had, i nde ed, drawn up a description, evi 
attention was drawn to Pseudodistichium Cardot (c/. Brotherus, Musci, 
aha PP. 1175-76, fig. aay, with which R. Brown’s plants were certainly 
congeneric, and one, Trich. Buchanani, possibly tea Having been 
able, daseg the kindness me M. Ca rdot, to examine a specimen of his 
Ps. austro-georgicum, 1 find that our plants indubitiably belong to the new 
genus, and the difference between the antarctic species and T'rich. Buchanani 
abt. ang slight, seems to require the latter being kept separate. Ps. 
m, as its name indicates, comes from South Georgia ; 2 second 
