DICRANACEAE. 57 
1. Blindia ceo ates (H. f. & W.) Mitt., M. Austr.-amer., p. 59; Beckett 
in Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 27, p. 403, t. XXViil. [Plate VI, fig. 13.] 
spi caiol gin ean me H. f. & W. in Lond. Journ. of Bot., 1844, 
. §12 ; , 2, 407, t. 152. Blindia robusta Hampe in 
Linn., 1859-60, i "ear. B. aquatilis C. M. MS. in herb., et Gen. 
Muse. Fr., p. 245 (nomen). B. Wellingtonii C. M. MS. in herb., 
et op. et loc. cit. (nomen). Dicranum rupestre R. Br. ter. in Trans. 
Z. Inst., vol. 29, p. 459, t. xxxi. D. collinum R, Br. ter., op. 
cit., p. 460, t. xxxii. D. circinatum R. Br. ter. MS. in herb. D. 
Walkeri R. Br. ter. MS. in herb. Blindia pseudo-robusta Dus., 
Beitr. zur Bryol. Magell. &c., in Arkiv for Bot., bd. 4, p. 9, t. iii. 
It may perhaps excite some surprise to find B. robusta cited as a synonym 
of B, feweiohe, The history of the moss in New Zealand is as follows: 
On page 297 of Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 25, Beckett has an article on new 
species of New Zealand Musci, in which he describes B. robusta Hampe, 
quoting Hampe’ p cobra ge from Linnaea, based upon F. Miiller’s Australian 
specimens from Mount Munyang, alt. 6,000 ft., and adding: “ Hab. 
old moraine at base of Waimakariri ig tage 1889, R. Brown. I have 
authentic specimens of B. robusta fro r. Sullivan, collected in snowy 
watercourses, Mount Kosciusko, N.S. W. which enabled me to identify 
this moss.’ 
In his paper on Dicrana (Trans., N.Z. Inst., vol. 29, p. 451) R. Brown 
refers to this publication, stating that Beckett is in error as to the identi- 
Waimakariri plant is, a mi be “ Dicranum rupestre 
rocks.” On p. 459 he describes D. rupestre, pp as its habitat, “ On 
rocks, old moraine near Waimakariri glaciers. Collected by R. B.; Feb- 
ruary, 1889.” 
In R. Brown’s herbarium there is no pigs under the name of D. 
rupestre, but there is a specimen labell rown’s hand, ‘* Dicranum 
circinatum R.*Brown, co-type ; Waitnakariri Glacier; coll. R. Brown, 
Feb., 1889.” D. circinatum was never published under that name, and 
there is not the slightest doubt that the specimen represents the actual 
plant published as D. rupestre, with the description and es of which it 
agrees quite well. (In all probability Brown altered the name in view o 
Beckett’s identification, in order to mark the difference in habitat of his 
moss Spe B. tenuifolia.) 
e specimen consists of a well-grown tuft, about 2 in. high, repea tedly 
branched from the base. It agrees in practically every detail, so far as it 
admits of examination, with F. Miiller’s original specimens of B. robusta 
from Mount Munyang. The specimen scarcely admits of dissection to show 
the position of the male inflorescence, but I have little doubt it is monoi- 
cous. I have, indeed, found what I believe to be an old ¢ flower as a short 
lateral branch on a main stem ; but the specimen is so repeatedly branched, 
and the branches so interwoven, and towards the base intermixed with sandy 
detritus, that it would be next to impossible to determine whether an 
apparently basal stem were a separate growth or a basal branch, and I have 
not the least doubt that Brown was misled in his interpretation of what he 
observed in this connection. 
