62 BRYOLOGY OF NEW ZEALAND. 
thing as B. acuta Bry. Eur. var. curviseta Mitt.,in Journ. Linn. Soc. (Bot.), 4, 
1859 (Archer’s Tasmanian Mosses). The inference, I thmk, is the other 
circumstances, a very natural one. 
Moreover, Watts and Whitelegge give for B. curviseta Mitt. the following 
localities, quoted doubtless from Fl. Tasman., 2, 172: “ Tas 
Johnny’s Creek; Oldfield. On stones, rivulet behind Cumming’s Head, 
W. Mts.; Archer.” Now, the latter is the plant cited by Mitten (Journ. 
. Soc., loc. cit.) for his Tasmanian “ B. acuta var. curviseta”’: and the 
There is, therefore, no record left of the true B. curviseta Mitt. for 
Tasmania, and the record also (in Watts and Whitelegge) “ Victoria, teste 
but in my opinion it is the tall form of B. magellanica, exactly agreeing with 
the middle specimen of Hooker’s type, “ Weisia acuta var., 45b, W. 130,” 
of B. arcuata—i.e., B. magellanica. It differs, as does that specimen, in the 
more distant, finely setaceous leaves, from the fruiting plant, but in no 
other way. The capsule and seta of Eaton’s plant agree with B. magellanica. 
The upper cells of B. magellanica are in Hooker’s specimens frequently 
quite short, often as little as 2x1 and 3x1; and on first examining 
them I was disposed to thi 
cells in B. cwrviseta are regularly quadrate (not “ rou ” as Mitten states, 
meaning probably simply isodiametrical as opposed to elongate), and the 
whole tissue ten: shorter and less n in B. 
regards the capsule neck, I find borne out by the specimens I have examined ; 
and, although strikingly near one another, B. curviseta and. B. magellanica 
EXCLUDED SPECIES. 
Blindia (?) torlessensis R. Br. ter. in Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 35, p. 335, 
t. xxxix, does not exist in R. Brown’s herbarium ; but from the description 
