DICRANACEAE. 67 
they are entire, or with a few indistinct teeth at the tip only ; D. Jamesonit 
is also (as regards the fertile plant) a more robust species, and the leaves 
are less vaginant. In D. Schreberi nearly all the leaves on the stem are 
strongly and widely sheathing, only the lowest on the stem failing in this 
respect; in the New Zealand plant the lower leaves are comparatively 
narrow at base and not sheathing, but they become wider and more sheathing 
in gradual succession higher up the stem, until the comal ones are highly 
vaginant and very similar in form and arrangement to those of hrebers. 
I have not seen the New Zealand plant (leg. Kirk) referred by Mitten to 
his Anisothecium Jamesoni (cf. Beckett in Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 26, p. 286), 
has narrower leaves with longer poe and rather firmer, more elongate 
areolation than in most of the aland plants, but it is an extremely 
variable plant in length and width of subula, &e. (as is also D. keri 
(C. M.), with which Mitten united it—erroneously, a s Cardot has et 
out in the Fl. Bryol. de l’Antarctide, p. 60); this is exemplified also 
the New Zealand plants, which show much variation in this and ‘thes 
respects. 
There are no specimens of the true D. Schreberi (Hedw.) from New 
Zealand in either .Hooker’s or Wilson’s herbaria, nor in the national 
collections in London. 
I have examined the type of Aongstr. redunca C. M. and A. subredunca 
C. M., and have no hesitation in referring both to this species. The only 
difference between the two suggested by C. Miller of any importance in 
his comparison in wigia is in the length of lid, which is conical n A. 
subredunca and rostrate in A. redunca. But amesonw is very variable 
in this respect; on the same tuft I have seen “the lid longly rostrate and 
exceedingly the capsule length, and also shortly rostellate, considerably 
less than the A ai length. This is still more markedly the case with the 
allied D. Schreberi (Hedw.). There were no operculate “capsules on the 
specimen received from C. Miiller’s herbar 
C. Miller has somewhat increased a Cenk by secieyy tome 2 in a 8 
citation of EE In Hedwigia (loc. cit.) he writes, “A ‘oemia. 
redunca (Hook. & Wils.).” This may be merely a slip, but I am pee 
to think his intention was to write, “ Aongstroemia satel . (Dicranum 
Schreberi Hook. & Wils.)”” In the Gen. Muse. ate p- , he enumerates 
eer. @ Ha iy n. sp. (Dicranella campylophylla Hpe. a nec Tayl.) ; 
subredu sp.; und A. gracillima n. sp. von der Sudinsel Neuseelands. » 
(The latter dist. read, “‘ A. gracillima C. M. & Beck.” 
Hampe’s ne Zealand “ D. campylophylla”’ is no doubt the same thing 
as ©. Miiller’s A. redunca, as the latter states ; eh it is not the Dicranum 
—— of Taylor, nor again the D. campylophyllum of the Hand- 
aay sire near Hampe’s plant, which has smooth cells, those of D. campylo- 
plant referr ed to D. campylophyllum by Hooker and Wilson figures In 
Hooker’s herbarium as “ Dicranum allied to Schreberi,” and on another 
specimen Wilson has written “N.Z., Col. 502; D. campylophyllum Tayl. ?” 
This is certainly the same plant as the plant of Hooker’s own collecting 
(“ No. 328, New Zealand, Dicranum Schrebert var.”), and is the D. Jamesonit. 
Iti is not at all clear to me why in the Handbook the authors give hom ome 
supposed D. campylophyllum and also “ D. Schreberi” in addition 
