DICRANACEAE. 69 
developed with close papillae, the exothecium cells regularly quadrate. I 
think there can be no doubt that its proper place is in Anisothecium. 
. eyrtodonta is distinct in the leaves, which, except the perichaetial 
ones, ‘have not the wide, abruptly contracted sheat as base characteristic 
broad, it does not occupy a great part of the width ‘of the subula, where 
the cells of the lamina are rather wide, empty, and pellucid, and subquadiate 
or shortly rectangular, with firm but rather thin walls. D. Jamesonii has 
the upper cells somewhat similar in form, but they are rarely quadrate, 
have less firm walls, and are therefore more irregular in shape, while they 
are rendered much more obscure by the cell-contents. 
The leaves have usually one margin very narrowly and closely 
recurved. 
Blindia (?) torlessensis R. Br. ter. is certainly, judging from the descrip- 
tion and figures, a Dicranella, and, I think, with little doubt is referable to 
D. nta, although the author describes the leaves as sheathing, ac 
is applicable only to the perichaetial ones; the leaves in 
however, wide at the base and embrace the stem, which is perhaps all that 
Brown — by his term. 
very perfunctory description of Aongstr cyrtodonta by C. Miiller 
Pea no locality ean? “Nova Seelandia ” for Dr. Naumann’s plant. 
INCERTAE SEDIS. 
Dicranella erecto-theca (R. Br. ter.) sar Suppl. Ind., p. 116 (Dicranum 
erecto-theca R. Br. ter. in Trans. N.Z. » vol, 29, p. 155, t. Xxix), is no 
doubt a Dicranella, but the figures and Macanalia do not admit of a close 
estimate Ne its position. 
m cragiburnense, D. Gulliveri, and D. clintonense, described 
the same suttiok in the same seem are also quite doubtful species, 
apparently belonging to this genu 
Dicranella lancijolia (R. Br. ree Par. and < rostrata (R. Br. ter.) Par. 
are certainly referable to Tridontium tasmanicum, while D. rupestris (R. Br. 
ter.) Par. is identical with Blindia robusta ines. 
D. Cockaynii (R. Br. ter.) Par. and D. debilis (R. Br. ter.) Par., described 
by Brown in Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 29, p. 456; tt. xxix, xxx, as Dicranum, 
seem to me to belong here rather than to Dichodontium, as Brotherus 
suggests. D. Cockaynii might quite conceivably be the plant described as 
D. wairarapensis above. Unfortunately, these species are not to be found 
in Brown’s herbarium, and their identity must remain doubtful. 
CaMPYLOPODIUM Besch., Fl. Bryol. Nouv. Caled. in Ann. d. Se. nat., 13, 189 
(1873). ' 
This small genus, which may be described as having the habit of Campy- 
lopus but the vegetative characters of Dicranella, is considered by Brotherus 
to be doubtfully deserving of separation from the latter genus. Apart, 
“Baas: from the cygneous seta and setaceous leaves, it has the pachy- 
dermatous capsule, furrowed when dry, of Campylopus, and it appears 
to desirable to maintain it from Dicranella. It seems 
meen right Microcampylopus C. M. should not be united with it. 
Th included here appear under Dicranodontium in the Hand- 
