DICRANACEAR., &9 
8. Campylopus appressifolius Mitt. in Handb. p-4, Fl., p. 414 (1867). 
Syn. C. clavatus H. f. & W., Fl. N.Z., ii, 69, p.p. (nec Dicranum 
xxxvi (1897), p. 352. Campylopus filtkes ee ‘flavus Par., Ind. 
Suppl., p. 98 (1900). C. strictissimus C. M., MS. in herb., et 
te 
Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 29, p. 469, t. 36 (1896). C. vores 
R. Br. ter., op. oa p- 470, t. 37. C. ellipticothecum R. Br. ter 
e cit., p. 473, t. 38. C. otaramaii R. Br. ter., op. cit., p. 474, 
138. 
I have seen the types of C. Miiller’s two species cited in the above syn- 
onymy. C. Miller was no doubt unacquainted with Mitten’s C. appressifolius 
—it is not mentioned in the Gen. Muse. Frond.—or he would without fail 
have recognized it in his C. strictissimus, which is the typical form of it. 
D. sulphureo-flavum is a fertile plant with pic kes stems bearing comal 
tufts of leaves, and is less distinct in habit 
C. appressifolius is a frequent plant, and, as I have remarked above, 
is uncomfortably like some of the allied species in structure, and scarcely 
distinguishable at times except by the tall, slender habit and long appressed 
leaves of the sterile shoots. The hyaline points of the upper leaves will 
usually distinguish it from C. capillatus. 
9. Campylopus introflexus (Hedw.) Mitt. in Journ. Linn. Soc., Bot., 
xii, p. 81 (1869). 
Syn. Dicranum introflecum areal, Sp. M., p. 147, t. 29 (1801). 
mpylopus tasma s herb. ncranu 
: i : 
C. M. in Linn., xxviii Ua p. 207 (nomen). C. leptocephalus 
Jaeg., Adumbr. ii, 435 (fide Mitten, M. Austr.-am., p. 84). 
ery widely distributed and, in the Southern Hemisphere at least, 
almost ¢ sepia: species scarcely needs description. It is especially 
characterized by the lone rigid, abruptly reflexed hair-points of the comal 
leaves, the dense clavate inflorescence, ~ deeply pees back of the 
nerve, and the: basal paren of the s n C. insititius a 
C. or, but usually larger dis 203 than the etter and wider nerve 
than the former species. The hair-point, however, may be brownish an 
not hyaline, and is occasionally almost straight and not at all reflexed. 
Dicranum tasmanicum (Schimp.) C. M. appears to belong here. It is not 
wristety to by Rodway (Tasmanian Bryophyta aia gt ; it is cited 
_ by Paris (Ind., ed. ii) as “ C. introflerus ¢ (fid. Broth.) ; and that is the 
view I should take of Schimper’s specimens at me Weym ymouth, i in Proc, 
R. Soe. Tasm., 1893, p. 205, states that Dr. Brotherus writes: “ The large 
material I seeived from you has made me doubt whether this species differs 
at all from C. intro case it is identical with C. tntro- 
us, Fl. Tasm,” The distinction suggested by C. Miiller is that the leaves 
in C. introflexus are “multo latioribus,” and the alar cells “ distinctis 
majusculis ” ; but the former character seems to me very doubtful, es the 
alar cells in C. introflecus are often quite inconspicuo us. Moreov , he 
writes, “* C. nthe endo? revera proximus et simillimus.” It appears ia 5 me a 
slight form at the 
