POTTIACEAE. 13% 
Key TO THE SPECIES, 
rs Seta about equa] to capsule in length .. ot és i; ene 
( Seta considerably longer than capsule .. a i ts 
2. § Seta equal to or shorter than the leaves. . vs oe pes oe 
(Seta longer than the leaves ee <a — microphylla. 
1. Hennediella macrophylla (R. Br. ter.) Par., Ind., p. 557 (1895). 
Syn. Hennedia macrophylla R. Br. ter. in Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 25, 
p. 286 (1893). Beckettia bruchioides C. M. in Hedw., vol. ‘37, p. 77 
(1898). Hennediella bruchioides Broth. in Engler and Prantl, 
N.Z. Inst., vol. 25, p. 290 (non P. marginata C. M. in Hedw., 
vol. 37, p. 132). 
H. macrophylla ei from the two following species, as I understand 
it, in the larger, wider, less acuminate leaves, with very distinct brown border 
Of elongate idth cen cells, the large, elongate capsule, 2-5-3 mm. without 
lid, on a - of about the same length only, so that the capsule is only 
artially emergent, rar Pee fully exserted above the leaves; it varies in 
this respect considerably, and I have not seen any specimens with the 
capsule actually immersed. R. Brown, it is true, describes it as immersed, 
but neither description nor figure gives any indication of the length of the 
seta or any view of the plant as a whole; and I am inclined to think the 
term is used a little loosely, in the sense of emergent—i.e., not fully 
exserte 
The history of Beckettia bruchioides is rather peculiar. T. W. N. Beckett 
(p. 77) he described the new ‘genus Beckettia, founding it upon a plant of 
Beckett's, “ Lyttelton Hills, prope Christchurch, in solo argillaceo, ee tay 
1887 ; T. W. Naylor Beckett legit inter Pottiam marginatam, misit 1892 
own gatherings of Hennediella in the Canterbury Museum, has a sheet of 
Beckett’s containing both the above-mentioned collections, together with 
second gathering of his own (‘“‘ Niggerheads, Wairarapa Stream, 
Fendalton, July, 1889”), and another of Bell’s (“ Cla y banks, Pine Hil, 
Dunedin, Oct., 1887’’)—also numbered 502. All these are labelled 
Beckett’s hand “ Pottia marginata Beckett sp. nova,” and they enable 
one to clear up a good many obscure poin 
at on a C. Miiller’s determination, published Pottia mar- 
ginata n a paper read before the Philosophical Society of Canter- 
bury, 5th Geveitie 1892, and issued in vol. 25 of the Trans. N.Z. Inst. in 
1893, p. 290, citing for it the localities enumerated above, and one or two 
others. An examination of the description and s, however, and still 
more a study of his specimens, shows that the plant he had in view was not 
the Pottia marginata of C. Miller, but the other plant, mixed with it, which 
C. Miiller afterwards described ‘as Beckettia bruchioides; or possibly he 
had both plants under his eyes without distinguishing them, for the two 
closely resemble one another, and the separating characters are oe 
elusive. val — _* an be no doubt that the plant which C. Miiller 
describes a: rginata is also a Hennediella, and agrees with 
R. Brown’s HL chanelle The description given by C. Miiller fits this in 
