134 BRYOLOGY OF NEW ZEALAND. 
he proceeds to describe in that paper as Poltia grata is different from 
attributes to it in the paper in question. He says that the cell-tissue of 
H. microphylla is at least double of that of the Pottia; but I can detect no 
difference at all. The lid of the Pottia he describes as long and oblique, 
while that of the Hennediella is short, stout, and conic. This is certainly 
usually the case, but the lid varies a good deal, in H. macrophylla at least, 
and probably therefore in H. microphylla. The difference in the calyptra, 
which he describes as cucullate in the Pottia and only covering half the 
capsule, is but partially borne out by the specimens. In the younger 
capsules of the Pottia grata they enclose the whole capsule and embrace it 
tightly at the base ; in the more mature ones, it is true, they are often split 
on one side and do not reach much below the middle. This is, however, 
simply due to the fact that the specimen is a very robust one, and the 
capsules larger than usual. Now, as the calyptra is incapable of growth 
after separation from the vaginula, it follows that when a capsule becomes 
unusually developed in size the calyptra, which would normally enclose the 
ibe tightly fitting it like a glove, and might remain intact below, 
cannot do so under the unusual conditions, but tends (also like a glove) 
to split this case being both lifted upwards and split laterally. This 
variation is shown quite well in Bell’s Pine Hill plant (January, 1888). 
I look upon P. grata as certainly a robust form of H. ‘ne ophylla. ~ 
It cannot, however, be denicd that this form and one or two other plants 
form a distinct bridge, through P. Heimii, between Pottia and Hennediella. 
The full Hennediella character of ed ae is somewhat weakened by Brown's 
Pottia grata, while from the other s . Heimii, with its toothed leaves 
and frequently differentiated tester cells, shows a <listinct affinity with 
Hennediella. This is further emphasized by two Antarctic plants, Potta 
austro-georgica Card. an : fusco-mucronata C. From the full and 
careful description and figures given by Cardot of his P. austro ro-georgica 
there can be no doubt that it is extremely close to Hennediella—the short 
seta, toothed and bordered leaves, and calyptra “ fissa, apice laevis, totam 
capsulam obtegens ” showing a close relationship to that genus ; ‘the lid 
is long-beaked (equalling the capsule), which distinguishes it to some extent ; 
while, on the so hand, it is not adherent to the columella, which separates 
it from P. Heim It appears to me on the whole extremely likely that it 
is a Hennediella, octets inseparable from H. mier Ag hylla 
fusco-mucronaia C. M., however, is described as havin the lid 
adherent to the columella, and is therefore, I think, undoubtedly close to 
emit, While, on the other hand, the very short seta, and the calyptra 
“totam fere thecam  ilpateae indicate a near relationship to P. austro- 
georgica and Hennediella 
Since the above was written I see that Warnstorf (Pottia-Studien, in 
Hedwig., lvili, p. 93) has expressed the opinion that P. fusco-mucronata 
is scarcely separable from P. Heimu, 
Portia Ebrh. 
The genus Pottia stands in somewhat the same relation to Tortula as 
Weisia to the higher genera of Trichostomeae. The plants are usually 
annual, iinet and short, with very short stems, short seta, and small and 
short, oval, rarely narrowly elliptical and never longly cylindric sae ws ; 
