138 BRYOLOGY OF NEW ZEALAND. 
the adherence of the columella to the lid; and (ce) the locality (damp _ 
Port — a which does not quite fit in with what one would expect 
from P. Heim 
5. Pottia Alfredii R. Br. ter., op. cit., 0. 
No specimens exist. It should be distinct from all the other gymnos- 
e 
species and be identical with P. zealandiae (R. Br. ter.). No lid or calyptra 
was found, implying that the capsule was past maturity, and this might 
well account for a fragmentary peristome having disappeared. The figures 
and the description, otherwise, would quite bear out this interpretation. 
The h bit tat given is “on damp banks, Port Lyttelton Hills; coll. by 
R. Brown 
6. Pottia areolata (Knight) Dixon comb. nov. 
n. Gymnostomum areolatum Knight in — N.Z. Inst., vol. 7, 
p. 355 (1874). Pottta Whitton R. Br. , op. cu.; vol. 36 
p. 329 (1902). 
I atte ot been able to see Knight’s plant, but from the description 
and fi I have no doubt of its identity, and it wou 
to be distinet from any other described species in the minute size, sub- 
ceasing just below apex. The minute size, the spreading leaves, and 
bably the smaller spores (18-22 p) distinguish the species from 
P. longifolia. 
P. Whittonii was gathered by Brown at Oamaru; Knight gives no 
locality whatever. I have no doubt at all that the Oamaru plant is the 
same as that described by Knight. 
7. Pottia longifolia R. Br. ter., op. cit., p. 292. 
Syn. P. Leonardi R. Br. ter., op. cit., p. 293. P. assimilis R. Br. 
te ., OD. oes PS Bickertonii R. Br. ter., op. cit., p. 292. 
P. longifolia is marked by the rather strikingly long, erect, very 
concave upper leaves, notably distinct from the shorter, wider, lower 
jon. 
event somewhat satisfactory, that specimens of this species coll. D. Petrie, 
Tuapeka County, small as they are in quantity, show a very great range of 
variation, quite sufficient, I think, to include all the plants in question. 
I had no doubt, in fact, at first that two species were included, one agreeing 
in Soni with ‘Brown’s P. lon gifolia (seta fin., capsule elliptical, 
lid with a long rather — oblique ‘beaks, and showing the long, erect 
upper leaves markedly ; the other much smaller, with a much shorter seta, 
short widely oval Bein much shorter and often erect beak to the lid, 
and with few or none of the erect, differentiated upper leaves. A closer 
examination showed, however, intermediate forms, and proved that all 
belonged to one and the same species. On this ground I have felt quite . 
justified in reducing nearly all the species described by Brown, having 
plane-marg leaves and non-excurrent nerve, to this species. 
The leaves are ra ha soft and flaccid, mostly very concave, cells rather 
large, thin-walled and chlorophyllose, apex incurved, shortly acute or apicu- 
