148 BRYOLOGY OF NEW ZEALAND. 
is identical with T. bealeyensis R. Br. ter. (Brotherus - hewge that 
B. austro-alpina is autoicous, not dioicous as stated by C. ¥ 
The <a ome of Poe. is not an easy one to solve. 0. Mallee $ species 
was published in a part of Hedwigia issued 25th June, 1898, while the 
volume of the Trans. N.Z. Inst. in which Brown’s paper was published 
was issued in June, 1898. Brown’s paper was read on the 4th August, 
1897, and this perhaps should weigh in a doubtful case such as this, and 
I have therefore retained his earliest name. 
Syntrichia bryoides Mitt., MS. in Herb. Kew., “* Prov. Canterbury, N.Z., 
Sinclair and Haast, 1860-1, ” also belongs here 
The published records are all, I believe, from the South Island. Dr. 
Cockayne has sent me the plant from several localities, all in that Island. 
I have it also from Lake Wakatipu. 
12. Tortula tenella Broth. in Oefv. af Finska Vet-Soc. Férh., xl, 168 
(1898). 
Syn. 7. acuta R. Br. ter. in egy N.Z. Inst., vol. 30, p. 400 rat 
(nec T. acuta Brid., Sp. 265). 7. “elliptotheca R. Br. t 
op. cit., p. 401. T. Bongifoli R. Br. ter., op. cit., p. 401 
The correct name for this species, like the last, is not quite easy to 
determine. Brotherus’s name was published in the yearly volume cited, 
which appeared some time during 1898. As it contains reports of meetings 
held during May, 1898, the presumption seems to be that it could hardly be 
issued so early as June of that year, in ve ad page volume containing 
Brown’s species was published. T. ac Br. ter. is, however, invali- 
dated by TY. acuta Brid., and T. ‘blondie by T. oblongifolia Wils. 
T. elliptotheca might be held to be the correct appellation, but the name, 
together with the description and figure, indicating an elliptic capsule, 
the same plant as Brotherus (where the capsule is cylindric); the 
specimen in his herbarium under this name (T. elliptotheca) has a single 
capsule only, which, though small, is certainly cylindric, and belongs 
undoubtedly to the same species as T. tenella, 
A further difficulty hes in the fpflopansene ce, R. Brown describing all 
the three plants cited above as ‘ monoecious. > Brotherus describes his | 
T. tenella as dioicous, and a careful examination of Petrie’s original specimens 
has failed to reveal any male inflorescence on the fruiting plants, and 
IT have no s doub i i 
accuracy in the case of Brown’s descriptions. I am inclined to think 
that in general he considered plants that as a rule produced capsules 
in quantity to monoecious, without necessarily having carefully 
dissected them. He gives no description in any case of the character _ 
of the male inflorescence, nor is there any indication in his descriptions 
or figures, 0: is ium, of his iss any of the 
Teov 
inflorescence as anything but “monoecious”? he has named 7. synoecia 
and T. dioica, implying, I think, that he — any departure from 
the monoecious type as of so marked a nature o be the chief or a 
leading specific character ; whereas several of the ote ies Zealand species 
are dioicous, and 7. princeps is at least often synoicous. The specimens in 
his herbarium are too meagre to allow of dissection to settle the point, but 
I am of opinion that his diagnosis in this particular may be ignored. 
