POTTIACEAE. 149 
n view of these ambiguities it appears best to give Brotherus’s name 
the benefit of the doubt that exists as to priority. 
’s name, 7’. acuta, is rather inappropriate ; the plant is in many 
respects a miniature of 7. princeps, and the leaves are normally rounded 
the most that can be said is that they are not quite so broadly rounded as 
18 oe the case. 
T. tenella, as has been remarked, is in many respects a miniature of 
a: ‘Sencha but, apart from the = aeadi ‘nflorcepanas and general smallness 
of all the parts, the excurrent arista is short, and almost smooth, the cells 
a shade larger. e tufts are dense, and dark brown as if burnt up. 
T. monoica Card., Not. prélim. in Bull. Herb. Boiss., 2me sér., v, 1003, 
from the Falkland Islands, must be, from the description and _ figures, 
identical with 7. tenella in almost every respect except the autoicous inflor- 
escence. 
The locality of Petrie’s plant was in Central Otago; Brown’s were all 
gathered on the Lyttelton Hills, Canterbury. 
13. Tortula princeps De aye nee baer in Pe p. 170 (1838). 
Syn. Barbula princeps Barbula Muelleri Bry. 
Eur., Pea. 13-15, p. a near: "Titalg ‘Mueller biter Bry. Brit 
p- MEL, ht, og Handb. N.Z. FL, 419. artule 
antarctica Hampe & C. M., in C. M. Syn., i, 638. Portul antarctica 
Broth. in Engler and Prantl Pélanzenfam. Musci, i, “ae Bar- 
bula pseudo-antarctica C. M. n Hedw., xxxvii, 121.  Tortula 
pseudo-antarctica Broth, op. ms re c. cit. Tortula cuspidata H. f. 
& W., Fl. Tasm., 11,175. Tortula rubella H. i. & W., op. cit., p. 176. 
Tortula Maudir 'R. Ae ter. in Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 30, 1. 
T. synecia R. Br. ter., op. cit., p. 402. T. panduriforma R. Br. 
ter., op. et loc. cit. T. Searlii R. Br. ter., op. cit., 3. 
The long synonymy here given is in great measure due to uncertainty 
as to inflorescence. TJ. princeps is primarily a synoicous moss, and failure 
to detect antheridia in the female flower has no doubt led to the ceataiii 
I i tha 
Z. 
side with the synoicous ones. Mitten has called attention to the need of 
examination of plentiful material in this group _— concluding from the 
apparent absence of antheridia that a plant is dioi s omission has, 
I doubt not, led to the creation of Barbula posuiacidtaicion C. M., although 
I have not seen specimens ; the author has fallen into this error in. more 
than one of the species described in that paper, and there is nothing in 
the description to indicate any difference from 7. princeps. 
I have examined the type specimen of Barbula antarctica Hampe & C. M. 
in Hampe’s herbarium, as well as Wilson’s specimens and notes, and fons 
