bo 
— 
ie 4) 
BRYOLOGY OF NEW ZEALAND, 
Binnsii R. Br. Gee a “Pohlia tasman 
Cockaynet R. Br. ter. = Leptobryum piriforme 
Whittonai R. Br. ter. = Pohlia tenufolia 
calearewm R. Br. ter. in Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 31, p. 450, is a com- 
species ; in part starved Pohlia tenuifolia, a very sede, piers 
Bryn ossibly B. apis ten 
B. Thomasii R. Br. ter., op. cit., p. 447, is also a composite species ; one 
specimen in Brown s herbarium contains two species of Bryum with setae 
only, quite lightecncaskle the specithen in the Christchurch collection is 
B. affine. 
B. australe Hampe ? New Zealand, F. M. Reader, 54, det. Mitten in 
herb. Kew, is B. chrysoneuron C. M. 
B. pyriforme Hedw. = Leptobryum piriforme. 
B. Wahlenbergii Schwaegr. = sass albicans. 
B. crudum Schreb. = Pohlia 
B. nutans Schreb. = Pohlia ti ans 
B. “ses ay H. f. & W. = Pohlia — 
B. e R. Br. ter. = Pohlia 
B. sor leceenic R. Br. ter. = Pohlia nutans. 
B. Barrii R. Br. aa = nian eufila 
B. Harriottit R. Br. = Anomobri re H arrvoitit. 
B. 
B. 
B. 
B. 
pete 
LEPTOSTOMACEAE. 
Leprostomum R. Br. in Trans. Linn. Soc., x. 320 (1811). 
A striking and interesting genus, Be Ss of about ten species, with. 
a very limited distribution. After careful study of the descriptions and 
Ps the as xotici gives some quantitative differences in size of em 
h of seta, &c., but I do not find these correlated together in the New 
oclund plants. A long seta is, e.g., often associated with a robust habit, 
. The length of seta and size of capsule are highly variable. 
I have therefore united the two, so a there are but two New Zealand 
2, ge ena macrocarpum and L. incl 
two species can be at once omens EP as follows :— 
Hair-point of fe eae leaves branched... ae .. 1. macrocarpum. 
Hair-point sim aA si ~« 2» enclinans, 
1. Leptostomum mac 
822 (1811); Fil. N.Z., 1i, 82; Handb. N.Z. FI., 
eg veh macrocarpum Hedw., M. frond., iti, 28 (1792). Helmsia 
ina Bosw. in Journ. Bot., xxxii, 82 (1894 ptostomum 
schautndlcon C. M. in Abhandl. nat. Ver. Bremen, 1900, p. 508. 
Brotherus (Musci, p. 603) gives it as his opinion that L. Schauinslandi 
C, M. is scarcely separable from L. macrocarpum. There is certainly nothing 
in the i that suggests a difference, and the so-named specimen 
from Mount Egmont distributed by Fleischer (Muse. frond. Arch. Ind. et 
eee No. 466) is certainly only L. macrocarpum. 
rocarpum (Hedw.) R. Br. in Trans. Linn. Soc., x, 
p- 436. 
