226 BRYOLOGY OF NEW ZEALAND. 
Mitten describes the nerve as thick, broad, and occupying one-fourth 
of the width of ce He . This is certainly not an overstatement. The 
seta is about 1 cm 
Brotherus places ge with the European B. gracilis (B. Ocederi ihe . 
the genus Plagiopus Brid.; but the characters panealy seem to me 
warrant generic rank. 
3. Bartramia papillata H. f. & W., Fl. N.Z., ii, 89 (1855); Handb. N.Z. 
Fl. p. 447. 
Syn. B. acerosa C. M. & Hampe in Linn., xxviii, 208 (1856). B. 
fragilis Mitt. in Journ. Linn. Soc., Bot., iv, 81 (1859). B. Gibsoni- 
ny OD: =. .5 OD. 
cit., p. 141. B. robusiifolia a ta ter., op. et loc. cit. “B. Bellii 
GG M., Gen. Muse. Frond., p. 3 
The most frequent and most distinct species, albeit rather highly 
variable; the broad, dilated, whitish sheathing-base being very con- 
spicuous, often without dissection. The lamina is very obscure and 
I have Sai the type of B. Beckettii in C. Mueller’s herbarium : it 
is only B. papillat 
I have a ee the four species of R. Brown here with some amount 
of doubt, as no specimens exist in his herbarium. The descriptions do not, 
however, suggest any distinctive characters, except in one respect, that 
he describes the inflorescence of B. Gibsonii and B. brevifolia as monoecious. 
I am not, however, inclined to place too much stress on this. In the first 
place, the inflorescence in this group, I am convinced, requires more 
investigation—I am doubtful if it is as constant as has been supposed ; 
and, in the second place, Brown describes his “ B. patens Brid., Mt. Fife, 
i as dioecious. Now, if there is any character which will certainly 
separate B. patens from B. papillata it is the synoicous inflorescence of the 
former; and it would appear that Brown was not too careful in his 
examination of the inflorescence in this genus. In no case does he describe 
the male fiower. 
B. patens Brid. is recorded from several localities in bas Handbook. 
I have treated all the New Zealand plants as coming under B. papillaia, 
excluding B. patens (confined to the subantarctic region). Tie is the 
conclusion arrived at by Brotherus in the Musci. It, is, however, a difficult 
problem to solve. The differences between the two are very elusive. The 
Handbook separates them solely on differences of the leaf-blade and base, 
which are both ill defined atid quite inconstant. Brotherus separates them 
as follows :— 
B. papillata. —Dioicous. Inner peristome wanting. 
B. patens.—Synoicous. Peristome double. 
I have, however, New Zealand specimens with the peristome double— 
though the inner is slightly imperfect ; and Brown describes his B. brevi- 
folia with a well-developed inner peristome ; - in neither case is it 
one, _ by a synoicous inflorescence brevifolia is at least 
aus as “ monoecious ”’). 
