CRYPHAEACEAE. 243 
toe ryphaea tenella (Schwaegr.) Hornsech. e C. Mueller in Linn., 
xvui, 678 (1844). 
Syn. Neckera tenella Schwaegr. Suppl. ii, Pty 2p. 163)%..198 
(1826). C. consimilis Mont. in Ann. se. nat. 1845, p. 100; 
Hl. NA. 208. CG, He Roe Mitt. in Hook. f., Handb. 
N.Z. FL, p. 460. a acuminata H. f. & W., Fl. N.Z, ii, 102; 
Handb. N.Z. FL, p. 461. C. pusilla C.M. in Hedwig. xli, 
130 (1902). 
Ai once separated from the remaining species by the slender ee 
habit, the narrow leaves, narrowly and finely acuminate, and t 
finely setaceous points of ‘the perichaetial leaves. 
The complicated synonymy is due sage to the Fl. N.Z. 
There the authors refer New Zealand plants to C. consimilis Mont., 
a species known already from 8. America. They also describe a new 
species, C. acuminata, but they do not poe it with the former 
species, nor does the description suggest any differences, except that 
the lid in C. consim milis is deseri red as ‘‘ ie obtuso,’’ and in C. 
ucuminata as ‘‘ conico rostellato.’ 
In Hooker’s herbarium none of the New Zealand specimens are 
placed under C. consimilis, all under C. acuminata. The sriees us- 
tralasian specimen labelled C. consimilis is a Tasmanian plant ‘‘Old- 
field; 0,49,’’ determined by Mitten. The lid in this is jdectieal with 
that ‘of. C. acuminata. It looks as if Hooker and Wilson had later 
recognized that there was only one species involved, but considered 
it different from the S. American C. consimilis, and had placed the 
plants therefore all under C. acuminata. 
Under C. consimilis a Be Fl. N.Z. the authors remark ‘‘Neckera 
tenella Schwaegr. Supp 198 may be the same, but if so is incor- 
rectly figur red.’’ at ptobebly refers to the , ae of the single 
and on this ground Brotherus retains the New Zealand species 
acuminata) with nerve ceasing below apex’’ and C. tenella with 
nerve excurrent.’ 
But a species cannot be founded on a bad drawing; the more 
duoetails when the description genta the drawing; and Schwae- 
richen distinetly states that the nerve is continued into the narrow 
part of the leaf (that is, the ai and sometimes to the apex; and 
the enlarged figure of part of the acumen shows the nerve vanishing. 
C. Mueller, it may be added, in Linn. xviii, 678, having authentic 
specimens of the cia CG. tenella before him, emphasizes the 
fact of the nerve b non-excurrent in that species. It is quite 
clear that C. — pn be separated on the ground of the 
nerve being non-excurr 
ee nerve in the Acaesins C. tenella as a fact is exactly the 
same as in the New Zealand plants; i.e. in the more robust stem 
leaves 4 knowns distinctly into “he acumen and becomes lost before 
; in the smaller ae branch leaves it vanishes at the base of 
the pei or often below 
therus separates the S American C. consimilis from the Aus- 
tralasian species by the longer peristome, .5 mm. as against .35mm 
in C. acuminata. I have not, however, found any difference in the 
