260 BRYOLOGY OF NEW ZEALAND. 
kermadecensis C.M. in Bot. Zeit: 1857, p. 779. Papillaria 
kermadecensis Jaeg. Adumbr. ii, 169. Trachypus. Horn- 
ce Mitt. in Journ. Linn. Soc., Bot., iv, 90 (1859). 
The nymy (of which I have only given a pa is very 
speateed: pre is due partly to the supposition that two spec les sp 
concerned, one in the East Indies, the other in aloseadedtac rahe form 
generally ‘known as rah a cuspidifera, the latter as P. aeinesili 
censis. Fleischer (Musci. .. von Buitenz., iii, 770) treats P. kerma- 
pidifera 
a?) 
) ‘a dak a 
tinguished by the plicate, somewhat incurved leaves, even when 
moist.’? The Indian plant So in fact to have the leaves usually 
less plicate when dry, and sometimes not or scarcely so at all, whie 
in the Australasian hove dey are usually very markedly so. But I 
have Indian specimens with the leaves quite markedly plicate, though 
less so than in the most pronounced forms from cciebpiaee while 
on the other hand I have Australasian plants, notably a specimen of 
T. W. N. Beckett’s (Teremakau Bush, N.Z., No. 979) which is as free 
from plicae and with the leaves as loose (not appressed and 
in peeved) as any form s from India; and intermediate forms are not 
infrequent. It is qu aie certain that if the two plants were to be kept 
apart as species each of them would have to be credited to both 
regions; and moreover a large number of Spano ike would have to 
be admitted to be equally assignable to both species. 
The reason of their having been vai akaaes is partly based on 
geographical considerations, and partly no doubt owing to the fact 
that C. Mueller in describing NV. kermadecensis makes no comparison 
with P. ae and it therefore became assumed that it was 
quite distin 
u: ec in Linn. xxxv, 615 (Beitr. zur ostaustralischen Moos- 
flor.), however, gives Met. cuspidiferwm Tayl. in : a 
synonym of f his N. kermadecensis, so that at that date he had recognized 
the affinity of the two, though this did not, probably, involve the 
ge ea that the Indian and Australasian plants were identical. 
e form referred to above as having the leaves erect but not 
eee and not eee when dry, is likely to give rise to difficulty 
when tested by the Key given above; it will however be distinguished 
from the species ‘indie (a) by the leaves being scarcely convex at 
back, and not closely imbricated, and from P. flavo- euyaent by their 
not being undulate or flexuose, and much less densely arrang 
The cells in the upper part of the leaf in Pe crocea are s 
(2 < 1 and 3 & 1), irregularly rhomboid, and are rendered ue 
ingly opaque one obseure by dense, low papillae, so that the walls 
appear very pellucid te comparison. There is a pale border of 2-3 
rows of cells Saad most of the leaf. 
Pilotrichum croceum Hampe seems to have passed — unno- 
ticed by authors; principally a because C,. Mue ie 
xxxv, 622) refers to it as synonymous with Met. Mesemcata: Pl, 
This however is not the case. I have examined the type in ae 
Hampe; it is quite distinet from P. pple but is sama ne 
eal with Met. cuspidiferum and Neckera kermadecensis, and m 
have priority over both these names. The date given by Paris Ciades: 
