HOOKERIACEAE. 283 
regular longitudinal series. Apart from these characters I find no 
differences at all, though the leaves may be at times more delicate in 
texture, and filmy, in the variety. erry 
Brotherus considers Hookeria concinna Col. and H. cataractae Col. 
as probably to be referred here, and the descriptions I think leave no 
doubt on the matter. The same is the case with the type specimen of 
D. integerrimum C.M. 
The type form of the species appears to be rare, but the var. 
adnatum much less so. I do not know that either has been found in 
the South I. 
3 Distichophyllum pulchellum (H. f. & W.) Mitt. in Trans. & Proc. 
Roy. Soe. Vict. xix, 77 (1883). 
Syn. Hookeria pulchella H. f. & W. in Lond. Journ. of Bot. iii, 
548 (1844); FL N.Z. ii, 122; Handb. N.Z. FL, p. 494. 
. 
T 
larger size, wider, very obtuse leaves, obtuse perichaetial leaves, and 
ry, but 
this character is not constant. They are more difficult to separate 
from one another; in fact I doubt if any of the characters drawn 
from the sporophyte are reliable. I believe, however, that the leaves, 
normally apiculate, and with the margin plane, will always separate 
the present from D. amblyophyllum, which has the leaves occasionally 
minutely apiculate, as here, but far more usually quite obtuse, and 
the margin more or less reflexed, so that the ventral surface of the leaf 
at margin and apex is convex. If these characters should prove unre- 
liable, then the two species will certainly have to be merged into one. 
It appears to be a frequent species, on rotten wood and on the 
ground. 
4. Distichophyllum amblyophyllum (H. f. & W.) Mitt. op. et loe. cit. 
83). 
Syn, Hookeria amblyophylla H. f. & W., Fl. N.Z. ii, 123 
(1855); Handb. N.Z. Fl, p. 494. #H. stnuosa H. f. & W., 
FL. Tasm. ii, 219 (1860) ; Handb. N.Z. Fl, p. 494. Disti- 
239 (1885). 
he most frequent species, and varying considerably in habit, and 
in minor leaf characters, but structurally a fairly constant plant. I 
quite agree with Rodway (Tasmanian Mosses) that D. sinuoswm can- 
not be separated from D. amblyophyllum; there are no characters of 
any importance, as may be seen from a comparison of the descrip- 
tions, e.g. in the Handbook, where absolutely the only distinction is 
that D. sinuosum has leaves apiculate, while in D. amblyophyllum 
they are quite obtuse; this however is quite unreliable, as leaves of 
both forms may be found on the same stem. : 
I have examined original specimens of D. Zuernii, and find them 
identical with the present plant, and there can be no doubt that the 
me is the ease with Hookeria microclada Col., of which, however, 
I have only seen the deseription. 
