HYPOPTERYGIACEAE. 291 
of Berggren’s (No. 2223) which is the smallest perhaps of any of the 
New Zealand forms I have seen, considerably less than Australian 
C. aoe te cris by Brotherus, but having the cells as wide as in 
th and this, with modifications, occurs throughout. 
nos bettors adopted the original view of Hooker and Wilson, and 
consider the plant as a variety only, the limits of which, moreover, are 
difficult to define. 
CATHAROMNION H. f. & W., Fl. N.Z. ii, 119 (1885). 
This monoty pie genus was merged in Hypopterygium in the 
Handbook, but is, I think, distinetly worthy of generic rank; the 
erect or suberect capsule, and the single peristome, the outer peris 
tome being wanting, being strong characters apart from the veaark- 
able ciliation of the leaves, unequalled in any other moss. 
Catharomnion ciliatum (Hedw.) H. f. & W., op. et loc. eit. 
Syn. Pterigynandrum ciliatum Hedw. Sp. Muse., 84 (1801). 
Hypopterygium ciliatum Brid., Bryol. Diity. ii, 710; Handb. 
N.Z.-F1, 89 
This very coil plant, confined to New Zealand and Tasmania,. 
in dense, bright green tufts, resembles dense tufts of H; ypopterygium 
oe seelandiae, but is reese at onee by the longly ciliate margins. 
the leaves, and the presence of axillary ge or bristles, as well 
oe when fruiting, the nearly erect, ovoid capsules. The flowers on 
the ¢ plant are very numerous, and being “ange and purplish in 
colour are sometimes very i ge cu 
It appears not to be rare. 
Hypopteryeium Brid., Bryol. Univ. ii, 709. 
A very distinct and beautiful genus of mosses, recognized at once. 
by their habit and by the presence of amphigastria or ventral leaves, 
very different in size and structure from the lateral ones of the frond, 
which are arranged aisha: | on the branches. The New Zealand 
species comprise one or tw the most interesting endemic species 
ot the Island. Their Pe hbo nt and the delimitation of the species 
has given rise to much difficulty, and very great confusion in the 
nomenclature has been in part the cause and in part the consequence. 
The genus has been Te by Kindberg in Hedwig. xl (1901), 
but his views do not seem to have met altogether with acceptance. I 
have adopted here his ‘prindipad divisions, discarding however his 
divisions of the Subgenus Eu-Hypopterygium 
e Handb. N.Z. FL is very unsatisfactory i in regard to this genus, 
shasoine perhaps the effect of too many hands. The deseriptions do. 
ord a clear conception of the specifie differences, and the 
characters given in Key and in Text are frequently horeloa at at 
his diagnoses of these, and the arrangement of the species under each 
are entirely different from those employed by Kindberg. I have found. 
