296 BRYOLOGY OF NEW ZEALAND. 
5. Hypopterygium rotulatum (Hedw.) “ie aeryeh univ., ii, 713, 
(127) ; Fl. N.Z., ii, 118; Handb. N.Z. F1., p. 488. 
Syn. Leskea rotulata Hedw. Sp. M. et } 51 Cok pepe 
terygium viridulum Mitt. in Hook. f. Handb. pi 
487. H. discolor Mitt. op. cit., p. 488 (1867). eg Scottiae 
C.M. in ee xxxv, 619 (1868). 
var. oceanicum (Mitt.) Dixon comb. nov. 
Syn. H. oceanicum Mitt. in Hook. f. Handb. N.Z. FL, p. 487. 
As I understand H. rotulatum (I have not seen Hedwig’s type— 
no specimens appear to exist in Schwaegrichen’s herbarium—but 
specimens in Herb. Hook. ‘‘Leskea rotulata Hedw., N.Zd., Sinclair,’’ 
and *‘ Leskea rotulata Hedw. vera, Auckland, N.Zeald., D. Lyall, *? may 
probably be considered authentic), it differs mainly ‘from H. nova 
seelandiae in the non-tomentose stipes, the leaves of which are reflexed 
both moist and dry; the laxer, less rigid habit, with the branches more 
straggling and more frequently eons the duller green colour— 
H. novae-seelandiae is more frequently 0 a br right or yellowish green; 
the leaves laxer, when dry strongly aueabaee and not deflexed, so 
that the upper side of the branch is not convex; the border very vari- 
able in thickness, but almost constantly less strongly—otten indeed 
very faintly denticulate—the apex less acutely pointed, the nerve 
generally weaker and shorter, the amphigastria generally with much 
shorter points, subentire, and with a much shorter, often very weak 
nerve 
Afte er much hestitation I have reduced H. viriduluwm and H. dis- 
color to H. rotulatum. I have examined Mitten’s plants with some 
care, and am unable to grasp any characters of any distinction or 
constancy. The difficulty is much enhanced by the carelessness of the 
no definite characters of any kind by which the two can be separated. 
It is true that they are clearly differentiated in the Key by giving 
H. rotulatum some interfoliar bristles; but this is entirely erroneous; 
they do not oceur and have never been des cribed or figured for this 
species. There is the same discrepancy as to carb alles nee. H. oceani- 
cum is described in the Key as dioicous, in the text as monoicous. H. 
sr at and H. rotulatum are described as monoicous; but the 
specimens of H. rotulatum in Herb. Hook. marked by Wilson as 
eR are quite certainly dioicous; I have found purely ¢ and 
purely @ stems, and in no instance have I found both forms of flower 
on a stem. Moreover Leskea rotulata Hedw. is not autoicous, but 
dioicous (see the generic description of Hedwig). In fact. I Enea 
doubt if any autoicous species of this group of the genus occu 
New Zealan 
I have seen several plants determined as H. oecuniditiy from Nor- 
.folk I., the Kermadecs, and New Zealand itself, and on most of these 
I ean detect no characters of any value; but on the only Toke plants 
determined by Mitten himself, ‘‘Kermadec Is., leg. MacGillivray, ”’ 
and ‘*Sunday Sd., leg. Milne,’’ the setae are decidedly thinner than is 
the case in any of: the plants of this group which I have seen, and 
