SEPMATOPHYLLACEAE. 307 
There has been much confusion as to the plants included here, 
and they have been placed under several different names, the nomen- 
clature varying much from time to time according to the opimion 
of authors as to the identity of the New Zealand plants with early 
described species. ae has applied principally to Hy Me tey amoenum 
Hedw. an 4 rioides Brid. Authors have dis 
ingenuity in pecking ‘to detect and point out the differcnesd between 
these two species, when it would perhaps rie been more profitable 
to ascertain whether there was any reagon to suppose them distinct. 
C. Mueller in the Synopsis says that ‘* H. cyparioides is ‘faeile di is- 
eernibile’ ’’ by its small size a and the characters given by him; and of 
H. amoenum that it is at onee distinguished from all its congeners 
iy characters emphasised in the description. On careful study 
a Buds that the characters resolve themselves into H. cyparioides 
n 
H. amoenum with a stout one. Original specimens of the authors 
not being available, we can only form ecorclusions by studying the 
available plants themselves. 
moenum was based on a plant of which tes s only 
a B 
ord is ‘‘ Seelandia’’; Bridel’s on a plant ni erect il- 
lardiére in ‘‘ Nova Hollandia.’’ Neither author at any “Gin 
com 
his species with the other; both were in fact deaeiibea fond 
published almost simultaneously. The presumption in a genus of 
in the Australasian region) would be that the two 
it is true, describes both his H. cyparioides and Hedwig’s H. 
amoenum; but he places the latter under Isothecium, and describes 
it from S$. American specimens, adding that it is recorded from New 
Zealand, but that this is searcely credible; quite eat that it 
was on a New Zealand plant that Hecwig founde species, with 
no reference to any American ones! T take it re it was dne 
to following Bridel in this that Hooker and Wilson in the Fl. N.Z 
do not inelude H. amoenum at all, merely giving a passing reference 
to it in one place. In the Han dbook Mitten has restored it, but 
without sueceeding in giving any comprehensible distinguishing 
Daten from the other plant, known there as H. leptorrhynchum. 
A . Mueller’s characters, that of ‘‘ tenella’’ as against 
robustiora,’’ only signifies that there are fairly robust as well as 
slender form. IT have seen no setae that could be described as 
assae haat eta varies considerably in length, and the longer 
orms are "usually appreciably though slightly HBanes than the 
shorter ones, but I have sought in vain for apis ig eens that are 
correlated with these differences, even if they were far more marked 
than they actually are. Other ‘characters that lane been suggested 
are ue greater or eg degree of faleation of the leaves, one denti- 
eulation of th the margin plane or recurved, an e form 
of ie spariehactial paren ae while these vary to some Bieiceaie 
extent, they do not appear to be in any way associated either with 
one oe or with amy sities characters. 
to C. Mueller’s distinctions, although too much stress must 
not be laid upon Bridel’s figures, it may be noted that they repre- 
