HYPNODENDRACEAE. 341 
parallel to the similarly aquatic form of 1 ypnodendron marginatum. 
It is scarcely dendroid, much branched, quite without gloss, has 
narrow leaves much less sharply toothed, the nerve rather roughened 
than venneg at back, and the cells wider than in the normal plant. 
It might, however, possibly belong to H: ypnodendron eves 
Sciadocladus Kerrii is widely distributed in the islan 
The only character given for Isotheciwm heteroph etic Col. 
that ona be of any value is that it is described as having the 
nerve not perecurrent, but vanishing below apex. But in Colenso’s 
Ww 
S. Kerri, as I have verified on a specimen of S. Kerru of (aes s 
own namin 
2. Sciadocladus Menziesii (Hook.) Lindb. e Broth. op. cit., p. 1168. 
Syn. Hypnum Menziesii Hook., Muse. Exot., t. 33 (1818). 
Tsothecitum Menzies H. f. & W., Fl. N.Z. ii, 105; 
Handb. N.Z. Fl 465. 
See the eine 4 species for the differences from ris fine 
plant. The lid of the capsule, here, it may be added, sho: 
conical and obtuse, while in S. Kerra and Hypnodendron sircrentum 
it is shortly beaked. 
Its distribution appears to be about the same. Both species 
are confined to New Zealand, but a third species, closely allied to 
S. Menziesitt occurs in New Caledonia. 
HyPpNODENDRON Mitt. in Seemann, Fl. Vit., 401 (1865), emend. 
Broth. (Hypnum, Sectio Hypnodendron, C. M. Syn. ii, 496, 
p.p. Hypnodendron, Lindb. in Oefv. Sv. Vet.-Akad. Foerh. 
xviii, 374, nomen nudum). 
It is rather remarkable that while modern authors ( hea 
Mitten, Brotherus, Fleischer) maintain Hypnodendron and Mnioden- 
dron as distinct genera, it seems almost imposs ossible to ascertain their 
rounds for so doing. Fleischer states clearly that the fruiting 
characters present no differences, while the vegetative characters 
suggested by re Brotherus and Fleischer are of the slightest, and 
certainly do not hold good im all cases. The general foliation as 
well as the ae leaf structure, e.g., in Mniodendron Korthalsu 
To understand the faets one naturally goes at to the vob ged 
publication of the genera. Hypnodendron and Mniodendron 
ae rh. 
eommonly cited as of Lindb. in Oefv. Sv. Vet.-Z . Foer xvii, 
375 (1861); but there Lindberg simply gives a list of the species 
he would refer to these genera with no diagnosis whatever; and 
all the rules of nomenclature this does not constitute valid publica- 
