ANDREAEACEAE. 349 
C.M. e Broth. in Oefv. af Finska Vet.-Soe. Foerh. Bd. 
25, p. 298. A. Arthuriana C.M. in Hedwig., aE "37 p- 
49, > fas kl C.M. op. ae es 80. A. novae- 
zelandiae Schimp. MS. in Herb. oth, Pi pubs a 
paisch. Laubibees, 1, p. 45 (exel. peu 
A highly variable plant in size, leaf outline and Mes ete. 
Usually however to be recognized by t the comparatively short leaves, 
often widely spreading, especially at the base of the stem, the margin 
above base entire, rarely minutely crenulate, the upper part of the 
leaf narrowed, but generally not very creatly so nor very abruptly; 
acute, acuminate or obtu se—at times quite broadly rounded and sub- 
eucullate; the sais generally markedly papillose, but occasionally 
mooth or nearly so. rea varieties have been created, but the limits 
oi very difficult to define 
. gibbosa R. Br. ter. is not eeu in his herbarium, but 
from the description and figures I ean feel no doubt that it belongs 
here; the other species Sortuaed in the aah synonymy I have 
examined. A. Huttoni is one of the most marked forms, with rather 
large, long, often very obtuse leaves. The cells are not sm ooth, as 
deseribed by Roth, but papillose, though variably and often indis- 
tinctly. I ts ve examined a an original specimen of A. amblyophylla 
C.M. from Knocklofty, Tasmania, coll. W. A. Weymouth, No. 1618 
(Herb. R. Br. ter.) and I eannot separate it from A. petrophila. 
Brotherus in deseribing the species remarks that it ee Ages 
near A. Hutton R. Br. ter., and this was Brown’s own v s he 
has marked the specimen of A. amblyophylla ( coll. Wer niate 
**Huttonii,”’ imply, ing that he considered it identical. R. Brown 
specimens ‘of his A. Huttoni entirely bear this ae Brotherus says 
of A. amblyophylla that it is like A. petrophila, but separable at once 
by the leaves rotundate-obtuse. A comparison of the figures of the 
leaves of A. Huttonii or A. amblyophylla, however, with the figures 
in the 
of t of A rophila i Bry. Eur., tab. 623, shows them as 
nearly identical as possible; in fact the plant of the Bry. Eur. which 
the rs take as the typical form, shows the leaf even - re 
widely rounded and obtuse than is usually the case in A. a 
phylla. C. Mueller has Baris ei his ae (A. aia in 
Hedwig., vol. 37, p. 82. A. flexuosa R. Br. ter. is = intermediate 
form, ene it with more ty tical forms 2 A. petrophila. 
r much hesitation I have decided that A. seiabie H. f£. & 
W. sett be considered as synonymous with A. petrophila. The 
uthers do not either | in the original description or in the Handbook 
suggest a important differences, nor are later authors able to. 
supply any. -The only character o importance is that the basal 
margin is is hoectibad as sometimes aide This is actually the case 
in some of Hooker’s original gatherings, but in others it is quite 
uropean A. 
petrophit, tough it is certainly unusual. (Limpricht in describing 
at species say: the leaves ‘‘zuweilen am Rande durch vor- 
aie Zellon a —which however may not be fatesitled to: 
