ANDREAEACEAE. 353 
It is recorded from Tasmania, N.Z. (South I.), and Auckland 
Is. A. ovalifolia R. Br. ter. is quite the same thing; often blackish 
and sometimes running into a ree large form. 
7. A. aquatica R. Br. ter. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. xxv (1892), p. 280. 
Syn. A. apiculata R. Br. op. et loe. eit. A. cochleari- 
fo lia C.M. & Beckett, es Me: , p. 298, et Hedwig. xxxvii, 
A. aquatica C. M. op. cit. p. 2. A, obtusissima 
C. M., op. cit. p. 83. 
This is a fine plant, and, as Brown remarks, the most beautiful 
of all the New Zealand Andreaeas, growing in water, with stems two 
to four inches long, and with large leaves reaching 2 mm. in length, 
widely elliptic to nearly ebien lar. The structure is however 
identical with A. mtida; and it is doubtful whether it be more than 
margin, recurved in nitida, but erect in aquatica, is not reliable, as 
in each species both forms of margin may be see b 
the same p th i reuropaise a speed bo 
A. pipeag beste in a section with the cells only slightly incrassate, and 
A. aquatica, A. cochle msi hse and A. obtusissima in another with 
the cells more strongly incrassate, and more or less sinuate. I do 
to support it, as he draws the upper eells of A. mitida much mo 
inerassate than those of A. cochlearifolia! 
. aquatica C.M. ( 2 XXXVil) is a re-deseription of 
Brown’s species from his own type specimen—or co-type! I have 
seen an original gathering of A. cochlearifolia C.M. & Beckett (again 
re-deseribed by C.M. in ecm) and it is certainly the same 
thing. I have seen no specimen of A. obtusissima C.M., but the 
descriptions and Roth’s feakea. ies no doubt of its being simply 
. aquatica 
The same is the ease with A. wise ulata Soe Br. ter., of which 
the type iis EA exists in Brown’s herbarium. It is a smaller 
plant than most forms, and in some ais exhibits an intermediate 
character between A. nitida and A. aquatica, but it has at times at 
least the large, flaccid, less glossy leaves of A. aquatica 
After careful —. “ the New oniand plant Paige the 
original specimens Hooker’s and Wilson’s herbaria of A. 
subenervis H. f. & W. + Freie high reliitades on the scarier of New 
Granada and Quito, I have very little doubt that they all belong 
to the same species, and I should have reunited them as A. subenervis 
but that a further question remains, which on the available material 
I do not feel able to resolve, whether A. subenervis, A. ni ye and 
) sam a 
rana 
incha, Quito. The latter is exactly—in vegetative characters—the 
N.Z. ‘A. aquatica, and the single capsule is normal, as in the N.Z. 
