304 BRYOLOGY OF NEW ZEALAND. 
plant. Purdie’s plant, the type, is more like A. nitida in habit and 
leat form, but with the margin mostly erect; while the Pe is 
distinctly in form that of Acroschisma. Either then the two are, 
as Wilson determined them, two forms of a single species, in which 
case 4 pon N.Z. plants of A. nitida and A. aquatica must be united 
with i r if, on the other hand, the two S. American wants are 
st distinct, the Pinchincha plant and the N.Z. A. aquatica 
co certainly be put together, while the New Granada A. subenervis 
will be kept independent and will retain its name, and the = bees 
of N.Z. either be united with it or retain its position and n 
think the epee will only be fully solved when further paced 
is available of the S. American plants. 
r as =a geographical distribution is concerned there is 
n such a case for the species not to appear in the subantarctie 
Talands or Fuegia, more especially in a genus so well represented 
in those regions. 
8. A. australis F. a MS. in sched., e Mitt. in Hooker’s Journ. 
of Bot. 1856, p. 257. 
Syn. A. ee R. Br. ter. in Trans. N.Z. Inst. xxv, 
281. A. lanceolata R. Br. ter., op. cit., p. 282 
lanceolata Dus. Buse in sched. e Roth, Aussereurop. 
Laubm. i, 62 (1910). 
Var. eae (Broth. & Dix.) Dixon comb. no 
Syn. A. Mitchellii Broth. & Dix. in Journ. Linn, Soe., Bot., 
‘vol. xl., p. 434 (1912). 
I have examined original specimens of F. Mueller’s A. australis 
(‘* Mt. Wellington, Austral. Felix, Dr. F. Mu eller,’’? in Herb. 
Hampe) and find it exactly the same as the New Zealand plant. 
It is very variable in habit and size and Herel ef leaves, — strue- 
A. lanceolata R. Br. ter. on a eaikt robust form. 
A. Mitchellii Broth. & Dix. cannot, I find, on comparison with 
other N.Z. fo orms, be s pecifically separated, but it may be retained 
against 5-6» in the ordinary forms. Whether these pe: are 
: pines aa is somewhat doubtful, and can only be determined 
y fie 
A. australis appears to be a rare species. 
