— 91 -- 



" Hypnum riparium Lindb., var. elongatum B. & S., stones in pool, Montreal, 

 Canada, June / 14, H. Dupret, com. P. G. M. R. 'I should think the var. elongatum 

 is correct, judging from the description. According to Paris this is identical 

 with the var. splendens; but the present plant does not seem quite such a fine form, 

 though no doubt near it.' H. N. D." 



Twenty-first Annual Report (1916) p. 161 — 



" Fontinalis antipyretica h. var. gigantea Sull., Magilligan sand dunes (I. 40), 

 May /04, C. H. W. & H. W. L. 'I have compared this plant with Sullivant's var. 

 gigantea from North America, and it does not agree with it. The true var. gigan- 

 tea has the leaves curved on the keel,a.nd the leaves are not nearly so large and wide 

 as in the Irish plant. I should name the present plant var. robusta Cardot, dis- 

 tinguished by its very large and very wide leaves when flattened out.' W. I. 

 'This appears to me good var. I have not seen the curved back of leaf given 

 as a character of the var., and specimens I have from North America, det. Cardot 

 and others, do not show this feature. It appears to me quite as good as the North 

 American plant distributed in 1911. On my specimen of the 'Forma, robusta 

 Cardot' from Minnesota, I have noted 'it is not very easy to see why this should 

 not be var. gigantea.' It also has the leaves markedly curved on the back.' H. 

 N. D.; var. gracilis Schp., Trossachs, Perth, July 1898, C. H. W. ; and Malham 

 Cove (64), Jan. /12, C. A. A. 'This is an interesting plant. I should name it var. 

 laxa Milde. The habit with its spaced leaves makes it distinct from the ordinary 

 var. gracilis.' W. I. 'This is not var. gracilis, nor should I call it var. laxa 

 Milde, though Malham Cove is a locus classicus for that var. This may quite 

 possibly be the same plant in another form; but if so, it throws a strong light on 

 certain species which are clearly derivatives of F. antipyretica, F. gothica, F. 

 Camusi, and F. arvernica. This plant with its narrow, flaccid, scarcely keeled 

 leaves, and appearance of F. hypnoides, is very different from the var. laxa I have 

 gathered at Malham Cove, with rigid, distant, spreading, keeled leaves. I can 

 scarcely find any difference between the present plant and F. arvernica Ren.; 

 but these forms are too critical to be decided upon by anyone but an expert. I 

 should suggest withdrawing it for this year, and obtaining Mons. Cardot's opinion 

 on it, if possible in rather better condition; this is poor both in condition and in 

 preparation.' H. N. D." 



Twenty-first Annual Report (1916) pp. 146-165 — • 



" Plagiothecium Roeseanum (Hampe.) Schp., crevasses des rochers. West- 

 mount, Montreal, Mar. /08; base des arbres dans marecages, Montreal, Sept. / i i ; 

 and c. propagulis rochers terreux. He St. Paul, Montreal, Sept./i2,H. Dupret, 

 com. P. G. M. R. 'The plants dift'er a good deal from a plant which I have 

 gathered in Lapland, and also from a specimen of Schimper's herbarium, but it 

 more closely resembles a plant which I have had from Monkemeyer under the 

 name of P. Roeseanum var. gracile. P. Roeseanum is not a satisfactory plant 

 at the best of times.' W. E. N. 'None of your three mosses have as wide and 

 loose cells as the two specimens I have. P. Roeseanum is a synonym of P. Sulli- 

 vantiae Schp. H. N. D. says in Handbook, "Nerve long and rather strong, cells 

 narrower." Dr. Braithwaite in Br. Moss F'lora says, "with very short nerve and 

 laxer cells." How can we settle the question?' W. I. T have examined the 

 Canadian Plagiothecia, and I think without doubt none of them belong to P. 

 Roeseanum. That is rather a well-marked plant, in its best forms at any rate, 

 with rather turgid cells, concave, not conspicuously complanate leaves, having 

 narrower cells, — there is no doubt about its having narrower cells than silvaticum 

 and most denticulatum, though the books do differ. M. Dupret 's plants, that 

 of 7/9/ 1 1 and 9/9/12 are identical forms, and I should refer them to P. denticula- 

 tum, f. propagulifera. They are not quite identical with the /. propagulifera 

 Ruthe, described and figured by Limpricht, which is a rather larger plant and has 



