THE GENERA OF MOSSES. 
53 
account of its smooth theca, be separated from all the re- 
maining Bartramise. As long, therefore, as generic distinc- 
tion is rigorously taken from the fructification, it will, if 
Dr Hooker's character be correct, remain in that group 
among which he has placed it. 
Depranophyllum of Richard, first published by Dr 
Hooker as a Dicranum? is another very extraordinary 
plant, which we have hitherto alluded to in the light of a 
doubtful Gymnostomum ; the fact is, no character has yet 
been formed which excludes it from that genus. From its 
most peculiar habit alone, we have no hesitation in believ- 
ing it to be totally distinct ; at the same time, the little that 
is known about it, renders it impossible for us to notice it, 
except in this place *. Schw^grichen also describes and 
figures it in his second Supplement, and makes the sole 
character depend on the naked male flowers. Were we to 
hazard an opinion, we should be inclined to consider it an 
Anictangium, and not far from An. torquatum, with which it 
has a considerable affinity ; and if its calyptra be ultimately 
proved to be mitriform, we would feel inclined in that case 
to destroy the next genus we are to describe, ScMstostega, 
and form the whole into a distichous-leaved section of 
Anictangium. 
Species referable to other genera, are, G. pennatum (vid. 
Schistostega), G. aquaticum (vid. Hedwigia). G. pulvir- 
natum and suhsessile belong to Anictangium. G. prove- 
pens, retained as such by all authors, we have ascertained 
to possess sixteen geminate teeth, without a capitate colu- 
mella, so that it belongs to the OrtJiotrichoidea. From an 
* We wrote, some time ago, to our friend M. Achille Richard, request- 
ing him, if possible, to examine his father's specimens, and endeavour to dis- 
cover something additional respecting the fructification. We have not yet 
been favoured with an answer to our queries. 
