210 Transactions of the Hoyal Society of South Africa. 
coll. H. A. W. (No. 338) ; Knysna, CP., 1916 ; coll. H. A. W. (No. 518) ; 
Cape of Grood Hope; coll. F. Webster, comm. Gr. Webster (No. 348). 
Mostly c. fr. 
I have spent a considerable time in endeavouring to distinguish between 
N. Valentiniana Besch. and N. capensis Schimp., and have been driven to 
the conclusion that they are inseparable. Brotherus distinguishes them as 
follows : 
N. Valentiniana. Peristome teeth smooth, usually more or less dis- 
tinctly transversely and obliquely striolate at base. Segments of inner 
peristome about equal in length to the teeth. 
N. capensis. Peristome teeth finely papillose, at base transversely and 
obliquely striolate. Segments of inner peristome as in the last. 
The supposed difference is therefore practically confined to the upper 
part of the outer teeth, being smooth in N. Valentiniana, finely papillose in 
N. capensis. 
I find, however, too little constancy in this character to base a specific 
difference upon it. Thus Sim 7498 has the peristome teeth very finely 
papillose, with a very slight tendency to transverse striolation on a few of 
the lowest segments, while the processes are irregular, narrow, varying 
from half to two-thirds the length of the outer teeth in the same capsule; 
on the other hand most of the above specimens have the teeth smooth 
above. Moreover, Schimper's specimens of N. cajpe.nsis do not always, at 
any rate, show papillose teeth, for in several capsules of his specimens, 
at Kew (coll. Zeyher) the teeth are quite smooth above and only here and 
there show a little basal striolation. 
I find no constant difference in the leaf apex. 
Bescherelle gives some differences between N. Valentiniana and 
N. africana Schimp., but these, too, are not borne out by Schimper's 
specimens under that name at Kew. As both N. capensis and N. africana 
are noniina nuda, Bescherelle's name must stand. I have compared S. 
African specimens with N. Valentiniana Besch. (coll. Valentin), and also- 
with the Madagascar plant, " 1875, misit Borgen, comm. Kiaer," in Herb. 
Besch., and they agree quite well. This is no doubt the N. Borgeniana 
Kiaer, and as Bescherelle identified it with his N. Valentiniana, I think the 
two may be accepted as identical. Cardot has expressed the same opinion^ 
only a little less certainly, in the ' Mousses de Madagascar.' The degree of 
acuteness of the leaf apex is certainly cj[uite inconstant and not correlated 
with any other characters. The perichaetial leaves in Schimper's specimens 
are sometimes longer, sometimes shorter than the deoperculate capsule on 
the same plant. I think that without doubt JV". Borgeniana Kiaer, with the 
MS. names N. capensis Schimp., N. africana Schimp., and N. undulatifolia 
Mitt., must be sunk in the synonymy of N. Valentiniana Besch. 
