LIST OF NORFOLK MOSSES. 
213 
of the species, and such of course present no difficulty. Where 
no localities are given for a species except Suffolk ones, I have only 
included it when these are followed by “ etc.” When, again, no 
localities are designated, I have only included the species if it is 
described as “ common,” “ abundant,” etc. In such cases it may 
fairly be presumed that some one or other of the habitats noted 
occurred within the Norfolk portion of the district. 
More important difficulties arise in the case of Munford’s list. 
In his introduction he states that he is greatly indebted to the 
lists in Messrs. Pagets’ ‘ Sketch.’ As, however, he does not 
distinguish the citations from that list from records derived from 
other sources, and as it is clear from internal evidence that he cites 
all Pagets’ records without omitting those that really belong to 
Suffolk alone, it has been necessary to disregard all his records 
of species from the Eastern Division which occur in the Yarmouth 
list, since they may be, and in many cases undoubtedly are, simply 
duplications of those records. Munford’s list, therefore, adds 
little to our knowledge of the Mosses of the Eastern Division, 
and the records he gives from the Western are but few. It also 
unfortunately happens that his Central Division, divided into 
northern and southern districts, overlaps both East and West 
Norfolk, vice-counties 27 and 28 according to Watson’s system, 
which it will be remembered are divided from one another by 
the arbitrary line of the first meridian east of Greenwich. All 
these records have therefore to be omitted from the vice-comital 
distribution. 
Miss Barnard’s list is, like Munford’s, unlocalised. There is, 
however, internal evidence to show that she has not copied 
indiscriminately the records given in Pagets’ List, whether 
belonging to Norfolk or not. Thus, for instance, Splachnum 
ampul laceum and Hypnum strain ineum, recorded in the latter for 
Suffolk localities alone, are omitted from Miss Barnard’s list. It 
seems reasonable, therefore, to infer that when such species are 
included in her list it is upon some other evidence than Pagets’ 
* Sketch,’ and I have, in the few instances in which this is the case, 
accepted the records. They do not, however, indicate the vice- 
county in which the plant occurred. 
I have not attempted to give all the localities from which 
I have records, except in the case of the rarer species. I have for 
p 2 
