BRITISH JUNGERMANNLE. 
C J. julacea.J 
throughout, instead of being evidently incrassated towards the extremities, and the calyces arc 
large in proportion to the size of the plant. ; whereas I have never been able, in the specimens 
I have examined of J. concinnatci, to satisfy myself of the actual existence of any calyx at all. 
Truly, however, and essentially as these two species are distinct, they have been confounded by 
the older writers, and, indeed, appear to have been so by almost every author prior to the time 
of Lightfoot ; so that I dare not venture to speak with certainty of the greater part of the 
above synonyms. That of Dillenius, indeed, admits of no doubt, and his figures are excellent. 
The similarity to Bryum argenteum, however, which he dwells upon, and which has given birth 
to the name* of the species before us, arising from its color and from its concave closely- 
appressed leaves, is more applicable to J. concinnata. Linnaeus’ plant, judging from his descrip- 
tion, as well as from the specimens in his herbarium, is the same as ours. Weber seems rather 
to refer to J. concinnata, when he says it has leaves “ ita appressa, ut vix ne lente quidem 
distingui possint, (quit notA ab omnibus facile distinguitur); " and that the surculi are, when 
moist, “ liet'e virides, splendentes,” but in a dry state “ argenteo splendore donati, omninb uti 
Bryum argenteum" Yet in another passage he remarks, “ Setas non vidi, verum surculos versus 
apices incrassatos, terminates calyculis membranaceis, pellucidis, parvis granulis repletis," which 
can only be said of J. julacea, J. concinnata being destitute of calyces. Hudson has done no 
more than copied the words of Linnaeus. Lightfoot has well distinguished the two; and we 
are indebted to him for first describing J. concinnata. The figure in the Flora Damca, quoted 
by Withering, does not represent our plant, though the description of this latter author may 
be intended for it, as that of Haller certainly is. 
Other writers, besides those above mentioned, have introduced in their works J. julacea: 
but these in my opinion all mean J. concinnata. Among them are Doctor Both and Ehrhart, 
the latter of whom in particular says the leaves of J. julacea are bifarious +, which is 
undoubtedly the case with J. concinnata, but not with this. Their exact situation, however, 
is not easily determinable on so diminutive a plant; nor was it till after a careful investigation 
that I was able to satisfy myself that they were placed in fours. 
Mr Sowerby in his otherwise excellent figure in English Botany, has represented the leave, 
as undivided, which i. never the ease in the plant, although, owing to the d^epnes. of t . e 
cleft and the brittleness of the texture, it is more easy to separate half a leaf from 
than a whole one. 
, Bryum argenteum was called by Dillenius “ Bryum pendulum julaceum, argenteum et senceum.” 
als bei andern Arten, in die Augen, kann aber dennoch recht gut gesehen werden. Bear. Band. 3, p. 
REFERENCES 
