( J . albicans.) 
BRITISH J UNGERM ANNIiE. 
likewise, opposes the theory of the same eminent Naturalist. Strange, however, as it may appear, 
those very organs* (the anthers of Hedwig), which, in the mosses, he considers merely a* 
“ simples bourgeons semblables a ceux que l’on trouve dans quelques Liliacees, la Bistorte f” &c., 
and as distinct from the essential organs of fecundation ; in the Jungennanni® he raises to the 
rank of fruit and capsules. To these, he alludes, when he says “ Je donnerai sous peu a l’lnstitut 
la preuve que les Jungermannes ont un fruit et une capsule bien prononcee, et differente de la 
petite fleurette qui se divise cn croix et qui contient une poussiere adherente k des filamens 
irri tables J." Proceeding upon these grounds; considering the male fructification as the female, 
and the female as the male, he has formed, in his splendid work, the Flora of Oware and Benin, 
a new genus of these Jungermannise, called by Micheli “Muscoides§," to which he has applied 
the name Carpolepedium, and proposes that it should comprehend, besides some new ex-otic species 
and the C. dicliotomum of his work, J. albicans. But, in the character which he has given of the 
genus, there is nothing to distinguish it from all the rest of the “ Jungermannice foliis bilobis, con- 
duplicatis,” except in that part of it, where he describes what he calls the capsule or fruit (our 
anthei); and this, he says, is ovat us aut globosus, brevissime pedunculatus, acumine parvo, 
styliformi, acuminatus." This styliform point, however, has no exkis'nce in the anthers of any of 
the British species of his genus. With the Carpolepedium dicliotomum I am unacquainted. In its 
foliage, according to M. Beauvois’ figure, it bears a considerable resemblance to Jung, 
asplenioides, whose anthers are likewise destitute of any point. 
The Dillenian plant, t. 73. f. 36. of the Hist. Muse. (J. varia Linn.), differs in no respect from 
the species represented att.71. f. 20. of the same work (J. albicans, L.), although every author 
has followed Dillenius in keeping them distinct. Nor do any of the descriptions of J. varia of 
subsequent Floras so ill accord with our plant, as to induce me to exclude them from the above 
synonyms. That of Michaux, however, cannot be quoted without a mark of interrogation, since 
he says that the divisions of the leaves are of an equal size. 
Micheli’s figure and description are extremely imperfect, and, according to the character that 
is given of the leaves, seem rather to belong to J. emarginata, than to albicans; but the calyx i» 
widely different. Roth, indeed, . quotes this figure to his J. compacta, a species, which, by means 
of authentic specimens, that I have lately received from Dr. Swartz, I am enabled to say is 
nothing more than J. resupinata of this Monograph. To that plant, therefore, the following 
synonym may be added; Jungermannia compacta, Roth, Germ. hi. p, 375, 
1 cannot here omit offering ,t as my opinion, that those who will give themselves the trouble of examining the 
Hedwigian Anthers of the Jungermannia, such as are represented in the “ Theoria ” upon J. asplenioides and J. pusilla 
and will compare then structure with that of the anthers in mosses, will be led to conclude, that, whatever doubts may 
have ansen respect, ng the sexes of these parts, they are, nevertheless, destined in both to perform similar functions In 
use of the microscope is often indisn - 11 a ^ 1,1611 deteCtl0n > lndeed > 1 must acknowledge that the 
researches, who join M Beauvois T T ^ n,US ‘ 031011,3,6 00 mee.ing with disappointments in their 
mousses, a l-ermn'r" “hi“ “ * — * “** “ — «*** « 00 P™ .>ph,u„ it ,.n,„ 
t Prodrome de. et,,,,,!,, ,, riml.e FM , p . ^ * * 
5 Containing J. plalyphylla, J. Tamarisci, and J. dilalata. 
