BRITISH JUNGERM ANNIJE. 
( J. multifda.) 
Cn the var. /3. the J. sinuata of Engl. Botany, I can perceive no difference, except that the frond 
is somewhat wider, and the divisions or lateral segments are frequently, but by no means 
constantly, so short that, the margins appear to be here and there sinuate, rather than cut 
into segments. 
For want, of fructified specimens of the J. palmata of Hoffmann, a plant evidently most nearly 
allied to J. multijida, 1 am unable to point out from my own observation any other marks of 
distinction by which it may be known from the species here described, than its smaller size, its 
more cylindrical shoots, and its disposition to be branched principally at the base of the frond 
Other characters, however, will be found in the fructification, as detailed by Hedwig, whose 
remarks on the Anthers shall be here transcribed. “ Masculus e contra in distinct'! plantulil apices 
processuum occupat, plerumque tunc tumidiores spongiosos, vesiculari ad ambitum habitu. Hujus 
de medio transparent circelli lucidi, in quibus continents folliculi masculi pedicellati. Absolute 
flore, dehiscit intumescentia, deinde plane cadit, truncates relinquens processus*. And, besides 
the difference in the male fructification, in the female the same author represents the calyptra as 
having a small brown covering like the calyptra of a moss, which does not exist in our plant, 
(see Theoria, tab. 19. f. 96.) J. pinguis is the only other species with which J. multijida is likely 
to be confounded; and here it must be observed, that it is only allied to some of the narrowest 
and most branched varieties. The former, however, is always more thick and succulent, is plane 
on its upper surface, and never presents a reticulated appearance ; its size too is much larger, and 
its calyptra, in every instance, free from tubercles. 
The three Jungermann iae just enumerated, belong to that division of the genus, the individuals 
composing which have been called “ Acaules," and differ from all the rest of that family, in 
having no traces of a nerve, or perhaps, more correctly speaking, in being, altogether, composed 
of nerve or stem, and destitute of those lateral and more membranous expansions, which have 
caused all the rest of the genus to be called, in contradistinction to these, folios#; and which, even 
in one species of this very section, have a considerable approach to the appearance of the leaves in 
other plants. In J.furcata the frond has this membranous expansion continued uninterruptedly from 
the base to the extremity; in J. epiphylla the margin is here and there slightly lobed, whilst, in 
J. Blasia ( Blasia pusilla of Authors) the lobes are so deep, and so regular, that this species seems 
to hold an intermediate place between the “ Jungermanni # Folios <z and the Rondos*.’’ That the 
more membranous part of these species is analogous to the leaves in the others, will he still more 
apparent, when it is observed, that neither roots nor male nor female fructification are produced 
(as far, at least, as my experience will enable me to speak) upon it. J. epiphylla, in some of its 
states, may appear an exception to this remark; but even the older specimens, when held up to 
the light, will be seen to have an obscure, though wide, nerve, whence originate, on the upper 
surface, both the male and female fructification, and, on the lower surface, the roots. In younger 
plants the nerve is very conspicuous, as it is in the innovations. The situation of the spiral filaments, 
attached to the ends of the valves of the capsule, is, unfortunately, not confined to J. multijida, 
J. palmata, and J. pinguis; for they are so fixed in J.furcata, which, in other parts of its fructi- 
fication, differs materially from those species. 
» Theoria, p. 87. t. 18. f. 94. 
