BRITISH JUNGERMANNIiE. 
( J . Blasia. J 
functions assigned to them as those contained in the receptacles, to which the same 
appellation is here given, and which, I think, are clearly ascertained to become new 
plants, like the receptacular gemmae of the Marchantice, and like those gemmte that I 
have described on J. complanata, J. calyptrifolia, J. furcata, and others ; whilst bodies, 
analogous to the gemmae in question, may be found in what I have in this work called 
Gemma of J. bicuspidala, J. nemorosa, &c. (See, upon this subject, a remark under 
J. calyptrifolia.) 
Having now devoted three entire plates, and an equally unusual portion of letter-press, for the 
description and illustration of the present species, little remains for me to add in the diagnosis, 
which can tend to a more complete knowledge of the plant; since it is my wish simply to state 
facts as I have seen them, and to avoid every discussion respecting the offices of the respective parts 
of the fructification. I feel sensibly, that the further I advance in my acquaintance with these 
curious little vegetables, the greater are the difficulties which arise in the determination of the 
sexual organs; and I will, for the present, beg to declare myself neither the partizan of the 
Hedwigian system, which, ingenious as it is, appears to be fraught with many difficulties, nor of 
that of Richard, one of the most learned botanists of the present age; whose theory of “Agames,” 
as he calls the Cryptogamia of Linnaeus, I am far from understanding as I would wish to do, although 
I see sufficient to be convinced that it is highly worthy of attentive consideration. I shall content 
myself with remarking, what I think no one will deny, that, if what, in conformity with the language 
of Hedwig, have here been called capsules and anthers in J. epipliylla, be really such, those bodies 
which are so denominated in the present species, are, with equal propriety, worthy of that 
denomiation ; since the closest analogy, in structure and situation, exists between them. 
Declining then, as I do, bringing forward any arguments on the theory of the fructification 
in this species, it will not be necessary to enter much at large into a critical examination of the 
labors of Hedwig and Schmidel, in their Dissertations on the genus Blasia, which are professedly 
written with a view to ascertain what is the male, and what the female, fructification of the plant in 
question. Their speculations, indeed, are now completely overturned, by the discovery of what 
they themselves would undoubtedly acknowledge to be the true capsules. 
I cannot, however, omit adding a few words on the genus Blasia , which must, in future, be 
erased f rom the Flora. It was established by Micheli, who says of it, “Hanc novam plantam jure 
quidem optimo Blasiam denominavimus, a Pat. D. Blasio Biagi Congregationis Vallis-Umbrosae 
Monacho, Botanico non gregario, ac in Etruscis itineribus nostris ad indagandas plants, nepe 
sedulo comite.” The character he has defined to be “Plant* genus, flore monopetalo, campamformi, 
tubulate, elephantinam proboscidem quadamtenus *mulante, sed sterili, et calyce carente. Fructus 
verb sunt capsul* secus foliorurn margines, in quibus decern, ut plunmum minima rotunda 
nidulantur semina.” A figure* is likewise added a, tab. 7, but a very inferior one, compared 
with that given by Dillenius, in his incomparable Histona Mascorum. This latter admiiably 
represents, though of the natural size, the tubular receptacles, the marginal gemmae, and the 
« This figure, though tolerably good for the time in which it was published, is yet far from conveying a correct 
idea of the P Lt. The lobes of the frond are not expressed ; the marginal gemmae are inaccurate; and the receptacles 
of the gemma are too large, and the mouth too much expanded. 
