270 
not difficult to distinguish the plant in question from 
the I typical) S. saginoides. The former could easily be 
taken for Sagina subidata (Sw.) as far as size and shape 
are concerned, but all specimens I have seen are quite 
glabrous and the leaves have no long apical bristle. It 
must therefore be compared with S. saginoides. In the 
first place it is a much thinner plant than this, even 
in a ripe state, and the peduncles are not much thicker 
than a hair; if the two species are examined together 
under a pocket lens, the peduncles of saginoides appear 
twice as thick as those of the other species. See fig. 
1, a, compared with b and c. — In the second place 
the most distinctive mark in dried specimens is the 
Fig. 2. a Flower of Sagina saginoides from Härjedalen (Sweden). 
— b — g Do. of Sagina procumbens X saginoides , b from Härje- 
dalen, c — g from Ben Lawers (Scotland); c collected by G-. C. 
Druce. the rest by the author; g is a 4-merous flower. — All 
figures X 5. 
different size and shape of the capsule, fig. 4. I have 
always found the capsule of the thin plant (fig. 4, c — e) 
short and broad and not very much longer than the 
calyx, as already mentioned; the lobes of the capsule 
are also of a thinner substance and a lighter, almost 
whitish colour. In saginoides (fig. 4, a, b) they look 
firmer and thicker and have a slightly brownish colour. 
By means of these differences I was able to distin- 
guish the two species in the herbaria of the Stockholm 
