The Monoecism of Funaria hygrometrica, Sibth. 1 
BY 
L. A. BOODLE, F.L.S. 
Assistant, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew . 
With Four Figures in the Text. 
T HE published statements regarding the distribution of the male and 
female flowers in Funaria hygrometrica are contradictory, this species 
being described as monoecious in bryological works, while dioecism is 
attributed to it in various botanical textbooks. In view of the conflicting 
nature of the different descriptions, Dr. D. H. Scott, F.R.S., suggested to 
me that I should make an examination of this species, his attention having 
been drawn to the subject by Prof. Charles Stewart, F.R.S., who informed 
him that the plant was monoecious. 
In the first place a few references to literature may be made. Sachs 2 , 
Van Tieghem 3 , and Goebel 4 refer to Funaria hygrometrica as an example 
of a dioecious species, in which the male organs are on smaller plants of 
shorter duration. Campbell 5 states that ‘ Funaria is strictly dioecious,’ 
and adds that the * male plants either grow separately or more or less 
mixed with the females.’ In agreement with Campbell, Scott 6 describes 
Funaria as dioecious, the male plants as of fair size, and the female plants 
as very small. Bower and G wynne- Vaughan 7 describe the sexual organs 
as occurring on distinct plants. Thus the works quoted above agree as to 
the dioecious character of the species. 
1 From the Jodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 
2 Sachs, Text-Book of Botany, 2nd Eng. ed. (1882), p. 370. 
3 Van Tieghem, Traits de Botanique, 2nd ed. (1891), p. 1350. 
1 Goebel, Outlines of Classification, Eng. ed. (1887), p. 174, and Die Muscineen, Schenk’s 
Handbuch, 2. Bd. (1882), p. 375. 
6 Campbell, Mosses and Ferns, 2nd ed. (1905), p. 195. 
6 Scott, Structural Botany, Part II, 4th ed. (1904), p. 132 et seq. 
7 Bower and Gwynne- Vaughan, Practical Botany for Beginners (1905), p. 211, 
[Annals of Botany, Vol, XX. No. X.XXIX. July, 1906.] 
