298 Boodle. — The Monoecism of Funarid hygrometrica , Sibth. 
by cutting sections of any apparently free female stems it might be possible 
to obtain evidence of previous attachment to another axis, if the female stem 
had been formed as a branch. Among this series only one independent 
female stem was found, and this certainly had a scar in its basal region 
suggesting a broken attachment. Hence the nine apparently free female 
stems all come under suspicion, especially as most of them were among the 
earlier plants examined, when less care was taken in separating the 
specimens ; consequently one may say that the female axis is produced as 
a branch of the male in the majority of cases, perhaps in all. 
No certain case was observed of a female stem producing a male 
branch. Male plants remaining unbranched may perhaps occur, but as far 
as these observations go they must be relatively rare. 
We have restricted our view to the relation of the female branch 
to the male stem bearing it, but branching may be carried further. Thus 
a plant was observed in which the male axis had given off a male branch, 
which in its turn had produced a female branch. A few other specimens 
were probably similar, but the primary axis was partly decayed, so that 
the presence of antheridia on it could not be determined. Evidence of 
branching carried to a higher order was obtained, and one or two cases of 
the production of more than one branch on a single male axis were also seen. 
We may observe that the production of the female axis as a branch, of 
rather late origin, on the male stem appears often to lead to the maturing 
of the archegonia at a time when the antheridia of the same plant are empty 
and withered, so that cross-fertilization occurs. 
One phaenological record regarding F. hygrometrica made by Grimme 1 
in Germany may be quoted as agreeing well with the formation of the 
female axis as a branch of the male: ‘numerous male flowers with almost 
mature, yellowish-brown (and also green) antheridia. One female inflo- 
rescence with immature archegonia.’ 
The result of the present observations is to confirm the statements of 
Bruch and Schimper, Wilson and other bryologists, and agrees with the 
observations of Dr. A. H. Burtt. The distinct contrary statements made 
in different textbooks are at first sight difficult to understand, but the 
explanation is probably as follows. In certain cases numbers of distinct 
male plants can no doubt be found, most, if not all of these being young 
specimens which have not yet produced female branches. This gives a 
first impression of dioecism. Again, when obtaining a specimen for 
examination, if one pulls a female branch on the edge of a tuft of plants, it 
will often come away, leaving the primary male axis behind. If greater 
care be exercised and a clump of two or three plants be put on a glass 
slide for separation under a dissecting microscope, the slight difficulty in 
tearing apart a male and female axis may easily be attributed to the 
1 Grimme, Ueber die Bluthezeit deutscher Laubmoose, &c. ; Hedwigia, 1903, p. 38. 
