18 
Eurhynchium abbreviatum Schp. Uckfield, Sussex, c. fr., also 
sterile plants from Lewes. W. E. Nicholson. “ Both correct.”— 
H. N. Dixon. Another plant sent by G. Holmes, Cemetery, 
Stroud, named abbreviatum ? is E. confertum Milde. 
Plagiothecium denticulatum B. & S. Infested with protonema. 
Penyard Wood, Hereford, Jan., 1898.—E. Armitage “ P. 
Borrerianum Schp., with luxuriant growth of axillary protonemoid 
shoots characteristic of the plant. Also a little denticulatum. 
Both grow in the wood, and vary from yellowish to bright green 
according to position.”—E.A. 
Amblystegium confervoides B. & S., mixed ? Near Kendal, 
Sept., 1885. C. H. Waddell. (1896 Distrib.) Mr. Benson does 
not find any in the mixture. I am sorry none was included 
by mischance in his packet, but the plants grow there on lime¬ 
stone blocks.—C. H. W. 
Hypnum chrysophyllum Brid. Bisley, Glos., 1898. G. Holmes. 
Mr Benson asks, Is this not var. erectum, Bagnall (Jour, of Bot., 
1 896, p. iii)? 
Hypnum Wilsoni Schp. Birkdale, Southport, 23.3.’98. S. 
Gasking. “Is it not H. Sendtneri? Equal to Mr. Wheldon’s 
plant. Southport, June, 1898.”—R. de G. Benson. “ H. Sendtneri 
assumes many forms in S W. Lancs , some of which approach 
Wilsoni. My gathering may have been mixed, as both grew to¬ 
gether in a depression among the sand hilis, where water had 
lodged.”—S. G. The plants from Killarney, sent by Rev. H. W. 
Lett, 18 Sept., 1897, with this name are H. fluitans L. 
Hypnum aduncum Hedw. (Group pseudo-fluitans ) Southport, 
Aug., 1897. J. A. Wheldon. Some of these packets may be 
labelled 11 . fluitans forma , to which Mr. Slater and I at first referred 
it. Messrs. Dixon and Renauld refer it to aduncu??i, but it is still 
sub judice as to its varietal name, and is placed provisionally under 
var. paternum. 
Hypnum uncinatum Hedw. var plumulosum Schp. Hebden Bridge, 
Yorks, Aug., 1897. Messrs. Needham and Crossland, fide Dr. 
Braithwaite. “Although this has superficially a resemblance to 
H. uncinatum , the resemblance will be found to go no deeper; in 
all structural characters it clearly agrees with H. fluitans (Group 
falcatuvi), and the perichoetial bracts put the matter beyond any 
doubt. The absence of striae in the leaves would not absolutely 
preclude its identification with H. uncinatum , as in the var plu¬ 
mulosum they are almost or indeed quite smooth ; but that var. 
is always a much more slender plant.—H N. Dixon. 
HEPATICHL 
Jungermania pumila With, or riparia ? Cressbrook Dale, Derby, 
March, 1898. W. R. Linton. Is J. riparia Tayl. fide Slater. “It 
may be distinguished from pumila by its flagelliform roots like 
strawberry runners, which are always present in this species.— 
W. Ingham. 
