46 
T1IE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
DR. STIRTON’S NEW BRITISH MOSSES REVISED. 
By H. N. Dixon, M.A., F.L.S. 
(Continued from p. 17.) 
C. symplectus Stirt. in Scott. Nat. No. xi. p. 231 (1886). (Tar- 
bert in Harris; Aug. 1886.)—This also is a form of G. Schwarzii, 
only differing in the somewhat smaller auricles, and in that respect 
forming a slight approach to C. Schimperi. 
Dicranum capnodes Stirt. in Scott. Nat. No. xii. p. 257 (1886). 
(Ben Voirlicli by Loch Lomond ; 1872.)—1 can see no reason why 
this should not be JD. uncinatum C. M. The description suggests 
this, since it says that the structure of the leaf-base “is that of 
JD. circinatum and it does not point out any distinguishing cha¬ 
racters. The leaves in this specimen are, it is true, mostly not 
circinate, simply falcate, and this is perhaps the reason why Stirton 
did not associate it with JD. uncinatum ; but some of the leaves are 
very strongly falcate, and in another gathering from the same locality 
they are quite as circinate as usual in JD. uncinatum. 
JD. expallidum Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. vi. 118 (1897). (Tarbert 
in Harris; Aug. 1S86.)—Stirton gives no locality; but this is the 
only specimen, so that it is certainly the one described. Except that 
the nerve is rather unusually narrow for Gampylopus subulatus and 
that the stems are tall, this differs in no way from specimens gathered 
at the same time and place, and referred by Stirton to C. subulatus. 
It is C. subulatus var. elongatus Bosw. 
JD. Fergussoni Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. viii. 42 (1899). (Arisaig, 
1906 ; Tayvallich, 1898, &c.)—Stirton describes this from several 
gatherings, not indicating any one as type. The original gathering 
was in Mull; but the specimens described by Stirton as “ showing a 
greater degree of development than those of any other known locality ” 
are from Arisaig. 
Stirton compares it with JD. Scottianum (but there is certainly no 
close connection with that), with D. fuscescens, and with JD. Mueh-. 
lenbechii B. & S., considering it on the whole nearest the last, on 
account of the dense tomentum and porose cells. The cells in D. fus¬ 
cescens, however, are frequently porose, and the tomentum in the 
specimen is no more dense than in some of Stirton's own specimens 
of JD. fuscescens ; it is certainly that species, and not, I should say— 
as JD. fuscescens goes—a very marked form of it. 
ID. hypselum Stirt. in Scott. Nat. No. xii. p. 258 (1886). (Ben 
McDhui, Gr. E. Hunt, 1868.)—Stirton described it as without pores 
in the cell-walls; but the lower cells have the walls distinctly porose. 
It differs in no way from JD. molle. Stirton, indeed, in describing it, 
educes no distinguishing characters of any weight; only the habit, 
which is not marked, the alar cells red instead of orange, several oil- 
globules in a cell instead of one, &c.! 
JD. interludens Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. IT. xii. 114 (1903). (Ben 
Lawers : 1865.)—Compared with JD. majus , JD. congestum, and 
JD. Bonjeani. It appears to me a simple form of the last. The 
