DK. STIIITON’s BItITISII MOSSES 
47 
leaves are undulate at tip, the cells agree, and the description suggests 
no difference, except that the upper cells are said to be like 1). con- 
gestum , which is not borne out by the specimen. 
j D. leiophyllum Stirt, in Ann. Sc. N. H. xvi. 178 (1907). (Ari- 
saig; Aug. 1903; on stone walls.)—This is a tall fine form of 
DLcranoweisici cr is pul a. 
D. mediellum Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xii. 113 (1903). (Ben 
Lawers, 1902; D. Haggart.)—Described as allied to D. Starlcei, 
with the 6 flower close to the perichaetium, but with different cells. 
The cells are short everywhere, and markedly papillose in the subula; 
the capsule is short and only faintly strumose. If these characters 
were constant, it might well stand as a species, or a subsp. of D. fal- 
cotum , to which it is more nearly allied than to D. Starlcei. But I 
find (a) some of the leaves have cells of the normal form, and are 
scarcely rough; ( b ) I have in nry herbarium specimens of both 
D. Starlcei and 1). faleatum with short cells but not particularly 
rough subula, or even quite smooth; and (c) a parallel form of 
D. Starlcei gathered by L. J. Cocks on Mam Soul, lloss-shire, has 
almost identical cell-characters, and a similar, short, scarcely strumose 
capsule ; but the size of the leaves, and the strongly marked auricles 
are certainly not those of D. mediellum , but of D. Starlcei. If 
J). mediellum were maintained, this would certainly have to take 
similar rank. It seems better to look upon both as derivative forms, 
the one from D. faleatum, the other from I). Starlcei ; and since 
intermediate forms occur, it is hardly possible to give them varietal 
rank. 
_D. notabile Stirt. in Scott. Nat. No. xii. p. 257 (188G). (Lenox - 
town woods, Campsie; 1863.)—This is certainly Dicranodontium 
longirostre ; the leaves are distinctly abruptly widened above the 
base, not gradually lanceolate as described by Stirton ; he may possibly 
have had two plants under his eye. 
JD. subnitescens Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. viii. 44 (1899). (Kin- 
loid Farm near Arisaig; Sept. 1906.)—This specimen is certainly 
D. Scottianum ; there seems nothing in the description either to 
separate it, except that the subula is described as toothed, but I find 
it quite or practically entire. As Stirton has reduced this to a var. 
of D. Fergussoni , it is probable that it was mixed with F.fuscescens , 
since the leaves of that are distinctly toothed, while here they are 
entire. 
GltlMMIACEiE. 
Schisticlium nodulosum Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xvi. 175 (1907). 
—There is no packet so named in the herbarium, but three packets 
labelled “ Schistidium apocarpum var. crispulum (Strn.) ; Ben 
Lawers, 1864”; and “Ben Lawers, 1867 (June) ” are certainly the 
originals. They are all Grimmia apocarya var. or subsp. gracilis , 
with which the description quite agrees. 
Grimmia calvescens Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. x. 112 (1901). 
(“Arisaig; Aug. 1906. See Annals of Scott. Nat. Hist., Apr. 
1901 ”.)—This specimen post-dates the actual description ; but Stirton 
probably considered it to be a better developed plant than that 
