16 
THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
also on certain tine distinctions in the size of the cells in different 
parts of the nerve, as between this and G. Jlexuosus , in which 1 was 
not able to follow him. As to the colour, I have several specimens in 
my herbarium of undoubted G. jlexuosus, notably in the var. para¬ 
doxus, showing the blackish colour in the older leaves, and I do not 
think this can be considered of importance. 
G. obtectus Stirt. in Trans. & Proc. Bot. Soc. Edinb. xxvi. 426 
(1915). (Plockton ; 1914.)—Certainly C. jlexuosus var. paradoxus . 
Stirton writes “ no auricles, properly so called.” But on a further 
specimen of same locality and date he writes “ the leaves now show 
distinctly bulbous bases ; 31 Mar., 1916 ”;—thus illustrating the 
variability of G. jlexuosus. He also writes “ 0. obtectus or G. obtec- 
tansf in sclied. No doubt the name refers to the habitat (on a 
thatched roof), and obtectans would have been more correct. 
G. pelidnus Stirt. in Scott. Nat. No. xi. p. 233 (LS86). (Ben- 
becula ; 10 Aug., 1885.)—Described by Stirton as a subsp. of G. brevi- 
pilus. I can see no good reason, either in the description or in the 
plants, for separating it from that, even as a variety. 
C. pergracilis Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xiv. 105 (1905). (Craig 
Mohr. Arisaig ; Aug. 1904.)—Described by Stirton as intermediate 
between C. frag Hi s and C. pgr if or mis. Forms of this perplexing 
character do occur, but with little constancy in characters. 1 should 
call it a robust form of C. pyriformis with nerve rather wider than 
usual. 
C. perplexans Stirt. in Trans. Bot. Soc. Edinb. xxvi. 247 (1914). 
(Plockton, Boss-shire; Aug. 1913.)—Stirton compares this with 
O. atrovirens , as differing mostly in the basal areolation—but does 
not say how. I find no differences ; the rectangular supra-alar cells 
perhaps reach higher in the leaf than usual, and the very narrow 
marginal cells are perhaps more marked than commonly. 
C. porophorus Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. x. 113 (1901). (Gap of 
Dunloe, Ireland; G. E. Hunt, 1864.)—This was sent to Stirton as 
C. setifolius. He separates it from that and C. Shaivii entirely on 
the ground of the lower cells having distinctly porose cell-walls. But 
as C. setifolius frequently, if not normally has these, the distinction 
vanishes. The mounted slide at the British Museum, for instance 
(Killarnev, Binstead), shows the porose walls distinctly. 
C. prasino-rujus Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xv. 108 (1906). 
(Craig Mohr, Arisaig ; Aug. 1904.)—Stirton gives no locality in his 
published description ; but as the above is the only specimen under 
this name in the herbarium, it is evidently his type. It is simply 
C. atrovirens var. muticus Milde. There is indeed nothing in the 
description to suggest anything different. 
C. purpuraseens Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. x. 109 (1901). (Tar- 
bert in Harris; Aug. 1890.)—Stirton sent me several of his gather¬ 
ings of this moss, which I was unable to separate from C. Schivarzii. 
In his reply to my letter suggesting this he sent “a mere scrap of 
what Prof. Schimper considered C. Schwarzii,” adding that “in fact 
we have comparatively little of this Gampylopus in Scotland.” He 
further states that G. purpuraseens belongs to a quite different 
Section of Gampylopus, and concludes that the difference of opinion 
