DR. STIRTON’S BRITISH MOSSES 
15 
Campylopus aurescens Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. viii. 104 (1899). 
(Benbecula; 1885.)—A fine form or var. of C. brevipilus , but it 
must be referred to var. auriculatm Ferg., 1 tliink, without any 
doubt. 
C. citrescens Stirt. in Trans. Bot. Soc. Edinb. xxvi. 245 (1914). 
(Plockton, lioss-shire; 1913.)—This only differs from the ordinary 
forms of C. fragilis in having the lamina not or scarcely narrowed 
at the insertion ; a somewhat unusual, but not very important devia¬ 
tion from the type. The mounted slide of this species at the Brit. 
Mus. (Husnot, M. Gall. 410), agrees with Stirton’s plant almost 
exactly. 
C. crenulatus Stirt. in Trans. Bot. Soc. Edinb. xxvi. 244 (1914). 
(Plockton; 1912.)—I find nothing in either description or actual 
plant to separate it from C. jlexuosus , of which it is a rather tall 
form. 
C. Fergussonii Stirt. in Trans. Bot. Soc. Edinb. xxvi. 243 (1914). 
(Plockton ; 1913.)—This is a fairly ordinary form of C. atrovirens , 
of a paler green than usual. Stirton describes the upper cells as not 
having the sigmoid form usual in C. citrovirens. This is more or 
less true of the younger leaves, but in the older leaves the cells are 
quite normal. 
C. fulvo-viridis Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xi. 105 (1902). (Lewis, 
Outer Hebrides; Aug. 1901.)—I can find nothing either in the 
description or in the specimens to separate this from C. brevipilus. 
C. fusco-luteus Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. vi. 117 (1897). (Ben 
Voirlich by Loch Lomond ; 1866; original specimen.)—Stirton (/. c.) 
gives 1864 as the date of collecting, and states that the species was 
published in 1865, but I cannot trace this publication. The specimen 
examined is quite indistinguishable from C. subulatus var. elongatus , 
except that the stems are radiculose below, a character which brings 
it very near to C. Schimperi. A further specimen of Stirton’s was 
sent me by Dr. Braithwaite, as C. subulatus in his opinion, a deter¬ 
mination with which I entirely agree. 
C. leucophceus Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xii. 110 (1903). (Gair- 
loch; Sept. 1911.)—Stirton does not state the origin of the plant 
described by him, though it is implied that it was from Tarbert in 
Harris. The specimen from Gairloch is a later one, but was sent me 
by Stirton as the correct thing, and it agrees quite well (except in 
one respect) with the description, so that it may be accepted as 
genuine. The sole difference from the described plant is that 1 can 
only find here and there a sporadic stereid cell on the ventral side of 
the Guides, to justify Stirton’s description of it as a Falinocraspis ; 
while in other respects his description points to C. jlexuosus, quite 
decidedly. I make it without doubt C. jlexuosus var. paradoxus, 
with which the description of the general leaf character is entirely in 
accord. The presence here and there of a few stereid cells on the 
ventral side of the Guides must be looked upon as an abnormality. 
C. melaphanus Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xii. 110 (1903). (Tay- 
vallich ; Aug. or Sept. 1898.)—In my opinion C. jlexuosus. Stirton, 
in a lengthy correspondence with me about this moss, mentioned that 
this had been the opinion of another bryologist. He placed much 
stress on the blackish colour of the lower, older part of the tufts, and 
