14 
THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
teeth were actually preserved the capsule must certainly belong to 
some intermixed species, but it is probable that it was rather the 
defective condition of the capsule that gave an illusory appearance of 
teeth. 
Dichodontium fulvescens Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xviii. 245 
(1909). (Corran, near Onich ; Aug. & Sept., 1908.)—Stirton bases 
this principally on the nerve percurrent or excurrent (“Nerve reaches 
apex in more than two-thirds of the leaves,” Stirton MS. in herb.), 
and the almost smooth cells. But his specimens, of which there are 
plenty, do not bear out this observation at all. I find no excurrent 
nerve, only a few doubtfully percurrent; and the cells are normally 
papillose for D. jlavescens. Stirton must, 1 think, have misinter¬ 
preted his observations of the leaf-apex. 1 find it entirely similar to 
1). jlavescens. 
Oreoweisia serrulata (Funck) Schimp. is stated by Dr. Braith- 
waite (Brit. M. FI. I. 164) to have been recorded by Stirton from 
Ben Lawers. There are two Scottish specimens so named (with a 
certain amount of doubt) in Stirton’s herbarium:— (a) Ben Lawers ; 
July, 1864. This is Anoectangium cowpactum, a short form much 
encumbered with soil, and different looking from the usual plant; 
( b ) Ben Lawers ; 1871. This is a small form of Weisia curvi- 
rostris var. scabra. 
Dicranella (errore typographico Dicranidia) fusco-rufa Stirt. in 
Ann. Sc. N. H. xv. 108 (1906). (Craig Mohr, Arisaig.)—Separated 
by Stirton from D. cnrvata on the ground of certain “ red, long, 
cylindrical bodies ” among the “ ordinary pale or greenish paraphyses 
of the flowers of both sexes; together with a laxer areolation than 
usual, and the leaves'sharply serrated in the upper third. Iam not 
clear that I have detected the special organs in the flowers ; it appears 
to me that the mature paraphyses correspond fairly well with these, 
while the “ordinary pale or greenish paraphyses” are immature ones 
merely. The strongly denticulate subula is due to the fact that the 
moss belongs not to D. cnrvata but to D. heteromalla , and I can see 
only the ordinary 6 plant of that species in the specimens. 
Dicranoweisia Sutherlandii Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xviii. 168 
(1909). (On apple-tree in garden, South bar, near Glasgow ; May, 
1908.)—This is another of the species created on the basis of the 
large cells, and compared with Cynodontium Jenneri in that respect, 
in relation to C. polycaryum. The measurements he gives of the 
upper cells, however (13, 18, or even 20 y long by 10-14 y wide), are 
b}'' no means extremely large for Dicranoweisia cirrata , with which 
he compares it. A specimen picked out at random from my herbarium 
(on Garrick’s mulberry-tree, Abington, Northampton) has them 
equally wide. The cells figured in the “ Handbook ” measure about 
15-16 y by 10-13 y. I can see no grounds for separating the Scottish 
plant from D. cirrata even as a form, on this score. The septate 
gemmae described by Stirton are also characteristic of D. cirrata (cf. 
Correns, Vermeilr., &c. p. 262). 
Campylopus attenuatus Stirt. ( C. brevipilus var. attenuatus Stirt. 
in Ann. Sc. N. H. vi. 119 [1897]). (Unst, Shetland; 1886.)—To 
my mind this is simply a form of C. brevipilus with the hair-points 
undeveloped. 
