Dll. STIBTON’S Dill L’ISII MOSSES 
13 
“certainly distinct from the var. den sum , to which Braithwaite refers 
it.” But he does not point out any distinguishing characters, and 
his description does not suggest any. Stirton refers to this plant in 
Trans. Bot. Soc. Edinb. x. 426 (1890), as Trichostomum compactum. 
L. confertum Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xv. 112 (1906).—This is 
referred by Stirton himself to Ditrichum homomalluni var. zonatum , 
in a MS. note in his herbarium. 
L. cyclophyllum Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xviii. 242 (1909). 
(Onich; Aug. 1908.)—This is a very tall and robust form of Dicra- 
nella heteromalla var. interrnpta B. & S. The leaf-base, and the 
subula denticulate throughout a great part of its length are quite 
characteristic. I have similar forms of the var. from a number of 
localities, though not quite reaching the dimensions of Stirton’s plant. 
A form closely approaching it was distributed by the Moss Exch. 
Club in 1908, from Tyn-y-groes, coll. Owen & Jones. 
L. infuse at am Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xii. 112 (1903). (Main¬ 
land of Orkney ; Aug. 1886.)—I find no difference whatever from 
ordinary forms of Ditriclium flexicaule. It is not easy to under¬ 
stand from the description what is precisely the character (based on 
the areolation) on which Stirton founded the species : on the previous 
page he makes the somewhat astounding statement of D. flexicaule , 
that the cells near the central base are “ very generally the largest in 
any moss.” ♦ 
Ceratodon vialis Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xiv. 105 (1905). 
(Glasgow, in streets.)—This is based by Stirton principally on the 
large cells, “ nearly four times the area of those of C. purpureus ” ; 
but this is a frequent character in hygromorphose forms of C. pur¬ 
pureus , and cannot be held a specific character, especially as all inter¬ 
mediate sizes of cell may be found between it and the typical size, if 
such there can be said to be. It may be added that if the size of the 
cells be held to constitute a sufficient character, probably Stirton’s 
species is slightly antedated by C. yrossiretis Card., published in the 
same year, from the Antarctic. Stirton says that the species is a 
parallel to Cynodontium Jenneri (Schimp.) ( C. laxirete Grebe), as 
compared with C. polycarpum. But he overlooks the fact that it is 
not only the size of the cells that distinguishes C. Jenneri , but their 
non-papillose surface and their unistratose arrangement at margin, 
and that there are moreover good fruiting characters as well; and 
further, that the areolation in C. purpureus is notoriously variable, 
which is not the case with Cynodontium poly carpum. 
Cynodontium asperellum Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xv. 106 (1906). 
(Behind Craig Chailleach ; 31 Aug., 1890.)-—The Craig Chailleach 
plant agrees exactly with hVeisia curvirostris var. scabra. The 
description of the plant—vegetatively at least—is entirely in accord¬ 
ance with this. Stirton makes a good deal of the “ slender connecting 
tubes between the cells ”; and appears to look upon them as a 
remarkable character, whereas they are a most frequent character in 
thick-walled cells, though much more conspicuous in some than 
others. I find them quite marked in all the mounted slides of 
TV. curvirostris that I have examined. Stirton describes a single 
old capsule “ the teeth of which are defective.” If any remains of 
