70 
T1IE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
TlMMIACEiE. 
Timmia scotica Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xix. 238 (1910). (Ben 
Lawers ; July 1855.)—Most of the plants are very small, and at first 
sight seem different from T. norvegico, to which, as Stirton recog¬ 
nized, it is closely allied, and to which he at first referred it. There 
do not, however, appear to be any distinguishing structural characters, 
and as there are forms intergrading with the typical plant among 
Stirton’s specimens, 1 do not think it can be considered anything 
more than a stunted form of T. norvegica. 
Barthamiace^:. 
Conostomum (?) extenuatum Stirt. in Ann. Sc. 1ST. H. xi. 112 
(1902). (Ben Lawers; 18(34.)—It is certainly not a Conostomum. 
It is a Ditrichum, a very slender and fragile plant, and clearly 
belongs to D. zonatum. 
Bartramia suhvirella Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xvi. 176 (1907). 
(Onich, side of Hill Road; Sept. 1908. And Kyleakin, Skye ; Aug. 
1910.)—Stirton speaks of this as a frequent moss in Scotland, distinct 
from Breutelia arcuata in colour, arrangement of leaves, &c. He 
has placed specimens of the two side by side, and at first sight they 
certainly appear distinct; B. suhvirella having yellowish leaves, 
more closely set, not widely spreading, rather patent than squarrose, 
while B. arcuata is bright green with more distant leaves strongly 
horizontally squarrose. In looking through a good series of Breu¬ 
telia arcuata, however, I find the suhvirella form quite frequent and 
widely distributed, and clearly intergrading with the other form ; 
and I have many plants which I should not know how to place, were 
the two separated. The few structural characters given by Stirton 
are not borne out hy the plants ; the basal cells are certainly no 
different, the leaf-base is scarcely if at all different, and there is no 
difference, as suggested, in the plication. B. suhvirella can only 
he looked upon as a slight and ill-defined form of B. arcuata. 
Philonotis heterophylla Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xvii. 173 
(1908).—No specimens are so-named, hut “ Bartramia from summit 
of Ben Lawers, like B. adpressa (new),” is evidently the original, 
though the date on the packets is 1865, while in the description it is 
1867. There are no other packets of Bliilonotis from Ben Lawers 
which could possibly apply to this, and a small hit enclosed in one of 
the packets is labelled “Ben Lawers, July 1867,” and is certainly 
the type. In none of the specimens can I see the slightest difference 
from B. adpressa, nor in the description ; though Stirton says “ the 
distinctions are manifest.” The distinctions noted between the form 
and areolation of the lower and upper leaves merely reflect the true 
nature of adpressa as a derivative of P. font ana, and are quite usual. 
Bryaceas. 
Bohlia tenerrima Stirt. in Ann. Sc. N. H. xvii. 174 (1908). 
(Back of Keppoch, near Arisaig ; Sept. 1906.)—Stirton has been 
taken in by the sterile form of Archidium alternifolium. As in the 
