This species, which seems to be peculiar to alpine districts,
has become better known since its re-discovery in the Scottish
Highlands. D i c k s o n was the first to find and describe it, although
under the generic name of Bryum. Sir J. E. S m i t h ,
in his “ Flora Britannica,” and afterwards in his noble work
the “ English Botany,” placed it àmbng the Dicrana, to which
it truly belongs; W e b e R and M o h r , in the mean time, described
a German moss under the name of Dicranum rupestre,
which we have no hesitation whatever in regarding as our present
plant, (though expressly stated by those acute botanists to
be distinct from it), their whole description agreeing in a remarkable
manner. S c h w a e g r i c h e n does not appear to have
seen thè plant at all, as he simply places it in a list of those
doubtful species of which he does not venture to give any description.
In the “ Museologia Britannica,” Dicranum fulvellum is
considered the same as Weissia acuta; but I have little doubt,
that, in the forthcoming edition of that excellent work, the
perfect specimens now in the possession of the authors, will induce
them to give it the place of a species.
Fig. 1. Plants, nat. size. Fig. 2. A plant magnified, with the capsule and lid.
Fig. 3. Cauline leaves. Fig. 4. Pericluetial leaf. Fig. 5. Apex o f a cau-
line leaf. Fig. 6. Capsule in a dry state, with the peristome. Fig. 7. Calyptra.
Fig. 8. Two ( f the teeth <f the peristome. Fig. 9. Sporules.