Í K *
h :
H
tu fts a t th e extrem ity o f the frond. The a u th o r, however, makes it a Mnium, “ Mnium Lichenis
fa c ie ," from the supposition th a t the capitula, a t the extremity o f the tu b u la r receptacle, had the ir
origin th e re ; whereas i t is only in a certain state o f th e p lant th a t these gemmiferous receptacles
p u t on the appearance o f th e g ran u la r heads o f a Mnium. Nor is tlie description, partly made by
Dillenius himself, and partly by Mr. William Harrison, who first found th e p lant in En g lan d , near
Manchester, as fa r as i t goes, a t all less worthy o f praise th an th e figure.
Linnæus described o u r plant under the name o f Blasia pusilla, in his Flora Suecica, it having
been found in ditches ne a r F ahlun ; and Oeder has figured it in th e Flora Danica ; b ut ne ith e r o f
these authors have entered in to any satisfactory description o f it. T h e form e r seems to consider
the gemmæ, within th e tub u la r receptacles, as seeds; since he says, “ Semina m a tu ra e suo cyatho
fere cylindrico defluunt, tam parva u t eorum figura nudis oculis distingui n e q u e a t ;” yet, in the
Systema Natures, his ch aracter o f th e genus is,
M a s c .? Cal. c y lin d r ic u s g r a n is r e p le tu s .
Fem. ? Cal. nudus. F ru c tu subrotundo, foliis immerso, polyspermo.
So th a t S ir Jame s Smith is n ot correct, when he says th a t the black sessile warts, scattered over the
frond, are universally allowed to be male flowers. He has equally overlooked th e passage in Micheli,
“ Fruc tus su n t capsulæ secus foliorum margines.”
I t is to th e admirable Dissertation o f Schmidel, above quoted, th a t we m u st look for a
complete description of this curious p lan t, from its earliest stage o f grow th , to its a rriva l a t
ma turity, to g e th e r w ith its mode o f increase by gemmæ; for heretofore no one has ever discovered
th e anthe rs any more than th e capsules. Besides saying a ll th a t can be said concerning the two
different kinds o f gemmæ, th e a u th o r, in th e th irte en th section, describes what he considers a third
organ o f propagation peculiar to this p la n t; b u t th is , from all I c an understand o f the description,
appears to be n o thing more than a repetition o f the mode o f increase by th e gemmæ, which have
fallen from th e tu b u la r receptacles, and are dispersed alike upon individuals, furnished with
receptacles themselves, and upon such as have them not. N o r do th e figures he has given o f these
parts induce me to think otherwise upon the p o in t; although I must confess, th a t, with regard to
most o f the magnified figures on tlie plate, they do n ot seem to me to deserve th a t praise which
has been so universally bestowed upon them , and which those o f th e na tu ra l size doubtless me rit.
At th e conclusion o f his elaborate history, Schmidel sums u p his account o f th e genus in
the se words; “ B la s ia e st Al g æ genus pro flore mascuZino gerens rtnt/ieras soiitarias, pe r frondis
substantiam sparsas, sessiles, subglobulosas: pro/cniineo fere Calycem monophyllum, inverse ovatum
(extrorsum) tubula tum , tu b o subcylindraceo truncato ; absque CoroZZa ; e t ex fundo Calicis Semina
n uda, libera, plurima, subrotunda, compressiuscula excludens.”
Hedwig comes next to be considered; who, having, as may be expected, added little th a t is
new to what has been observed by th e last-mentioned author, assures us, th a t what he has offered to
th e reader is done chiefly with a view to confirm and illustrate the discoveries of th e incomparable
Schmidel. He therefore, likewise, looks upon th e m arginal g emmæ as an th e rs, and th e receptacular
ones as seetls, saying o f the former, what I have n o t myself been able to verify, th a t the foUiculus
o f th e an th e r 'tex trin se cu s fibrlllosus* est, evident! judiciocommunicationis cum p lantulæ vasculis.”
• Let me add, however, in confirmation of Hedwig’s assertion, a communication made to me by Mr. Lyell, “ In
two specimens, these tubercles are rough and unpolished, as if they had burst, and when I threw a ray of sun-shine
on them, seemed covered (not thickly) with very short, white filaments.” Le tt. Dec. 1812.
O f th e tu b u la r receptacles o f the gemmæ (which, by th e bye, are extremely ill done in th e
Theoria, where they have th e appearance o f b e ing o f a different texture and color from th e rest of
the p la n t), Hedwig remarks, “ pa rum de truncelli extremitate, elevatiori fructus rudimento superius
insidet exiguus ten e rrim u s stylus fusci coloris ab omnibus disquisitorlbus prætervisus : nequc
m irum , cùm admodum fugax sit.” Yet neither does the figure alluded to exhibit any appearance
o f th e supposed style b e ing o f a different color from the re st o f the receptacle, nor does it ever
appear so in reality. T h e same author aptly compares th is style-iike body, in a more advanced
sta te , to th e calyx o f Anlhoceros-, and, with regard to Schmidel’s third mode o f fructification, I am
happy to say he entertains th e same opinion with myself. I must not om it to notice, th a t it is to
Hedwig we owe our first acquaintance with the roots, or root-like appendages, th a t are found on
th e receptacular gemmæ ; although, in th e Theoria, they are figured with these appendages too
la rg e , and too much a tten u a ted .
In th e Species Muscorum (p. 3 4 3 ), the following character o f th e genus Blasia is given :
Perigonium n u llum (nisi cuticulam dicas). Calyplra brevis, integ ra elevata cum sporangio
cordato-acurainato, univalvi, per apicem m a tu rita te pervium emittente sporas nudas.
Spermatocystidia orbicularia, complanata, solitaria, la titan tia singula in foveola, epidermide
tectâ.
Flores diclini.
Schreber, in his Genera Plantarum, has added nothing of any moment to w h a t preceding
authors had done. Hoffmann’s description of Blasia pusilla ( Fl. Germ. v. 2 ), seems to be compiled
wholly from Hedwig and Schmidel. T h e same may be said of Roth’s account o f th e genus r
nor does th e excellent Mohr give any new observations in his Cryptogamic Flora o f Germany.
Schwagrichen’s ch aracter is a very imperfect one. “ Theca univalvis. Seminum elateres nulli.
Calyptra a vaginuîâ secedens, dimidiata.”
Wahlenberg alone has v entured to doubt if th e real seeds were k n own, and ha s, consequently,
a ltered th e generic cha ra c te r, which stands thus in his admirable Flora Lapponica;
“ Flores dioici ?
Mas ? Sacculus in su b stan tiâ frondis occultus, rostello elevato eminens, apice dehiscens e t
g ran u la masculina emittens.
F em. ig n o t i? ”
And he adds to this a rema rk so valuable, th a t I cannot forbear quoting th e whole o t it. “ Granula
ilia , quas em ittu n t rnstella, m ihi tam similia videntur polline sic dicto masculino in Jungermanniis,
vel e tiam propogiiBs cyalhorum apud Marchanliam, u t n o n possum qu in dubitem e a esse vere
semina. Semper pellucida su n t, quasi e pluribus granulis partialibus composita. Conformatio
conceptaculi quoque Cyatbis Marchantiæ s a t analoga, sed loto coelo a capsulis veris Marchantiarum
e t Anthocerotis recedens. lu Marchaniiâ pilosâ sic dicti flores masculini de siderantur, cur heic
femíneos pressius reperire volumus ? ”
i t would n ot have been in m y power to have confirmed th e opinion held o u t in th e above
r em a rk , and to have illustra ted my figures and descriptions o f this p lant with th e p e rfe c t fruit, had
i t n o t been for th e kind assistance o f my botanical friends. Mr. Dickson first p u t into my hands
capsuliferous specimens o f th e Blasia, which he gathe red on th e shores o f Loch Tay, in
Invernesshire, and supposed to be a new Ju nge rm annia . These, however, I should n o t perhaps
have readily ascertained to be th e Blasia, had I not received othe r specimens a b o u t the same time,
b u t without capsules, from Dr. Swartz, when I was instantly struck with th e marginal g em m *
in both. Mr. Lyell discovered the p lan t a t Kin n o rd y ; and, with his accustomed zeal and industry.
b i
' ^ I
4 k ' I
^ ^1
J
Np
? i