Fig. 1. Tuft of Bartramia pomiformis a. Fig. 2. Single plant o f the same, with young fructification. Fig. 3.
Single plant, more advanced in fructification, (all nat. size.) Fig. 4. Single plant, magn, Fig. 5 . Leaf, do!
Fig. 6. Portion of leaf, do. to show the revolution of the margin. Fig, 7. Extremity of leaf, do. showing'the ser-
rature of the edges at the back. Fig. 8. Ripe capsule with operculum, do. Fig. 9. Young calyptra, do.
Fig. 10. O ld calyptra, do. Fig. 11. Operculum removed from the capsule, do. Fig. 12. Outer peristomium, do.
Fig. 13. Inner peristomium, do. Fig. 14. BartramiapomifoVmis /3. nat. size. Fig. 15. Leaf of the same, magn!
Sir James Smith, who enjoys the best opportunity of ascertaining the true species of Linnasus, has pronounced
this to be the Bryum pomiforme of the illustrious Swede, and it is undoubtedly the plant to which that author
refers in the Historia Muscorum of Dillenius. We have therefore continued the name, although we certainly consider
it most probable that Linmeus did not distinguish between this plantand the Bartramia ithyphylla, which
latter Swartz and Mohr and most of the continental .Botanists now regard as the hue B . pomiformis. Hedwi»
seems to have had an eye to what is here called B . pomifot'mis, when he says. “ foliis crispis,” but it is to be lamented
that he, as well as other writers of his day, neglected so much to notice the nerve and serratures o f the
leaves, circumstances of the highest importance in ascertaining the species of Mosses, and in the present instance
almost indispensable; for, however the two plants may agree in appearance, when these are examined, the difference
between them is m o st evident; the one, B . pomfoj'mis, having a very conspicuous nerve and serratures;
while the other, B. ithyphylla, has its nerve obsolete ; or, more correctly speaking, this occupies, the whole-pa-
gina of the leaf above the base, and is in the leaves themselves but very minutely serrated a t the extremity. Besides
this, it may be added that the former has a recurved margin to the leaf, and that the leaves when dry arc
curved and crisped, whilst the latter has a plane margin and the leaves quite straight, (as the name so admirably
implies,) both in a wet and dry state. “ Ob parenchyma crassius,” as Walden berg observes, under this species,
“ hujus folia strictiora evadunt quam in casteris.” Voit in his excellent description, under the name of pomiformis
of Swartz undoubtedly alludes to our pomiformis and Swartz's crispa, (not his pomiformis,) since he says of the
leaves, “ in toto margine evidenter serrata sunt, nervo valido excurrente instructa.” That eminent Museologist,
Mohr, in his B . pomiformis does not notice the peculiarities of the leaf with his accustomed accuracy, since he
omits to observe the nerve; but, from the rest of. his words, there can be no doubt that it iso u r ithyphylla, aplant
that was first well ascertained by Bridel, but which Mr. Turner received so long since as the year 1805 from our
excellent friend the Rev. James Dalton, with the observation that it is very different in habit from B . pomiformis,
having its leaves longer, more minutely serrated, and not given to curl when drying; its capsules smaller, and its
operculum more prominent. To this might be added that the colour of its leaves is a deeper green, by which we
had no loss to distinguish it at first sight when we gathered it in Scotland many years ago. I t is only, found, we
believe, in mountainous countries.
Our plant here figured has very generally obtained, on the continent, the name of crispa, which I should gladly
adopt, did I not think, as I have before stated, that of pomformis to be more justly applied to it by my countrymen.
Turner and Smith have considered our var. major to be truly distinct; but the former Botanist is already
satisfied that he was led into an error in so doing, and agrees with us that it is properly described as a var.
of pomiformis, and that there are indeed no such material points of difference between them as can suffice to
constitute a species, though their habit is strikingly dissimilar. The whole plant in (3. is larger than in «.; the
shoots are more lengthened out, and the leaves longer and narrower, being when dry remarkably crisped.
Respecting the Genus Bartramia, we cannot do better than refer to a most valuable paper upon it by Mr. Turner
in the first volume of the Annals o f Botany. I t appears to be a most truly natural one, having a perfectly distinct
habit from every other in the order o f Musci, excepting perhaps Conostomum. The round and, when ripe,
striated capsule is quite peculiar to i t ; and to those who consider the inner peristome of moment in the formation
of a generic character, that part will be found to offer marks of discrimination from the Genus Bryum. Upon
this subject, however, the most eminent Museologists of the present day are a t variance, some beiug .of opinion
that the inner peristome is of little value, while others regard it as of primary consequence. The furrowed, spherical
capsule is in Mr. Turner s opinion quite sufficient to preserve this genus: on this subject some excellent remarks
will be found by Sir James Smith in the 7th and 9th vols. of the Linnean Transactions, where he rests
wholly on the suleated capsule for the character of Mnium, as he does principally upon the reticulated capsule for
that o f Hookeria.
B . pomiformis is notuncommon in England in heathy places and in shaded hedge banks, • where the soil is
light and gravelly. I t grows in large patches very conspicuous, even at a distance, from the colour, and bears its
fruit from February to April. Bridel describes it as found in all parts of Europe, and as having been also found
in Virginia, and gathered by Desfontaines on Mount Atlas, and by Commerson in the Straights of Magellan. /3. is
found chiefly, but not solely, in alpine countries, where it is by far the most common. Except B . ithyphylla there
is no British species with which i t is likely to be confounded.