with an almost saccated keel, not reducible by pressure to
a plane surface: the pale nerve lodged within it is liable
to be overlooked, and the minute serratures of the margin
are also rendered obscure by the recurvation of that part
from the apex almost to the base of the leaf.
There is much reason to believe that all the fructified
specimens communicated from Sweden by Dr. Swartz,
named I I . abietinum, and especially those in the Linnaean
Herbarium, correspond with our H . laricinum; and that
the genuine H. abietinum was known to Linnaeus only in
a barren state, notwithstanding the following passage in
Smith’s FI. Brit. p. 1301 : u Neckerus ad hypothesin suam
quo jure stabiliendam, fructum ferri in hac specie (ƒ/. abie-
tino) contra Linnaei assertionem, pe r ne ga vi t i t is even
doubtful whether any European examples of that moss be
known at the present day. In Bridel’s Bryol. Univ. v. 2.
p. 574, several instances of fertility are noticed ; but that
author is confessedly unacquainted with the Swartzian specimens
already mentioned, and has quoted as a synonym the
description given in the Muse. Suec. which we have now
ventured to appropriate. The true II. abietinum of Muse.
Brit, has the cauline leaves broadly ovate-acuminate, (not
cordate, as they are usually described,) those of the branches
evidently turned to one side, all of them slightly spreading
from the base upwards, appressed when dry, and of an
aspect so very different from our II. laricinum, that, once
compared, it is impossible to confound them.
The specific name of our plant is adopted not only on
account of its resemblance to the larch, but also to commemorate
its former association with a kindred species from
which it is now, as we trust, satisfactorily distinguished.—
W. W.
P.S. Since the above description was written, we have
had reason to think that II. Blandovii corresponds with our
plant in most of its characters, and especially in having a
deep carina to the leaf. We judge of that moss Qnly from
description, and think it best to retain our plant under its
present name, as being more likely to excite the attention
of our muscological readers, accompanied by the following
remarks. Dr. Mohr, deservedly eminent for accuracy, in
his account of H. Blandovii, describes it “ foliis dorso laevi-
bus,” their reticulation beingcomposedof hexagonal areolae,
and thereby distinguished from II. abietinum (v. FI. Crypt.
Germ. 333). In Bridel’s Bryol. Univ. v. 2. p. 578, the
areolae are said to be roundish-rhomboid, “ folia dorso
laevissima, satis dense imbricata in other respects, however,
we find much accordance; “ nervo abrupte desinente
et plica media ilium involvente, instrUcta, basin versus
pagina exteriore tomentoso-villosa.”—W. W.