A HISTORY OF NORFOLK 1806. Anomalous in its almost entire lack of vegetative organs and in the structure of its peristome, so eccentric in its appearance as to have been taken at one time for a fungus, quaint and almost comical in its lop-sided capsule, wayward in its habit of making an appearance for a few brief months in a spot and then entirely disappearing, it seems, like the pigmies and giants among mankind, to be a remnant of a forgotten and semi-fabulous race. It was first discovered in 17 12, near Astracan, by Buxbaum, who writes : ' I wished to follow the example of Marchanti, and make it into a new genus and name it after my father, but called to mind the fox, who was derided by the others, because he begged the grapes, not for himself, but for his sick mother.' ' This curious plant does not appear to have been found again in Norfolk since its first discovery nearly a century ago. Polytrichum aloides var. Dicksoni (Turn.), again, which was first des- cribed by Turner (as a species, P. Dicksoni) from specimens gathered ' near Yarmouth ' by Dickson, is another example. Among the mosses collected by Mr. Holmes, at Sherringham, was a curious little Hypnum, which proves to be H. polygamum var. minus, Schp., a very distinct variety hitherto unrecorded from Great Britain, differing widely in habit from the typical plant, and very closely resembling H. chrysophyllum, from which, indeed, it is scarcely distin- guishable except by the different inflorescence. Another moss to which some local interest attaches is Rhacomitrium lanuginosum. This is usually an inhabitant of mountain rocks, and certainly is one that we should hardly look for in East Anglia. Hooker, however, in Smith's English Flora writes of it : ' On mountains, abundant ; rare on heaths in the plains, as in Norfolk, Rev. 'James Layton.' Some slight doubt has been cast on this record, it being suggested that it refers to Rhac. canescens, a species more or less frequent in the county ; but it seems scarcely likely that Hooker would have accepted a record of an admittedly unexpected occurrence except on trustworthy evidence. A very interesting plant was gathered by Mr. Burrell at Beeston Regis in 1898, about which some doubt has arisen as to whether it should be referred to Funaria hygrometrica, one of the commonest, or to F. microstoma, one of the rarest of British mosses. In a letter to the writer, Mr. E. Ch. Horrell, to whom it was at first submitted, says, ' Inner peristome very thin and much smaller than in F. hygrometrica, but is larger than that of F. microstoma, as figured in your Handbook and in the Bry. Eur., and of different appearance. Spores average 22 fx, Lim- pricht gives hygrometrica 13— i6/i, and microstoma 26-32^.' Careful examination by other bryologists confirmed these observations. The conclusion seems to be forced upon us that the Norfolk plant is inter- mediate between the two species, though undoubtedly nearer F. microstoma ; and this view is supported by a somewhat similar plant gathered by Mr. E. M. Holmes on Copthorne Common, Sussex, in the ^ Braithwaite, Brit. Moss Flora, i. 19. 64
