208 Rhodora [November 



which varies from gray to brownish-black, does not show the yellowish 

 tints which are occasionally seen in the commoner species. G. coral- 

 lioides is further distinguished by its hyaline leaf-margins. 



3. Marsupella ustulata (Hiiben.) Spruce, Rev. Bryol. 8: 100. 

 1 88 1. Gymnomitrium adustum Nees, Naturgeschichte der europ. 

 Lebermoose, I : 120. 1833 (in part). Jungermannia ustulata Hiiben. 

 Hep. Germ. 132. 1834 {teste Spruce). Sarcoscyphus adustns 

 Spruce, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. II. 4: 196. 1849. Nardia adtista 

 Carringt. Brit. Hep. 20. 1874. Sarcoscyphus Sprucei Limpr. Jahr- 

 esb. Schles. Gesell. vaterl. Cultur, 58: 179. 1881. Sarco- 

 scyp/ius ustulatus Kiter, Christiania Vidensk. Selsk. Forhandl. 1884 12 : 

 82. Marsupella adusta Underw. ; A. Gray, Manual, 721. 1890 

 (not Spruce). Marsupella Sprucei Steph. Bull, de l'Herb. Boissier, II. 

 1 : 156. 1901. The present species is not uncommon in the alpine 

 region of the White Mountains and has been found there by several 

 collectors. It is much smaller than either M. emarginata or M. 

 sphacelata and may be distinguished also by its very dark pur- 

 plish-black color and by its paroicous inflorescence. It is probable 

 that other minute Marsupellae occur in the higher mountains of New 

 England but none of them have yet been detected with certainty. 

 For a long time it was supposed that M. ustulata was identical with 

 Gymnomitrium adustum Nees, but, as Limpricht pointed out, this old 

 species was a composite and included two species of Marsupella as 

 well as a true Gymnomitrium. Reserving the name adustum for the 

 latter he gave the name Sarcoscyphus Sprucei to one of the species of 

 Marsupella and S. pygmaeus to the other. A few months later 

 Spruce described M. ustulata as a new species and applied the name 

 M. adusta to the Gymnomitrium. This was in accordance with 

 Spruce's view that Marsupella and Gymnomitrium were not gener- 

 ically distinct. Stephani recognizes both M. ustulata and M. 

 Sprucei as distinct species, but other FAiropean writers consider 

 them to be forms of a single species, an opinion with which the 

 writer would also agree. In the latter case Spruce's name would 

 apparently have to be discarded on account of the slight priority of 

 Limpricht's. According to Pearson, 1 however, Spruce himself came 

 to the conclusion that M. ustulata was the same as the old 

 Jungermannia ustulata of Hiibener, but whether he based his opin- 

 ion on an examination of Hiibener's type does not appear. J. 



1 Hep. Brit. Isles, 382. 1901. 



