40 Rhodora [February 



paroicous inflorescence as in L. hefcropln/lla but states that it is a 

 smaller plant, tiiat the leaves are all deeply lobed, the lobes and 

 usually the sinus being acute, that the leaf-ceils are only half as large 

 and that the two primary divisions of the underleaves are equally 

 bifid. In another place ^ he adds that the leaf-cells have trigones, 

 that the bracts are incised and that the lobes of the ])erianth are 

 strongly toothed. Unforlunatcly the characters drawn from the 

 leaves and und(M-leaves are not so definite as the description implies. 

 Austin's material shows leaves which are retuse or undivided on plants 

 which bear bifid leaves as well, and the lateral teeth of the underleaves, 

 even when present, are distinctly shorter than the main divisions, this 

 me(iuaiity being maintained even in the perichaetial bracteole. The 

 leaf-cells, to be sure, are mostly between 21 a and 2S /< in diain(>ter, 

 but It is easy to duplicate these measurements on European material 

 of L. hrferophi/lla. Of course the characters derived from the Ijracts 

 and periantli are too indefinite to be relied upon. 



Another plant which is apparently a form of L. hctcwphi/Ila is L. 

 Macoiinii. Austin records it from ('anada and from New York, and 

 it was distributed as Xo. «>i; of his Ilep. Bor.-Amer. According to 

 the original description /.. Mamuiiii is distinguished by hs small size, 

 by its crenuiatt> leaf-margins, and by its pink underleaves with filiform 

 divisions, each usually composed of a single row of cells. The leaves 

 are described as varying from shar[)ly bifid to retuse or undivided and 

 the bracts as irregularly two to four re[)and-dentate. Lindberg recog- 

 nizes the species and notes that the inflorescence is paroicous and that 

 the lobes of the perianth are strongly toothed. It will be seen that 

 these ditiVrential characters would not be of much moment even if 

 they were constant, and an examination of Austin's specimens shows 

 that they arc subject to variation. 



The Kin-opean L. rnirata was long misunderstood by writers. It 

 is here included under />. hcfcn>p/i,//la on the authority of Massalongo,* 

 who examin<>d the type-material of l)e Notaris. Two other doubtful 

 species arc /.. Ila/lii Aust..' of Illint)is, and L. profunda Xees,* of 

 Russia. Both of these species were described from sterile material, 

 and iu>ithcr has been collected a second time. So far as the descrip- 



' Koiipl. Sv. Vet. .\ka(i. Handl. 23": 2.3. 1889. 

 -Mm. del. R. 1st. Bot. di Roma 3: (9). 1888. 

 ■'Proc. .\ca(l. Philadelpliiii for 1869: 222. 

 *Naturgescliichte der europ. Leberin. 2: 342. 1836. 



