186 Rhodora | [OcroBER 
branching, a peculiarity which is not always evident on poorly devel- 
oped material. 
2. Marsupella robusta (DeNot.) comb. nov. Jungermannia emar- 
ginata, var. aquatica Lindenb. 1829. Sarcoscyphus Ehrharti, var. 
aquaticus Nees, 1833. S. Ehrharti, var. robustus DeNot. 1861. 
Nardia robusta Lindb.; Carrington, Brit. Hep. 16. 1874 (incidental 
mention). А. robusta Trevis. 1877. 8. aquaticus Breidl. 1894. 
Marsupella aquatica Schiffn. 1896.! Тһе strict application of either 
the Vienna Rules or the American Association Code of Nomenclature 
necessitates the above change. Although Lindenberg’s variety aqua- 
tica is so much older than the variety robustus of DeNotaris, it was. 
under the latter name that the species was first adequately published 
by Trevisan. As the synonymy shows the name Nardia robusta had 
already been used for the present species by Lindberg,’ but he appar- 
ently never published it and we know it only from the incidental men- 
tion in Carrington’s work. Marsupella robusta is still known in New 
England from Maine and New Hampshire only. 
3. NARDIA CRENULIFORMIS (Aust.) Lindb. Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn. 
10: 530. 1875. Jungermannia crenuliformis Aust. Bull. ‘Torrey 
Club 3: 10. 1872. Solenostoma crenuliforme Steph. Bull. de l Herb. 
Boissier П. 1: 494. 1901. Оп rocks along a stream. Beacon Falls, 
Connecticut (А. W. E.) New to New England. The species is 
apparently confined to the eastern United States, but its range is 
very indefinitely known, the only stations recorded being the follow- 
ing: Closter, New Jersey (Austin); Coschocton County, Ohio (Sul- 
livant); Tibb’s Run, West Virginia (Andrews). Even at the time of 
its original publication Austin recognized its relationship to N. cren- 
ulata, and Lindberg considered the relationship so close that he was 
almost ready to deny it specific rank. Austin,’ however, insisted that 
it was distinct, and it has recently been recognized as a clearly defined 
species by both Underwood and Stephani. The most striking pe- 
culiarity which the two species possess in common is the border of 
enlarged and thick-walled cells, which usually forms a conspicuous 
feature of the leaves and bracts. ‘This border is even more constant 
іп N. crenuliformis than іп №. crenulata, in slender forms of which 
1 For fuller references and additional synonyms see the writer's notes on M. aquatica 
in RHODORA 6: 167. 1904. 
2 See Schiffner, Lotos 44: 267. 1901. 
3 Bull. Torrey Club 6: 85. 1876. 
