198 Rhodora [OcroBER 
and should be referred to the latter species. L. badensis has likewise 
been collected near Ithaca, New York, by A. LeRoy Andrews and 
probably has an extensive range in North America. "The relationship 
between L. Muelleri and L. badensis is so close that many European 
writers have regarded them as forms of a single variable species. 
At the present time, however, there is a strong tendency to consider 
them distinct. In both species the inflorescence is dioicous, the 
leaves are bifid with usually pointed lobes, the leaf-cells have tri- 
gones and a striolate cuticle, and the perianth is terete and abruptly 
contracted into a tubular beak. In L. badensis, however, the plants 
are smaller than in L. Muelleri, the leaf-cells are a little larger, and 
the trigones are less developed. There are also important differences 
in the underleaves. In L. badensis these are usually absent altogether 
and even when they are present they are minute and often evanescent. 
In L. Muelleri, on the contrary, they are uniformly present and 
persistent. 
4. Lopnozta Kavnmiwi (Limpr.) Steph. Bull. de l'Herb. Boissier 
II. 1: 1147. 1901. Jungermannia Kaurini Limpr. Jahresb. Schles. 
Gesell. Vaterl. Cultur 61: 204. 1884. On damp limestone rocks. 
Quechee Gulf, Hartford, Vermont (Miss Lorenz). "The determination 
of the specimens was made by Miss Lorenz. This is the second 
known station for North America, the first being Hunker Creek, 
Yukon Territory, where the species was discovered by J. Macoun.! 
In Europe it is also rare but is now known from a number of localities 
in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, and Italy. Its range 
likewise extends into Siberia, where it was found by Arnell. In ZL. 
Kaurini the leaves are bifid, the leaf-cells have conspicuous trigones 
and a strongly verruculose cuticle, underleaves are uniformly present, 
the perigonial bracts develop a small antical lobe, and the terete 
perianth is abruptly contracted into a tubular beak with a ciliate 
mouth. All of these peculiarities show a close relationship to L. 
Muelleri, with which L. Kaurini has been more or less confused. 
It may be at once distinguished, however, by its paroicous inflores- 
cence, L. Muelleri being dioicous. In L. Rutheana (Limpr.) M. A. 
Howe, another close ally which is perhaps to be expected in New 
England, the inflorescence is also paroicous. Fortunately there is 
little danger of confusing the two species because L. Rutheana is 
! Ottawa Nat. 17: 20. 1903. 
