1912] Evans, — Notes on New England Hepaticae,—X 213 
bus, Ohio, and before long it was found to have a wide distribution in 
the United States and Canada. In distinguishing Ch. ascendens 
Sullivant laid most stress on the long and irregularly lacerate-toothed 
lobes of the perianth, those of the allied Ch. polyanthus being short 
and nearly entire. His figure! does not show these lobes very clearly 
but brings out the fact that the calyptra is enclosed by the perianth 
even after the capsule has been extruded. In Ch. polyanthus, as 
European writers have always insisted, the calyptra projects beyond 
the perianth at maturity. Although Ch. polyanthus was the only 
species with which Sullivant definitely compared Ch. ascendens, Nees 
von Esenbeck ? had already recognized two species which might well 
have been considered in connection with it. These were Ch. pallescens 
(Ehrh.) Dumort. and Ch. lophocoleoides Nees, the latter proposed as a 
new species. In Ch. pallescens the calyptra was said to be frequently 
exserted, while in Ch. lophocoleoides it was said to remain hidden within 
the perianth. Ch. lophocoleoides never received much recognition as a 
species and at the present time is regarded by most writers as a form 
or poorly characterized variety of Ch. pallescens. This implies of 
course that the perianth of Ch. pallescens is subject to considerable 
variation in length, being sometimes shorter than the calyptra and 
sometimes longer, and the natural inference would be that Ch. as- 
cendens was even more closely related to Ch. pallescens than to Ch. 
polyanthus. About eight years ago the writer? called attention to 
this close relationship and showed further that no constant differential 
characters could be drawn from the underleaves, as certain writers 
had attempted to do. It was therefore suggested that Ch. ascendens 
should be regarded as a simple synonym of Ch. pallescens. 
Since this time, however, Stephani, as well as K. Müller and 
Schiffner, has accepted Ch. ascendens as a valid species, distinct from 
Ch. pallescens, although Schiffner is careful to designate it as a kleine 
Art,” closely related to both Ch. pallescens and Ch. polyanthus and to 
a certain extent intermediate between them. According to Schiffner's 
statements it differs from Ch. pallescens not only in its larger perianth 
but also in its smaller leaf-cells, the latter approaching in size those of 
Ch. polyanthus. At the same time he admits that the leaf-cells in 
! Gray's Manual Ed. II. pl. 7. 1850. 
? Naturgeschichte der europ. Lebermoose 2: 364. 1836. 
3? Ruopona 7: 54. 1905. 
* Bull. del'Herb. Boissier IT. 8: 144. 1908. 
