214 Rhodora [NOVEMBER 
Ch. pallescens are subject to more or less variation, being sometimes 
no larger than in Ch. polyanthus, and he intimates that some of the 
European forms which have been included under Ch. pallescens and 
which have perianths equalling the calyptra in length ought perhaps to 
be referred to Ch. ascendens rather than to Ch. pallescens. He further 
confirms the statement of K. Müller that the Siberian variety grandi- 
calyx Lindb. & Arnell,! included by its authors under Ch. polyanthus, 
really represents Ch. ascendens, so that the known range of the plant is 
northern North America and Asia with a possible extension into 
Europe. 
Although Schiffner separates Ch. ascendens from its allies on the basis 
of two differences only, Stephani and K. Müller find further differen- 
tial characters in the male inflorescence. According to Stephani the 
androecia form slender branches arising from the stem, the bracts 
being small and saccate with an obtuse antical lobule. K. Müller 
describes male branches of the same type, adding that they arise in 
the axils of the underleaves and that they can easily be overlooked on 
account of their minute size. According to him the bracts are ovate 
with a lunulate sinus and a basal inflexed lobe which encloses a single 
antheridium. He also states that antheridia are often borne at the 
bases of leaves on normal branches, a type of inflorescence characteris- 
tic of Ch. polyanthus, Ch. pallescens, and the other members of the 
genus Chiloscyphus, as recently restricted by Schiffner.! On the basis 
of these observations Miiller concludes that Ch. ascendens is a con- 
necting link between the restricted Chiloscyphus and Heteroscyphus,? 
a genus segregated by Schiffner from the comprehensive genus Chilo- 
scyphus, as defined by the older writers. In Heteroscyphus, which is 
made up largely of tropical and antarctic species, the male branches 
are invariably small and specialized. Schiffner hesitates to accept the 
descriptions of the androecia as given by Stephani and Müller and 
states that he has never found a male inflorescence in Ch. ascendens 
which differs from the normal Chiloscyphus type. He therefore 
refuses to admit that Ch. ascendens is intermediate between Chilo- 
scyphus and Heteroscyphus. In examining a large series of specimens 
from various parts of North America the writer has seen nothing to 
contradict the statements of Schiffner, all of the androecia found 
agreeing closely with those in typical Chiloscyphus species. What 
1 Kongl. Sv. Vet. Akad. Hand. 235: 24. 1889. 
! Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr. 60: 169. 1910. 
