1919]  Evans,— Notes on New England Hepaticae,—XV 151 
the earliest record for the species was made by Gottsche, in 1803, 
and was based on specimens collected by F. Müller in the Orizaba 
region of Mexico. "The following year the same author ? reported it 
somewhat doubtfully from the province of Bogotá, in Colombia, and 
specimens from the Andes of Ecuador have since been described by 
Spruce? and distributed in his exsiccatae. The writer has seen no 
specimens from the tropics which represent unquestioned N. hyalina. 
Spruce's Ecuador specimens are certainly closely related but differ 
in their more erect habit, in the ventral decurrence of their leaves 
and in the dense bundle of rhizoids lying along the ventral surface of 
the stem. Similar specimens from Mexico and the West Indies have 
also been examined, but whether these should be regarded as a well- 
marked variety of N. hyalina or as a distinct species is not yet clear. 
Gottsche's Mexican and Colombian specimens have co and 
not been available for study. 
In the United States the earliest report of N. hyalina was made in 
1873 by Austin,! who distributed specimens, correctly determined, 
from New Jersey and Ohio. In 1891, Underwood ? accredited the 
species to California; in 1902 the writer * cited specimens from Maine, 
Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut; and in 1908,7 from New 
Hampshire. In the same year, in conjunction with Nichols, he? 
listed four new stations for Connecticut and assigned to the species 
a North American range extending from New England to Minnesota 
and south to Maryland, this range being based largely on specimens 
in his own herbarium. Unfortunately, some of the published records 
for the species were based on plants which prove to have been incor- 
rectly determined. Although definite stations for Maine, New 
Hampshire and Connecticut are included in the revised list given 
above, the original records for these states were based wholly or in 
part on other species, while the specimens from Minnesota and Mary- 
. land are either doubtful or incorrect. The confusion regarding the 
species is due largely to the great variability which N. hyalina and its 
allies exhibit. In the case of sterile material the difficulties of de- 
1 Kongel. Danske Videns. Selk. Skr. V. 6: 185. 1863. 
2 Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. V. 1: 119. 1864. 
3 Trans. Bot. Soc. Edinburgh 18: 519. 1885. 
4 Hep. Bor.-Amer. 28. 1873. 
5 Zoe 1: 365. 1891. This record has not been confirmed. 
5 Rnopona 4: 209. 1902. 
7 Raopora 10: 192. 1908. 
3 Conn. State Geol. & Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. 11: 51. 1908. 
