96 Rhodora [JUNE 
tains, New Hampshire, A. W. E.; Crawford Bridle Path, White 
Mountains, G. E. Nichols. These stations are all near or above the 
timber line. As Müller points out the deep purple color is the only 
important feature distinguishing S. Joergensenii from S. nemorosa, 
and this feature by itself seems insufficient to justify a specific separa- 
tion, 
The second segregate, S. Austinii,! was based on No. 18 of Austin’s 
Hep. Bor.-Amer., distributed as “Scapania nemorosa, var. 3” and 
described as very common “in shady places, on rocks and on the 
ground, " no definite localities being cited. "This specimen is referred 
to S. nemorosa without question by Müller, but Warnstorf criticises 
him for doing so and compares his S. Austinii with S. curta (Mart.) 
Dumort., rather than with S. nemorosa. "The plant under considera- 
tion is frequent in southern New England, where it grows on shaded 
banks in woods, and at first sight looks very different from the typical 
form of S. nemorosa on moist rocks. It is characterized, according 
to its author, by its smaller size, by the small number of teeth on the 
leaf-lobes, and by the absence of wings on the keels. In the writer's 
opinion these features are associated with unfavorable environ- 
mental conditions and S. Austinii represents a juvenile condition 
of S. nemorosa, in which certain pecularities of the species fail to 
manifest themselves. It may be added that inconspicuous keels 
are occasionally present and that the gemmae, which are abundantly 
produced, are yellow, pyriform or elliptical, and unicellular, thus 
agreeing with those of S. nemorosa rather than with those of S. 
curta. Warnstorf's species, therefore, should be regarded as a synonym 
of S. nemorosa or perhaps as a variety. 
The third segregate, S. recurvifolia,? was based on another specimen 
distributed by Austin in his Hep.-Bor.-Amer. This specimen is 
No. 16 and was designated “Scapania nemorosa var. 1.” It was 
described as common on the "margins of rivulets, swamps, &c.," 
and was likewise referred to S. nemorosa without question by Müller. 
Warnstorf admits the close relationship of his species to S. nemorosa 
but emphasizes, as differential characters, its recurved and entire 
dorsal leaf-lobes and its thin-walled leaf-cells with poorly developed 
trigones. Here again the distinctive features, even if they were 
constant, are very slight and appear to be associated in some way 
! Hedwigia 63: 79. 1921. 
? Wedwigia 63: 115. 1921. 
