REVUE BRYOLOGIQUE 
= (b). The non-decurrence of the leaves in M. hymenophylloides 
would seem of greater importance, but is probably also the direct 
result of the stem development under differing light conditions. 
_ The leaves are not absolutely non-decurrent in M. hymenophyt- 
= loides. — Limpricht describes them as Æaum oder nicht herablau- 
fend — while in M. hymenophyllum the degree of decurrence is 
.. variable, though usually very marked. The difficulty presented 
here is however minimized or entirely neutralized by the struc- 
_ ture of the plants above referred to from Abisko, where the 
leaves on the intérmediate forms showed every degree of decur- 
rence, and numerous stems exhibiled the leaves of M. hymeno- 
= phylloides on the lower part, with the characteristie (or as I 
should prefer to say, normal) oblong-ovate decurrent leaves of 
M. hymenophyllum above. es 
< _(c). This character, first given by Limpricht, does not hold 
good, as I have found distinct « falsche Blatt-spuren » in undoub- 
ted #. hymenophyllum from Abisko, and either their occurrence 
must be looked upon as sporadic and unimportant, or we must 
suppose a slight error of observation on Limpricht's part. 
(d). [ have not been able to examine the 9 flower of M. hyme- 
 nophyllum, which has apparently only once been found in 
= Siberia, According to Lindberg and Arnell's description the para- 
__ physes resemble very closely those of the & flower, being strongly 
| clavate, with the upper cells large and rounded. This would appear 
at first sight to be in strong contrast with those of Y. hymeno- 
phylloides, the 9 paraphyses of which are described (and figured 
in the Bry. eur.) as filiform. My observation however does not 
confirm this. In M. hymenophylloides from Maristuen, Norway, 
With numerous » flowers, I find the paraphyses distinetly clavate, 
-in varying degrees, no doubt corresponding to their varying 
_ development. They are not nearly so strikingly clavate as the 
mature paraphyses of the © flower in Y. hymenophyllum, but 
they agree exactly with less developed examples found in the 
. Same flower, and I do not thinkit is postulating too much to 
suppose that a lack of development in the oophytic organs Of 
M. hymenophylloides, due to dryness of situation and paucity of 
… light, may account for the difference in form between the para- 
_ physes of the © plants. 
: 
(À suivre). 
