448 
take is repeated and in describing C. Renauldi (Bot. Gaz. 15; 41. 
1890) M. Cardot cites this as one of the points of difference 
between these two species, the other being a difference in the teeth. 
These are described in the Manual as “ entire, split or merely per- 
forated here and there on the line of division, erect when moist, 
open when dry.” This isa translation from Austin’s original Latin 
description, but it does not agree with all his specimens. The 
teeth are very fragile in his species, and are seldom seen entire 
and unbfoken, except on a freshly opened capsule. They are long 
and slender, perforate at base, three to four parted above, and 
densely papillose; later they divide into slender divisions, and on 
old capsules have disappeared altogether, leaving only the annulus. 
As compared with the figures of C. Renauldi, they differ only in 
_ not being truncate when perfect. From C. Wrightii, as figured in 
the Icones, these teeth are much longer, more acuminate, the 
divisions narrower, more slender and regular, the perforations 
almost continuous above, and splitting into three to four slender 
divisions to each tooth. The annulus also is not like the mosaic 
of flat cells figured by Sullivant, there are only two rows of cells 
instead of three, and the last row has elongated vesicular cells. In 
the description of C. Renauldi, the annulus is not mentioned, nor 
is it figured in the plate. We have not seen a capsule of this 
species, but in a recent letter M. Cardot states that the annulus is 
present, but that he has not been able to determine whether it is 
persistent or fugacious as all the capsules which he has examined 
were too young. In the plate the teeth are figured as truncate. 
M. Cardot says that they were taken from freshly opened capsules, 
but we are of the opinion that if he were to search in the apex of 
the lid he would find the remnants of those teeth, as we have 
found in C. Rawi, that the tips often fall with the lid, and it was 
with difficulty that we secured a mount sufficiently perfect for our 
drawing. 
In the description of C. Renauldi, M. Cardot states that he has 
not seen authentic specimens of C. Raui, Aust., but this is 4 mis- 
take, for the specimens I sent him were from Austin’s herbarium, 
labelled Austin by “Grimmia Raui, Colorado, Mrs. Roy,” and 
were probably from the same collection as those in the herbarium 
of E. A. Rau, collected by Brandegee sent by Mr. Rau. These 
