3 
hexagonal, the lower oblong with large, brown auricles at the 
basal angles, which, however, are difficult to see, as they tear off 
in dissecting. The margins are revolute and the cells papillose. 
All the other characters of the species are correctly represented 
on table LIV., the short stems, 5-10 mm. high, with brown tomen- 
tum at base, the leaves densely crowded above, the capsules im- 
mersed, with only the red bordered lid projecting above them, the 
hairy calyptra, and the cylindric capsule, 1. 5 mm. long, the neck, 
-+> mm. There are no old empty capsules on these specimens, so 
that none are strangulate, but one or two are contracted below the 
mouth when dry. 
Even before seeing the specimens I became convinced that the 
species figured in t. LIV. was the same O. Porteri, Austin. The 
type localities are the same, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I have 
compared them macroscopically and microscopically and cannot 
find any difference between them. 
I have also learned through the kindness of Dr. Farlow that 
Sullivant’s copy of Schwegrichen’s supplement is annotated as 
follows : 
OLIV. 78 may bea small form of O. cupulatum and probably 
is what I have in Austin’s Musci Appal. called O. Portert. It is 
clearly not what has long passed among us as O. strangulatum. 
Both Hooker and Wilson have referred to this plate as belonging 
to cupulatum. Bridel, however, thinks differently.” 
The only reason for doubting whether O. strangulatum Beauv. 
is the same as Schwegrichen figured is the strangulate half-ex- 
serted capsule, as it will be seen that none of the other differences 
are mentioned by Beauvois. It is not impossible that O. strangu- 
latum, Beauv., should be O. Porteri Aust., for the capsules of the 
latter are strangulate when old, though less so than O. strangula- — 
tum, Sull., but as the original description is so emphatic, and the _ 
Specimens sent to Schweegrichen are none of them strangulate, it =e 
seems probable that eleven years after his description was pub- _ 
lished he might have made a mistake, and sent him a different > 
species. Should it be proven that the specimens in the herbarium — 
of P. de Beauvois agree with those he sent to Schwegrichen as 0. 
Strangulatum, then this name would have to stand for O. Porteri 
_ Austin, but in view of the fact that the original description | calls 
fora Hin sages = and none of the — ar 
