224 Haynes : The genus Sphaerocarpos 



considered them the same, for in his Hep. Bor.-Am. (Tickets of 

 the specimens, 34. 1873) he cites under " ij8. Sphaerocarpus 

 Berteri" the following stations : "California, Bolandev, Bigelow ; 

 Texas, Wright." Later he recognized his error in identifying 

 these plants with the very different South American species and 

 described the Texan specimens as 5. texanus Aust. and the Cali- 

 fornian as 5. californicus Aust. Herr Stephani remarks (Bull. 

 Herb. Boiss. 7 : 656. 1899) that he had not seen 5. texanus, that 

 it is not preserved in Austin's herbarium in Manchester, that the 

 plant seems to be wholly lost, but that the very small spores 

 (" coccus 63 /Jt ") will make possible its recognition. It has been 

 my good fortune to examine three specimens of 5. texanus col- 

 lected by Wright in Texas and now preserved in the herbaria of 

 the New York Botanical Garden and of Columbia University. 

 Two of these came from the Underwood herbarium, one of them 

 being labeled " Sphaerocarpus texanus Aust. (type ?), San Marco, 

 Tex., C. Wright, 1849, ex coll. W. H. Pearson 1894," and the 

 other " Sphaerocarpus texanus, San Marco, Texas, C. Wright, 

 1849, ex Sulliv." The third is in the herbarium of Columbia Uni- 

 versity, is labeled " Sphaerocarpus texanus Aust. Texas, leg. 

 Wright, ex herb. Aust.," and was communicated by W. H. Pear- 

 son in 1890. Austin, in connection with the original description 

 of 5. texanus, compares it with "S. Michelii" stating the 5. texanus 

 is distinguished by its smaller frond, its involucre less obtuse at 

 the apex, and the spores almost a half smaller. The coccus is 

 described as about 1/400 of an inch (62.5 /i) in diameter, while 

 that of 5. Michelii is 1/200-1/250 of an inch in diameter. The 

 present writer finds the chief differences separating 5. texanus from 

 vS. Sphaerocarpos {S. Michelii) to lie in the more pointed fusiform- 

 clavate rather than obovoid involucres, in the meshes of the sur- 

 face of the spore-tetrads being nearly twice as wide, and in the high 

 ridges forming these meshes being sinuous or crenulate-margined 

 or irregularly dissected, or occasionally rising into obtuse spines 

 at the points of intersection, but never forming sharp needle-like 

 spines as in 5. Sphaerocarpos. I have not been able to find in the 

 Texan material collected by Wright any spore-tetrads as small as 

 those described by Austin, the smallest seen measuring 72//. 

 There is, however, a surprising variation in the size of the tetrads 



