1916] pAans, — Xotes on New England Hepaticae, — XIII 81 



The perichaetial bracts (Figs. 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10) are not very fully 

 treated in most descriptions, although Gottsche ^ has given a good 

 account of them. They are commonly reduced to a single pair and the 

 difference in size between the inner and outer bracts is not marked. 

 The bracts are unequally bilobed, both lobe and lobule being ovate to 

 oblong and usually rounded at the apex; in the case of the lobule, 

 however, the apical portion is sometimes distinctly narrowed and the 

 apex itself may be subacute. The bracteoles (Figs. 4, S, 11) are 

 oblong to obovate and usually rounded or truncate at the apex. 

 According to Stephani ' the lobule is lanceolate and long-attenuate, 

 while the l)racteole is suborbicular and highly coalescent on one side 

 with a lobule. So far as the writer has been able to observe, however, 

 the bracteole is usually quite free from the lobules, coalescence being 

 either absent altogether or very slightly marked. 



The mouth of the perianth is described as slightly crenulate, or 

 minutely crenulate, or dentate. These expressions, however, do not 

 depict the condition of the mouth accurately and were probably based 

 on old and disintegrated specimens. In uninjured perianths (see 

 Fig. 1) the mouth is shortly and closely ciliolate, the cilia varying 

 from one to four cells in length (Fig. 13). The spores and elaters 

 are well described by Howe.^ 



Of the synonyms cited above Madothcca SulJivantu and M. micro- 

 rhyncha require a few words of explanation. M. Sullirantii was based 

 on specimens collected by W. S. Sulli\ant in the " Alleghany Moun- 

 tains" and distributed by Austin in his Hep. Bor.-Amer. 94. It was 

 first included among the synonyms of P. pinnata by Howe, but neither 

 Stephani nor Miiller follows his example. Stephani gives it among 

 the synonyms of M. Thuja, while Miiller^ considers it a valid species. 

 The specimens in Austin's distribution show, in the writer's opinion, 

 that Howe was undoubtedly correct in considering the species sjTiony- 

 mous with P. pinnata. They represent a small and slender form with 

 perianths, and evidently grew in a more or less exposed position. 

 The habit of the plants, which IMiiller emphasizes in maintaining the 

 validity of the species, is not a constant feature and is not supported 

 by characters drawn from the leaves and floral organs. 



The habitat of M. microrhyncha is given by Stephani as "Ohio." 



1 Gottsche & Rabenhorst, Hep. Eur. 639 (accompanying text). 



2 Species Hepat. 4: 252. 1910. 



» BuU. Torrey Club 24: 517. 1897. 



* Rabenhorst's Kryptogamen Flora 62 : 571. 1915. 



