m. 2161. FOSSIL PLANTS FROM FLORISSANT— ENOWLTON. 245 



MOSSES.^ 



HYPNUM? BROWNn Kirchner. 



Hy-pnum brownii Kirchner, Trans. St. Louis Acad. Sci., vol. 8, 1898, p. 178, 

 pi. 12, figs. 4, 4a. — Britton and Hollick, Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, vol. 34, 

 1907, p. 139, pi. 9, figs 3, 3a. 



Type.— Cat. No. 33,678, U.S.N.M. 



I have examined this specimen with care, and am unable to make 

 more out of it than did the author of the species. It consists 

 of a cluster of deUcate, arched and often forked branches, while 

 the leaves are ovate-lanceolate and acute. It seems beyond any- 

 reasonable question to be a moss, but, as Britton and Hollick have 

 said, its reference to Hypnum is a matter requiring confirmation. 

 The Scudder collection contains a single fragmentary branch that 

 appears to belong here. 



POLYTBICHUM? FLORISSANTI, new species. 



Plate 12, fig. 4, three times enlarged. 



Type.—C&t No. 34,760, U.S.N.M. 



The Hambach collection contains a single example — the one here 

 figured — that appears to be a fruiting moss. It has a long, exceed- 

 ingly slender pedicel fuUy 2 cm. in length, and a large ovoid capsule 

 that is nearly 3 mm. long and a httle over 1.5 mm. in diameter. 

 The capsule appears to be ribbed and somewhat fimbriate at apex, 

 but this appearance may be due to the state of preservation. The 

 pedicel is practically straight, evidently erect, and the capsule is 

 erect and symmetrical. There is no evidence concerning either 

 calypah, operculum, or peristome. The ribbed appearance of the 



I In 18S3, Lesquereux described from Florissant what was supposed to be a moss under the name: 

 Fontinalls prlstina Lesquereux (Rept. U. S. Geol. Surv. Terr., vol. 8 (Cret. and Tert. FL), 1883, 

 p. 135, pi. 21, fig. 9). 



The specimens figured seemed to represent an axis or "stem" with numerous, obscurely two-ranked 

 linear "leaves," and were tacitly assumed to have been correctly referred to the mosses. When the short 

 list of American fossil mosses was reviewed by Britton and ITollick [Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, vol. 34, 1907, 

 pp. 139-112, pi. 9], they passed over the present form with the statement that "it may be merely remarked 

 that the correctness of its reference to the genus Fontinalis is questionable." 



In the Scudder and Hambach collections there was foimd several specimens that agree perfectly with the 

 figures given by Lesquereux, and without special study they were referred to Fontinalis pristina. Later 

 however, a specimen was noted that showed conclusively that it is a feather. It is about 21 mm. in length 

 and 4 mm. in width, and is preserved entire, consisting of the calamus or basal portion about 3 mm. long, and 

 the delicate rachis that passes to within about 3 mm. of the tip. Arranged on either side are the delicate 

 barbs with faint indications of the barbules and interlocking processes; in other words it is perfect and 

 unmistakable feather. It has been submitted to a number of ornithologists, among them Dr. Charles W. 

 Eichmond and Mr. H. C. Oberholser, who Indorse this reference without qualification, the latter suggest. 

 Ing that it was doubtless from a small l)Ird, and not Improbably a passerine bkd. As two species of birds 

 have been described from the Florissant lake beds, there Is every reasonable probability of separate feathers 

 being occasionally preserved. 



If there had been present only the upper half of the above described feather it would have been Identified 

 at once as Lesquereux's Fontinalis pristina, for it would then be inJistinguishable from the original figure 

 as well as from specimens usually so identified, but being preserved entke, as it is, its avian character Is 

 at once apparent. 



