130 Evans: TAXILEJEUNEA PTEROGONIA 
anths destitute of both wings and teeth.* As the citations show 
specimens of this type are widely distributed in the Lesser Antilles, 
whereas (according to our present knowledge) specimens with 
toothed or winged keels have not yet been found there. It is to 
be regretted that authors have associated the name TJ. debilis 
with specimens in which the keels of the perianth are toothed 
and often winged, thus giving rise to much confusion. As the 
history of the species will show their conception of its characters 
was drawn largely from continental material, rather than from 
material collected in the West Indies. 
Four years after its original publication Lejeunea debilis was 
recorded from ‘‘Peru’’ by Nees von Esenbeck and Montagne, 
neither the definite locality nor the collector’s name being men- 
tioned. These authors, in their description, make no mention 
of floral organs, thus implying that their new material was like- 
wise sterile, but they amend some of the phrases of the original 
description. They state, for example, that the leaves are nar- 
rowed at the apex but that they may be obtuse, acute or truncate- 
subbidentulate, and they state further that the divisions of the 
underleaves may sometimse be obtuse. Three years later Mon- 
tagnef gave a fuller account of these same specimens, stating that 
that they were collected by A. d’Orbigny between Chupé and 
Yanacaché in the province of Yungas, in Bolivia, thus indicating 
that they did not come from Peru in the modern sense. Montagne 
described the female branches and floral organs from the Bolivian 
material (showing that it was really fertile) and figured various 
structural details. According to his account the inflorescences 
are borne on very short branches, one to three being present on a 
branch; the perianth is obovate-oblong or pyriform, five-angled at 
the dilated apex, the angles being compressed and dentate; the 
bracts are irregularly dentate, sometimes bifid at the truncate 
apex; and the bracteole is repand-dentate and more deeply bifid 
* A somewhat ambiguous statement by Lehmann and Lindenberg may here 
be mentioned. To their description of J. pterogonia they add a note in ng they 
epee SM apECaEN with ene taade we were 4. a o both 
of which they ap thout keels nall cians 
—— mokink ‘thie to saa toJ: RES alone, since ae had distinctly 
stated in their description of J. debilis that the fruit was lacking. 
_ + D’Orbigny, Voy. l’ Amér. Mérid. 7?: 65. pl. 1, f. 2. 1839. 
