Evans: TAXILEJEUNEA PTEROGONIA 131 
at the apex [than the underleaves], the divisions being ‘“‘acuminu- 
late’’ and connivent. The figures are not altogether successful 
and fail to show distinct basal auricles in either leaves or under- 
leaves. : Montagne himself criticises the figure showing a female 
branch-system, stating that the features of the perianths are not 
well brought out. The branch-system in the figure shows a 
rather long branch with five perianths, but it is impossible to learn 
from it the sequence in which the inflorescences arose. The 
figure of a single perianth, dissected open, shows distinct teeth in 
the upper part. 
In the Mitten Herbarium there is a specimen of ‘‘ Omphalanthus 
debtlis’’ from ‘‘Peru”’ received from Montagne. In all probability 
this represents a part of D’Orbigny’s Bolivian material, although 
no information to this effect is given on the label. The specimen 
shows short female branch-systems, usually with two inflorescences 
on each and five-keeled perianths with the keels distinctly toothed. 
They thus agree with Montagne’s statements. In the writer’s 
opinion, however, this specimen should be referred to T. pierogonia 
(where it is already listed), rather than to T. debilis, in spite of 
the fact that Montagne’s determination has heretofore been 
accepted without question. 
The authors of the Synopsis Hepaticarum, in 1845, incorporated 
Nees von Esenbeck and Montagne’s corrections and additions in 
their description of Omphalanthus debilis, although they comment 
adversely on Montagne’s figures. In the supplement to the 
Synopsis, published two years later (p. 746), they quote in full 
Montagne’s description of the floral organs, but in their own de- 
scription they improve his phrase relating to the keels of the 
perianth by describing them as cristate-dentate. They apparently 
gained their idea of the floral organs entirely from specimens 
collected on the mainland, since the only West Indian specimen 
cited is the sterile type from St. Vincent. The authors clearly 
accepted the species in a rather broad sense, since they distin- 
guished and in most cases briefly characterized the following forms: 
a, originalis (St. Vincent, the original specimens) ; a*, Liebmanianus 
(Mirador and Zacuapan, Mexico, Liebmann 27, 539a); a** 
(Amatian, Mexico, Liebmann 309); 8, angustior (Hacienda da 
Jovo, Mexico, Liebmann 515); y, Orbignianus (‘‘ Peru,” D’Orbigny 
