566 Evans: HEpATICAE OF PUERTO RICO 
? 
be cautiously employed in-distinguishing it from B. filicina. Ac- 
cording to Schiffner B. trinitensis Lehm. & Lindenb., of the 
Synopsis Hepaticarum, together with its variety zutermedia, is 
synonymous with B. tenuicaulis, so far as the American specimens . 
quoted are concerned. B. ¢rinitensis was based on /ungermannia 
trinitensis Lehm. & Lindenb., which was published in 1833. It 
would appear, therefore, that the name BZ. tenuicaulis ought to be 
superseded, because it was not published until 1845. Unfortu- 
nately the type specimen of /. ¢rinitensis, which was collected on 
the island of Trinidad by Beyrich, is too poorly developed and 
fragmentary to give an adequate idea of a specific type in this 
variable genus, and it becomes necessary to allow this name to 
disappear from the literature. 
The genera most closely allied to Bryopteris are perhaps Zhy- 
sananthus and Ptychanthus, both of which develop secondary stems 
from a prostrate caudex and usually exhibit a definite pinnate 
branching. In these two genera, however, subfloral innovations 
are always developed. TZhysananthus is further distinguished by 
the dentate wings which are borne on the keels of the perianth, 
while in Ptychanthus the perianth, although smooth, bears from 
four to seven ridges in addition to the three normal keels. The 
remarkable leaf-cells in Bryopteris are hardly paralleled among the 
the other Juduleae. In Caudalejeunea Lehmanniana, to be sure, 
there are occasionally two or even three intermediate thickenings 
between two trigones (PLATES 33, FIGURE 7), but this seems to bea 
somewhat anomalous condition, and the cells are never strongly 
elongated. In spite of its undoubted affinity with the Lejcuneae, 
Bryopteris also has much in common with the /rudlanieae and 
especially with the genus Judula. It agrees with this genus in its 
lack of pigmentation, in the morphology of its vegetative branches, 
in its pointed leaves and bracts, and in its trigonous perianth with 
smooth keels. Of course it differs in the structure of its lobules, 
in its leaf-cells, in its undivided underleaves, and in the absence of 
subfloral innovations, the last being a character which it shares 
with Frudllania. 
In the preparation of the present paper the writer is especially 
indebted to Herr F. Stephani, of Leipzig, Dr. von Keissler, of 
