440 A. W. Evans — Hawaiian Hepaticm of the Tribe Jubnloideoe. 



last summer by Mr. Cooke. The type-locality, Hawaii, is probably 

 incoiTect, as Mr. Baldwin did nearly all of his collecting on Maui, 



C. Haioaica may be at once distinguished from the other Hawai- 

 ian species by its distant underleaves and thick-walled leaf-cells. In 

 these respects it somewhat resembles Trachylejeunea Oahiiensis^ a 

 smaller plant with a larger lobule, the keel of which is almost at 

 right angles with the postical margin of the lobe, instead of forming 

 a very obtuse angle with it as in the present species. C. Haioaica 

 ■finds a rather close ally in the South American C. aneogyna (Spruce), 

 but differs from this species in having subfloral innovations. 



4. Cheilolejeunea Sandvicensis Steph. 



Lejeunea cancellata Mont. Ann. des Sc. Nat. II, xix, 262. 1843 (in 



part). 

 Lejeunea ( Cheilo- Lejeunea) Sandvicensis Steph. Hedwigia, xxix, 88. 



1890. 

 Lejeunea suhligulata Evans, Trans. Conn. Acad, viii, 254. 1891. 

 Cheilolejeunea Sandvicensis Steph. Bull, de I'Herb. Boissier, v, 842. 



1897. 



Sterile : medium-sized, dull green : stems robust, pinnately 

 branched, the branches spreading at almost a right angle : leaves 

 slightly imbricated, the lobe widely spreading, ovate-ligulate, rotund 

 at apex, entire ; lobule small, subtriangular, strongly narrowed from 

 a broad base, obliquely truncate beyond the acute apex, keel some- 

 what arched, free margin strongly involute at base, entire : undei*- 

 leaves distant, or bicular, bifid about two fifths with subacute, distant 

 lobes and obtuse or lunulate sinus : leaf-cells thin-walled and with- 

 out trigones. 



Stems 0.12'"'" in diameter, lobes of leaves 0.9x0.6"°™, lobule 

 0.15x0.12"°'", underleaves 0.25 x0.25'"'°, leaf-cells at edge of lobe 8/* 

 in diameter, in the middle I'Zyu,, at the base 35 x 17/x. 



Hawaiian Islands (Gaudichaud). 



I have seen no specimens of this species and my description is 

 largely translated from the original one, a few details being added 

 from a drawing kindly sent me by Herr Stephani. Descriptions of 

 the male and female inflorescences of X. cancellata are given by 

 Montague, but, as it may be questioned whether these really apply 

 to Stephani's plant, I have omitted them from my diagnosis. C 

 Sandvicensis is apparently almost as robust as C stenoschiza, w^hich 

 it resembles also in its thin-walled leaf-cells ; it is, however, amply 



