No. II.] THE BRYOPHYTES OF CONNECTICUT, 25 



localities, and are often found in company with the Jungerman- 

 niales. Quite a number of them, however, are able to live in 

 much drier localities, such as exposed rocks and sandy fields. 

 Of the Connecticut species a few are annual but the majority 

 are perennial. Most of them mature their spores in the fall 

 or early winter, and the others in the spring or early summer. 

 During the hot days of July, August, and September, many of 

 the mosses become completely dried up, and their vegetative 

 activities are interrupted. Even under favorable conditions 

 for growth it is very unusual to find perfect capsules at this 

 season of the year. 



HISTORY OF BRYOLOGY IN CONNECTICUT 



The first systematic collections of Bryophytes in Con- 

 necticut were made by Daniel C. Eaton, Professor of Botany in 

 Yale University from 1864 until 1895, the year of his death. 

 Professor Eaton was a member of the class of 1857, Yale 

 College, and began his bryological studies while still an under- 

 graduate. From the very outset he enjoyed the privilege of 

 corresponding with W. S. Sullivant, of Columbus, Ohio, at 

 that time the leading authority on North American Mosses 

 and Hepatics, and this correspondence was continued until 

 Sullivant's death in 1864. During this period many doubtful 

 Connecticut specimens were sent for comment or determina- 

 tion, among them being a sterile Fontinalis collected near New 

 Haven. This specimen is apparently the first Connecticut 

 Bryophyte which is definitely mentioned in the literature. It 

 was first referred to F. hiformis Sulliv., and is listed under 

 this name in the " Musci and Hepaticse of the United States," 

 originally written by Sullivant for the second edition of Gray's 

 " Manual of Botany," published in 1856, but reprinted the 

 same year as a separate work under the above title. F. hiformis 

 was based on Ohio specimens, and according to our present 

 knowledge is restricted to the region of the Great Lakes. It 

 was soon discovered therefore that the Connecticut material 

 had been incorrectly determined. • Sullivant hastened to call 

 attention to this fact in the " Additions and Corrections " to 

 his " Musci and Hepaticse," which appear in the separate 



