XLVIL ON THE GENUS COSCINODON IN 

 MINNESOTA. 



J. M. HOLZINGER. 



In my Preliminary List of Mosses of Minnesota,* I pub- 

 lished the plant collected by me on the Catholic cemetery bluff 

 at Winona as Coscinodon rani Austin, with a note indicating 

 uncertainty regarding this determination. This was published 

 March 5, 1895. In the Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 

 of November, 1895, pp. 447-449, under Contributions to Amer- 

 ican Bryology, XI, Mrs. E. G. Britton states that the specimens 

 collected by me on exposed sand bluffs at Winona, "have been 

 determined by M. Cardot as C. renauldi," while she herself 

 claims the determination as C. rani, following in this Professor 

 Barnes, who some years before took the pains to compare the 

 moss in question with some authentic Coscinodon material in 

 the Cambridge Herbarium. So far as Mrs. Britton's reference 

 to M. Cardot's determination is concerned, I desire to make a 

 correction. 



First, I stated in my list that M. Cardot had pronounced 

 this species to be "0. ivriglitii, finding with it also C. renauldV' 

 Then, under date of March 28, 1895, M. Cardot, after examin- 

 ing my list in Minnesota Botanical Studies, writes to me 

 on this point: 



"The Coscinodon of Winona which you have sent to me, and 

 which I have published in our exsiccati (No. 173), is surely C. 

 iorighUi, a species very distinct from C. raid and C. renauldi. 

 But there were, in a mixed sod, some specimens of C. renauhli, 

 which is, perhaps, not sufficiently distinct from C. raui." This 

 is, of course, different from declaring the plant to be C. 

 renauldi. But the last statement in my quotation from 

 Cardot's letter has some additional interest, apart from its 

 bearing on the plant in question: inasmuch as he here states, 

 some eight months prior to Mrs. Britton's published note on 



Minn. Bot, Studies. 1:285. 



