756 MINNESOTA BOTANICAL STUDIES. 



the top, laid them out on glass slips, and let them dry. The 

 appearance then, under the hand lens, left no shadow of doubt 

 regarding the distinctness of the two plants. Disregarding 

 the colorless subula of the leaves, which may or may not be 

 longer than the leaf blade in C. raid, the plants are distin- 

 guished with the hand lens as follows: 



1. Coscinodon wrightii has the more numerous hair points, 



on the ichole longer, it is true, than in C. raid; is less 

 branched, more delicate; the hair points, while di- 

 minishing in length toward the base of the stem, are 

 distinctly present, and are about the middle of the 

 new, developed stem still as long as the leaves (PL XLT, 

 Jigs. 8, 9); leaves with hair points erect-oppressed, the 

 blades distinctly spoon-shaped all along the stem. 



2. Coscinodon raid has fewer hair points, at least some of 



which may be twice the length of the leaf blade; is a 

 more branching, somewhat coarser plant; the hair 

 points discontinue below the upper third of the new, 

 developed stem; the stem leaves are similar to near 

 the base, are simply acute, obliquely ascending, spread- 

 ing, with a distinct keel projecting on their under 

 side. 



These appearances changed my mind completely regarding 

 the possible identity of the two species which I had enter- 

 tained; here were two radically distinct plants, distinguishable 

 without the aid of a compound microscope. And, after I care- 

 fully compared the plants with the descriptions in Lesquereux 

 and James' Manual, giving also Mrs. Britton's corrections on 

 the recorded observations of the two authors their proper 

 weight,' I had no reason to doubt that I had collected typical 

 material of the two species, in their type locality, and in good 

 quantity. I was now prepared to recur to the vexing Minne- 

 sota plant. Even before looking at it, I remembered that its 

 gross appearance brought it nearer to C. wrightii than to G 

 raid. This was verified by an inspection. Then I washed out 

 and separated a series of plants, and laid them out to dry on a 

 glass slip. To be sure, the appearance of my plant under the 

 hand lens did not associate it distinctly with either Colorado 

 plant; for the new, developed stems were not leafy to near their 

 base, and the leaves were not so distinctly spoon-shaped. Oth- 

 erwise the plant was certainly nearer to G. wrightii than to G 

 raui, differing from C. wrightii principally in gross appearance 



