62 



sible and in no case has a diagnostic character been cited which 

 would depend upon the microscope for verification. 



The literature on the systematic classification of the mosses 

 within the local flora range is, in part, as follows: 



Musci Appalachian!, C. F. Austin, 1870. 



Bryophyta, a contribution, E. A. Rau, Geological Survey, N. J. 1889. 



Preliminary List of Mosses of Staten Island, E. G. Britton. Proceedings of the 



Natural Science Association, S. I. 1890. 

 Cryptogamic Notes from Long Island, S. E. Jelliffe, Bulletin, Torrey Botanical 



Club. 1894. 

 Mosses with a Hand-lens and Microscope, A. J. Grout. 



Catalogue of the Bryophyta and Pteridophyta of Penn, T. C. Porter. 1904. 

 Bryophyta of Connecticut, A. N. Evans and G. E. Nichols, State Geological 



Survey. 1908. 



« 



ACROCARPOUS FORMS 

 I. In woods: on humus, logs, or ground 

 B. Calyptra cucullate. 



C. Capsule cylindric, mostly erect. 



D. Costate. 

 .£. Entire. 



F. Acuminate. 



FF. Obtuse or acuminate. 



EE. Serrate. 



F. Acuminate. 



FF. Acute. 



D. Costate. 

 E. Entire. 



F. Acuminate. 



Dicranella heteromalla. 

 Weisia viridula. 

 Tortella caespitosa. 

 Ditrichum pallidum. 



tortile. 

 Tortula. 



Barhula. 

 Tortula. 



Leucobryum glaucum. 

 Georgia pellucida. 



Ditrichum tortile. 

 Dicramella heteromalla. 



Fissidens. 

 CC. Capsule unsymmetric, inclined, oblique pen- 

 dulous. 



Dicranella heterom,alla. 

 Dicranum scoparium. 

 Ceratodon purpureus. 



