No. I1.] 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. biformis Sulliv., and is listed under 
this name in the “ Musci and Hepaticz 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. biformis 
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: Hepatic,’ which appear in the separate 
