140 BRITTON AND HOoLuick : Fossil MOSSES 
moss,” and that “the mode of division . . . separates it from the 
Lycopods.”’ * 
In regard to the second species cited it may be merely remarked 
that the correctness of its reference to the genus Fontinals is ques- 
tionable, so far as may be judged by the figures, while in regard 
to the one last mentioned the author, in his description, says: 
«The leaves in most cases are indistinct and only the more solid 
stems are discernible.’ It is apparently a moss, but satisfactory 
evidence of its relationship with the genus //ypzum is not appat- 
ent in the figures. 
The only other American fossil-plant remains described as 
mosses, with the exception of several existing species from deposits 
of Pleistocene and more recent age, are Hypnum columbianum Pen- 
hallow, in Dawson, Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada 8: 77. fig. 3- 
1890 (PLATE 9, FIGURE 4), from lower Tertiary beds at Quesnel, 
B. C., which is more likely a conifer, apparently related to 
Widdringtonia helvetica Heer, Fl. Tert. Helv. 1: 48. pl. 7 6, f. 
2-18, or to Glyptostrobus Ungeri Heer, as depicted by several 
authors ; and Rhynchostegium Knowltoni E. G. Britt., described and 
figured in Bull. Torrey Club 26: 79, 80. 1899 (PLATE 9, FIGURE 
5), from the upper Eocene or Miocene sandstone at Cle Elum, 
Kittitas County, Washington. These specimens, as in the case 
of those previously mentioned, are also sterile, so that in our spect 
men from Florissant we have the first fossil moss with fruit thus 
far recorded from America. 
Glyphomitrium Cockerelleae sp. nov. 
(PLATE 9, FIGURES 6, 6a) 
Plants pulvinate, forming a dark-brown tuft 1 cm. high and re 
cm. wide, with lignitic remains appearing like a mass of dark-brown 
_radicles. Stems erect and crowded, evidently branching : leaves 
* Through the kindness of Dr. J. N. Rose, Associate Curator of the Division of 
Plants, U. S. National Museum, the type specimen of Hypnum Haydenit was transmit 
ted to us for examination, from which our figures were made. We are satisfied that it 1S 
not a moss, and Dr. L. M. Underwood, of Columbia University, bas expressed biS 
opinion that it can not be a Lycopodium. The closest comparisons which we have been 
able to mak e with certai ifers, especially with forms of Juniperus communis L-» 
in which the young growing branchlets often present a striking similarity in general ap~ 
pearance to this spec 
