-64- 



show more frequently a division of some of their hyahne cells; the branch leaves, 

 besides the essential differences mentioned above, have in their broad hyaline 

 cells more numerous and stronger fibrils and generally less pores on the outer 

 surface, the latter from their occurrence in adjacent cell angles giving the im- 

 pression of a disposal in pairs or threes. All these characters, which are shared 

 by the following species (no. 6), are somewhat variable, so that they do not in 

 any case give sharp diagnostic distinctions, but they are of value as demonstrat- 

 ing cumulatively the really considerable deviation of this and the next species 

 from the others of the group. 



The identification of 5. Waghornei Warnst., 1894, with this species is the 

 result of the examination of two specimens of type material (New Harbor, New- 

 foundland, 22-5-93) in the herbarium of the New York Botanical Garden. 

 Warnstorf seems himself to have made a similar discovery, for he says in his 

 most recent work^ that the plant occurred among S. papillosum and was used 

 up, apart from a few fragments, in the investigation. That Warnstorf may have 

 failed to note papillae in his original examination is by no means incredible; 

 that on the other hand a plant or two of S. palustre was mixed with his original 

 specimen is not wholly impossible. What there is of his brief description would 

 agree rather better with the latter species. There is no feature in the descrip- 

 tion nor anything in the plant's habitat to even remotely suggest a separate 

 species. 



The species is one of characteristically northern propensities, occurring in 

 Europe and Asia as well as in North America. On the latter continent its 

 range is a fairly definite one, extending from Labrador to New Jersey on the 

 eastern coast, from Vancouver Island to Alaska on the western. Within this 

 area it may be sought in robust, strongly pigmented, brown to nearly black, 

 dull rather than glossy specimens of the Inophloea type. 



6. Sphagnum erythrocalyx Hampe, 1848. This South American species 

 has not previously been accredited to North America, as, generally speaking, the 

 mosses of the two continents seem to have been insufficiently correlated. The 

 first recognition of this as a form distinct among those of North America was by 

 Cardot,2 who gave an admirable diagnosis of it, apart from the chlorophyll cell 

 -section, as S. cymhifolium var. ludovicianum Renauld & Cardot, even calling at- 

 tention to its close correspondence with the description of the South American 

 5. erythrocalyx. Warnstorf saw that the form was specifically distinct from 5. 

 ■cymhifolium {S. palustre) and raised it to specific rank as 5. ludovicianum (R. 

 & C.) Warnst.,^ where it has, apart from synonyms, remained undisturbed 

 smce. My identification of it with S. erythrocalyx rests upon a comparison 

 with the type of this species, which I was enabled to see through the kindness 

 of Mrs. Britton and Mr. A. Gepp. 



The species differs little from the preceding one, so that Russow was in- 



1 Engler, Pflanzenreich 51: 469. 191 1. 



2 Revision des Sphaignes de I'Amerique du Nord 4. 1887. 

 3Hedwigia30: 161. 1891, 



