142 
ALEXANDER W. EVANS 
margin entire: inflorescence autoicous: 9 inflorescence borne on a 
more or less abbreviated branch, sometimes with only a single vegeta- 
tive leaf and a single underleaf in addition to the bracts and bracteole, 
innovating on one side, the innovation short and usually sterile but 
sometimes bearing a second 9 inflorescence ; bracts obliquely spread- 
ing, sharply or bluntly keeled, the lobe falcate, ovate to obovate, 
about 0.45 mm. long and 0.3 mm. wide, rounded to very bluntly 
pointed at the apex, margin entire or vaguely sinuate, narrowly oblong, 
about 0.3 mm. long and 0.09 mm. wide, the free portion scarcely 
0.06 mm. long, rounded to acute; bracteole free, ovate-elliptical, 
about 0.4 mm. long and 0.3 mm. wide, bifid about one third with a 
narrow sinus and erect or connivent lobes, obtusely to acutely pointed, 
margin entire or vaguely crenulate; perianth about half exserted, 
obovoid, mostly 0.6-0.7 iri"^- long and 0.45 mm. wide, cuneate toward 
the base, rounded to truncate at the apex with a short beak, five- 
keeled, dorsal keel shorter and blunter than the others, extending 
scarcely to the middle, lateral keels sharp, ventral keels usually united 
into a broad two-angled keel, lateral and ventral keels sometimes very 
narrowly and vaguely winged, slightly roughened from projecting cells, 
surface of perianth otherwise smooth: inflorescence terminal on a 
more or less elongated branch or occupying a short branch, sometimes 
proliferating; bracts mostly in four to six pairs, imbricated, about as 
large as the vegetative leaves, strongly inflated, shortly bifid with a 
rounded dorsal lobe, a pointed ventral lobe, and a strongly arched keel 
slightly roughened from projecting cells; antheridia in pairs; bracte- 
oles mostly two at the base of the inflorescence, similar to the under- 
leaves: mature capsule about 0.2 mm. in diameter. [Fig. 4.] 
On bark. Florida: Sanford, January, 1917, S. Rapp 86; Robin- 
son's Spring, eight miles south of Sanford, May, 1 91 7, 5. Rapp 86a 
No. 86 may be designated the type. 
In discussing the genus Cheilolejeunea several years ago the writer^ 
called attention to the fact that its relationship to Euosmolejeunea was 
uncomfortably close. Typical species of Cheilolejeunea, to be sure, 
are clearly distinct from t3^pical species of Euosmolejeunea, but other 
species occupy an intermediate position and might be placed in the 
one genus almost as well as in the other. The present species is a 
case in point. In its small size, general habit, foliar characters and 
small underleaves it agrees with Cheilolejeunea better than with 
Euosmolejeunea, but its five-keeled perianth indicates that it should 
be referred to the latter genus. Possibly, when the species of the 
two genera are more thoroughly understood, it may be advisable to 
include them under a single genus. 
2 Bull. Torrey Club 33: 5. 1906. 
