2 — 
the chlorophyll cells of its branch-leaves. These will usually be found exposed 
only on the outer surface, although Schimper’s original figure 1 shows something 
approaching an equal exposure on both surfaces, and the species does, in fact, 
show considerable variation in this particular, as do some others. Leaf-pores 
are not numerous nor large and are mostly confined to the ends of the cells, the 
most typical condition of the group, whose hyaline leaf-cells are always par- 
ticularly long and narrow. Some plants show a remarkable development of 
pseudopores, particularly on the outer surface of the branch-leaves, but in others 
they are almost or entirely lacking. The leaves vary a great deal in size, also 
in apparent disposition on the branch, being sometimes clearly in five ranks, at 
others subsecund, etc., so that the plants may have a very different aspect as 
found in different localities, though a similarity of usually pronounced brown 
pigmentation combined with the characteristic habitat soon serve to render it 
recognizable. If there is any doubt, one can tear the branches from the stem 
and make out the lacerate stem-leaves with a hand-lens. The cortical cells of 
the stem are more distinctly set off with large cells and thin walls than in a num- 
ber of species following, but may be collapsed or even eroded or resorbed, so 
that it is best to section well up toward the capitulum, a caution applying more 
or less to any species. The species is, as already suggested, the only one of the 
group known to be monoicous and often fruits abundantly. As early as the 
original description it was noted that its branches bearing antheridia may be 
pendent as well as spreading. This point is not of the greatest importance, 
however, as there is no sharp difference between the two. There are weaker 
and stronger spreading branches and weaker and stronger pendent ones, spread- 
ing ones that are pretty nearly pendent and pendent ones that are nearly spread- 
ing. Antheridia will not be found on the weakest branches of S. Lindbergii any 
more than on those of other species. The sterile prolongation of the branch 
beyond the antheridial catkin is weak, drooping, and clothed with leaves sug- 
gesting those of the weaker pendent branches. The perichaetial leaves show 
two kinds of cells only in their upper part and their apex is somewhat lacerate 
like that of the stem-leaves. 
The plant is one of the far north and seems to flourish for example in Green- 
land, Labrador, and Alaska. Its stations in the United States are quite isolated 
and appear to be limited to two, the one on Mt. Whiteface of the Adirondacks 
of New York, where it was discovered (fruiting!) by Peck, 2 the other on Mt. 
Monroe of the White Mountains of New Hampshire, where it was collected by 
Faxon and distributed in the Eaton and Faxon exsiccata as nos. 82 and 83. A 
specimen in the Sullivant herbarium, which, according to label, came from the 
Austin herbarium and was collected on the slopes of the White Mountains of' 
New Hampshire, appears to indicate a discovery of the White Mountain locality 
prior to that of Faxon, though the station is not mentioned by Lesquereux and 
James. It is remarkable that it has not been found on Mt. Katahdin in Maine. 
It might perhaps be sought also on the higher mountains of Washington or Mon- 
1 Versuch einer Entwickelungsgeschichte der Torfmoose, pi. XXVII, fig. 1 . 1858. 
2 Cf. Lesquereux and James, Manual 15. 1884. 
