—68 
Microlejeunea laete-virens (Nees & Mont.) comb. nov. 
Lejeunea laete-virens Nees & Mont, in Ramon de la Sagra, Hist. Fis. 
Pol. y. Natur. Cuba 9: 281. 1845. 
Lejeunea lucens Tayl. Lond. Jour. Bot. 5; 399. 1846. 
Lejeunea glaucophylla Gottsche, Ann. des Sc. Nat. IV. 8: 28. pi. 9, f. 
15-17. 1858. 
Lejeunea (Micro-Lej eunea) lucens Spruce, Hep. Amaz. et And. 288. 
1884. 
Lejeunea (Eu-Lej eunea) lucens Steph. Hedwigia 29: 84. 1890. 
Lejeunea {Eu-Lej eunea) laete-virens Steph. 1. c. 29: 87. 1890. 
Micro lej eunea lucens Evans, Mem. Torrey Club 8: 157. pi. 21, f. 1-10. 
1902. 
On trees and rocks. Type locality: Havana, Cuba (Ramon de la Sagra)- 
Virginia, south to Florida and west to Louisiana. Also widely distributed 
in tropical America, especially at low elevations. 
Lejeunea clausa. 
The original material of this species was collected by Leprieur at the 
base of “Mount Serpent” in French Guiana. The authors described the 
vegetative organs only, apparently assuming that the specimens were sterile 
throughout. Their figure shows an unbranched fragment of a single stem 
and represents the underleaves as being duplicated, this appearance being 
due to faulty drawing. In the Synopsis Hepaticarum the type specimen is 
quoted and a variety / 3 , based on a Brazilian plant collected by Bongard near 
Rio de Janeiro, is also described. Stephani recognizes the validity of L. 
clausa and refers it to the subgenus Cheilo-Lej eunea, but he separates the 
variety fi and considers it synonymous with L. (Euosmo- Lejeunea) par- 
jgistipula Lindenb. & Gottsche. He bases his opinion on the specimens in 
the Lindenberg herbarium, which I have also examined. I find that 
Leprieur's material is represented by a number of female plants without 
perianths. In the majority of cases the inflorescences are borne on short 
innovating branches which may be once or twice floriferous; in rarer 
instances they are borne on leading branches. Upon comparing these 
plants with the type specimens of L. opaca Gottsche, collected by Splitgerber 
in Surinam, I find that they agree in all essential points and thus necessitate 
the reduction of the latter species to synonymy. The identity of L. clausa 
and L. opaca was suspected many years ago by Spruce but he afterwards 
considered them distinct. L. opaca is also regarded as a valid species by 
Stephani and by Schiffner, both of whom refer it to Euosmolej ezmea, and I 
myself have recently described and figured it as E. opaca. 3 A portion of the 
original material of the variety fi shows several male inflorescences, which 
occupy short branches as in L. clausa. The underleaves are very variable 
but, while some of them are small and squarrose as described in the Synopsis, 
others are larger, appressed to the stem, and more or less cordate at the 
base. These larger underleaves, which are undoubtedly the more normally 
3 Mem. Torrey Club 8: 139. pi. 19, f. 1-11. 1902. 
