- 3 ^ — 
of the plant life of the ancient Southern Continent? Or must one, on the 
other hand, attribute to it a more recent origin ? The answer seems quite 
difficult. Yet, since it seems established that South Georgia, the Fuegian 
Archipelgo, that of Falkland and Southern Patagonia, have since the disap- 
pearance of the Southern Continent! been visited by one or several glacial 
period, during which these regions experienced climatic conditions analogous 
to those existing to-day .in the Antartic Continent, one must admit that in 
the same epoch every manifestation of life ought to be impossible in the 
higher latitudes. One is led for this reason, to consider the present Antarc- 
tic flora as a result of a slow re-immigration [of the Southern (Continental) 
flora, with evolution of species under the new climatic conditions to which it 
needed to adapt itself. The character of series rather than of species which 
several of Antarctic mosses offer (as Dicranum NordenskjoldiiQ,ax&., Bryum 
amblyolepis Card., Poly trichum antarcticwn Card., etc.) -ten d furthermore 
to confirm this hypothesis.” 
It should be stated that Mr. Cardot had, previous to the publication of 
this comprehensive work, published “ Preliminary Notes,” both in the Revue 
Bryologique and in the Bulletin de l’Herbier Boissier. 
Winona, Minn. 
REVIEW— THE BRYOPHYTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
By Alexander W. Evans and George E. Nichols, being Bulletin No. n of 
the State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut. 
This is a model for local lists of plants of any kind. There is a very 
satisfactory account of “The General Characteristics of the Bryophytes ” 
and a similar account of each of the six orders: I. Marchantiales ; II. Jun- 
germanniales ; III. Anthocerotales ; IV. Sphagnales; V. Andrseeales; VI. 
Bryales; given in clear language free from unnecessary technicalities. 
No descriptions of gen era or species are given but there are good service- 
able keys to both. A list of localities and distribution is given for all 
species, and exsiccatae and references are cited in case specimens from Con- 
necticut are distributed or refered to. 
The arrangement for the most part is that of Engler and Prantl's “ Die 
Natiirlichen Pflanzenfamilien.” The principal exceptions being the hypnoid 
mosses and the Polytrichaceae, where Warnstorf’s treatment is followed to 
some extent. The Polytrichaceae are considered the most highly developed 
of the Bryales and are placed'last, an arrangement with which, at present, I 
am unable to agree because of the comparatively simple nature of the per- 
istome. Neither am I able to include Schwetschkeopsis denticulata ( Leskea 
denticulata Sulliv.) and Homalothecium subcapillatum with the Entodon- 
taceae. Neither am I able to understand why Rhynchostegium rusciforme 
B. & S. is put under Eurynchium while Hypnum serrulatum Hedw. is put 
under Rhynchostegium . There are some other things of a similar nature to 
which I should take exception. There are also a few cases of ‘-nomencla- 
ture” to disagree with. These are minor matters as the chief value of such 
