smaller than the known species. Microscopic examination proved them quite 
different, nor could they be referred to any described species, so far as there 
was time for comparison. 
Under the circumstances it was deemed advisable to submit some of this 
material for critical study to Mr. H. N. Dixon, who on previous occasions had 
kindly taken the trouble to examine other Grimmias. Being recognized as 
an able and conservative bryologist, his judgment deserves to be put on 
record. He says of this plant: 
“The leaf base and general appearance are precisely those of- G. leuco- 
phaea, from which I think it differs only, but very markedly, in the tapering 
points of the leaves. In fact it is almost identical with G. glauca Card., 
only differing in the larger, very rough hair points. It constitutes in fact^an 
intermediate stage between that plant and G. leucophaea . And some of 
your plants have the leaves slightly less tapering, and therefore still more 
like the latter plant. I would suggest that you send a specimen to M. Car- 
dot : I think he will be interested to see it. I am inclined to think that it 
somewhat confirms his suggestion that G. glauca may be a hybrid resulting 
from a crossing of which G. leucopheae is one parent.” 
The writer accordingly sent both the letter, from which -the above ex- 
tract is taken, and some of the Grimmia in question to Mr. Cardot, who 
writes: “Your Grimmia is clearly my G. glauca, as Mr. Dixon thought. 
It differs from the type from Charleville only by its longer, stouter, rougher 
hair point, and also by its less glaucous color. But there is no doubt about 
its being this plant. Is this a hybrid, or a species ? This question will prob- 
ably remain unanswered so long as the fruit is not found.” 
Sterile Grimmias are at best difficult to determine, usually requiring the 
examination of leaf sections, both near the base and apex. In the case of 
the moss in question, it has, therefore, seemed advisable to make accessible 
to all interested bryologists the independent judgment of the two students 
above quoted, both well known for their ability and achievements. 
It appears that neither in Mr. Dixon’s nor Mr. Cardot’s judgment there 
is so far decisive evidence that this is either a good species or a hybrid, 
unless the recognized variation, in the Minnesota plant, of the stouter and 
frequently longer hair point may be held to lead to the view that it really is a 
hybrid. In the face of this uncertainty the writer ventures to suggest that 
the geographical distribution of the plant — its occurrence in two isolated 
areas, one in Northern France, the other in the Upper Mississippi basin, on 
a knoll in Southeastern Minnesota— tends to argue for its value as a good 
species. It should be recalled, in this connection, that Winona County lies 
in the northwest portion of the Driftless Area. This Area, as the writer has 
shown in a former note, harbors Grimmia teretinervis Limpr., not known 
again till one reaches the Austrian Alps, Claytonia Chamissoi Ledeb., a 
thousand miles to the east, and 4000-5000 feet below its normal home in the 
Rocky Mountains, and other plants of similar remarkable distribution. The 
addition of Grimmia glauca Card, to this list of plants marooned, as it were 
in the Driftless Area, in the penumbra of which lies Winona County, is thus 
