—47 — 
No. 187. Collected, Burnside, Nov. 7, 1906. 100 ft. Sandy bank in 
Laurel Park. Good material. 
No. 200. Collected, W. Hartford, Dec. 2, 1906. 400 ft. Roadside. 
Reservoir 3. 
C.undulata (Z.) W. M. 
No. 2. Newington Mt., March 14, 1902. 200 ft. Good sized fertile mate- 
rial. 
No. 6. Pomperaug Valley, June 9, 1906. Young plants, male heads, 
first flowering. 
No. 188. Burnside, Nov. 7, 1906. Laurel Park. Sterile plants, usual 
form. 
No. 188b, Fertile plants, same station. 
No. 199. West Hartford, Nov. 25, 1906. 350 ft. On old stump, edge of 
swamp. Reservoir 5. Ad v. minor M. & M. 
C. crisp a James. 
No. 173. Burnside, Oct. 30, 1906. School street, woods. Bank of 
stream in woods. Capsules barely mature. Hartford, Conn. 
[Read at the S. M. C. Meeting, Columbia University, Dec. 28, 1906.] 
NOTES ON RECENT LITERATURE. 
A. J. Grout. 
Conocephalum conicum (L.) Dum. ' Ever since I was a mere lad I have 
noticed a pungent aromatic smell when traveling along the moist banks of 
our Vermont brooks in search of trout or other pleasures, but I never discov- 
ered the source of the odor until this last summer (1906). The odor is given 
forth by the crushed or bruised fronds of Conocephalum. So far as I can 
ascertain this remarkably strong odor is not mentioned in any of our Ameri- 
can works. Lett, in his “ Hepaticae of the British Islands.” mentions the 
odor as comparable to that of bergamot. In Beihefte Bot. Centralblatt, 
18 1 : 327-408, 1905, Eugene Bolleter has a very complete account of exhaus- 
tive studies on this plant: of this paper we hope soon to have a full review. 
In it the odor of the plant is mentioned but it is called “turpentine-like.” 
Go and smell and take your choice between turpentine and bergamot. To 
me it is like neither, but has the pungency of turpentine without its quality. 
* 
* * 
We are interested to note an article to help beginners in the study of 
mosses, entitled, “A Word for Mosses,” by Prof. Wm. W. Bailey, in the Am. 
Botanist, Dec. 1905. After a rather brief description of methods of study and 
an explanation of some common terms, comes a list of living students of 
merit We recommend the perusal of this list to those who wish to become 
familiar with the methods of the editor of the Am. Botanist, for we attribute 
some obvious peculiarities of this list to the editor, not the author. 
* 
* * 
