—27- 
damp rotten trunk with L. heterocolpos and Blepharo stoma, * * * on 
damp limestone ; on the Nikandrovsky Island abundant on slimy 
mucky ground with Leptobryum, &c.” 
Macvicar^ states that Lophozia Kaurlni is very rare in Scotland, 
but one station being known, in Caithness. 
Lophozia Kaurini is to be expected among the limestone portions 
of the Berkshires, and perhaps also in the practically unexplored 
region of northern Maine. 
Lophozia badensis (Gottsche) Schiffn. to which reference is made 
in the beginning of this paper, was also abundant on the damp rocks 
of Quechee Gulf, growing mixed chiefly with Rhabdoweisia, Although 
our smallest species of this group, it is easily recognizable in the field 
by its neat and characteristic little perianths. 
In Rhodora for October, 1910, Dr. Evans reports this new station, 
and as his plants from Salisbury, Conn., which he had formerly 
referred to Lophozia Muelleri (Nees) Dum., agree closely with these, 
he revises his previous determination, thus omitting entirely I. Muelleri 
itself from the New England List. 
While L. Muelleri and L. badensis are very closely related, most of 
the European writers consider them distinct, and of these Schiffner'^ is 
the most emphatic. 
Besides the differences upon which weight is usually laid, in that 
L. badensis has slightly larger leaf-cells with smaller trigones, and the 
lack of under leaves, he gives what he considers an absolute proof of 
their right to be separate species, namely, the respective forms of 
their cJ' inflorescences. 
In refuting the views of some writers, that L. badensis is only a 
depauperate or juvenile form of L. Muelleri, he says “ that the unusual 
fertility of the plant speaks decidedly against both these views.” Then 
he describes some Austrian specimens, coll. Baumgartner, which 
appeared to be intermediate between L. badensis and L. Muelleri. 
But, “ the few J' plants show the androecium compressed into a thick 
bud on the tip of the stem * *. This form of androecium is 
extraordinarily characteristic of L. Muelleri, and is totally different 
from the arrangements of L. badensis, in which the androecium is 
intercalary, the perigonial bracts widely separated, and of quite differ- 
ent form (the cT plants, in my opinion, offer a safe and sure method 
of distinguishing small forms of L. Muelleri from L. badensis).'* 
These Vermont plants have intercalary androecia of exactly this 
loosely-leaved description, such (T bracts as are near the tips of the 
stems are very young and not imbricated. 
1. Trans. Bot. Soc. of Edinburgh, 25 : 141. 1910. 
2. Ber. d. natur— med. Verein “Lotos,” p. 31. 1905. 
