—84- 
NOTES ON NORTH AMERICAN HEPATICAE. II. 
ALEXANDER W. EVANS. 
In the first paper of this series, published in the Bryologist 
for March, 1910, attention is called to ten species of Hepaticae of 
more or less interest. In the present paper ten additional species are 
discussed, the most important being Neesiella pilosa, the relationships 
of which are still incompletely understood. The three species of 
Lejeuneae from Florida have already been reported upon in the 
writer's recent paper on the Hepaticae of the Bahama Islands.^ It 
seems advisable, however, to mention them again because they repre- 
sent distinct additions to the flora of the United States, 
RICCIA CALIFORNICA Aust. 
Collected in August, 1908, on earth, at Departure Bay, Van- 
couver Island, by J. Macoun {No. 5); also, at Spence’s Bridge, Brit- 
ish Columbia, in June, 1910, by A. Brinkman {No. 240). The 
species has not before been found beyond the boundaries of Cali- 
fornia. Its discovery in British Columbia shows that it may be ex- 
pected to occur in Washington and Oregon. A complete description 
of the plant, with figures, is given in Howe’s “Hepaticae and An- 
thocerotes of California.” 
Neesiella PILOSA (Hornem.) Schiffn. Hedwigia 47 : 314. 1908. 
Marchantia pilosa Hornem. FI. Dan. 8 : 7. pi. 1426. 1810. Du- 
valia pilosa Lindb. Not. F. et FI. Fenn. 9 : 280. 1868. Grimaldia 
pilosa Lindb. Muse. Scand. 1. 1879. 
Collected in July, 1907, on Corbeaux Ridge, Bic, Rimouski 
County, Quebec, by J. F. Collins {No. 4877a). The first and only 
other American record for the species was made by C. Jensen from 
specimens found by N. Hartz at Scoresby Sound, Greenland." Even 
in Europe it is very rare and is known from only a few localities in 
Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Spitzbergen. It has also been re- 
ported from Siberia. According to Stephani^ and C. Muller N. pilosa 
cannot be specifically separated from Grimaldia carnica Massal., “^an 
alpine plant known from about half a dozen stations in Austria and 
northern Italy. Schiffner maintains, however, that the two species 
are still too incompletely known to justify this extreme view and 
thinks that, provisionally at least, they ought to be kept apart, 
Schiffner ^ and C. Muller ® have described Neesiella pilosa so fully 
and so clearly that only its more striking features will be mentioned 
1. Bull. Torrey Club 38 : 205-222. pi. 9. 10. 1911. 
2. Medd. om Gronl. 15 : 369. 1898. 
3. Sp. Hepat. 1 : 91. 1898. 
4. Ann. dell’ 1st. Bot. di Roma 2 : 66. pi. 9, f. 7. 1886. 
5. Morphologische und biologische Untersuchungen uber die Gattungen Grimal- 
dia und Neesiella. Hedwigia 47 : 306-320. pi. 8. 1908. 
6. Rabenhorst’s Kryptogamen-Flora 6: 264. f. 163. 1907. 
