- 91 - 
22 between 14 and 18 mm., 3 between 19 and 21 mm., 12 between 
22 and 25 mm. and 3 between 26 and 29 mm. Shortest sporophyte 
11 mm., longest 30 mm.; of these there were 2 between 11 and 15 
mm., 13 between 16 and 21 mm., 25 between 22 and 25 mm., and 7 
between 26 and 20 mm. Capsule length, 3 from 2, 8 to 3 mm., and 
44 between 3 and 4 mm. The longest deoperculate capsule measures 
a scant 4 mm. 
A CORRECTION 
REGINALD HEBER HOWE, JR. 
In my list of the “Lichens of Mount Monadnock, New Hamp- 
shire,” (Amer. Nat. 40 : 664. 1906) I included no. A6 Ephebe solida 
Born. Before publishing the list, as stated in the preface, I had 
forwarded the ‘‘Cladonias, and. . .several other specimens” to Prof. 
Bruce Fink for determination, as I felt myself incompetent to deter- 
mine them. In a letter dated April 6, 1906, Prof. Fink wrote me 
concerning this specimen; “Possibly Ephebe solida, but probably an 
alga. Look for fungal hyphae with oil immersion lens.” Not hav- 
ing such a lens, and being only moderately versed in plant histology, 
I turned naturally to my former college teacher. Dr. Herbert M. 
Richards, and asked him if he would be good enough to examine the 
material for fungal hyphae, the very presence of which it appeared to 
me would settle the plant as Ephebe solida. Under date of May 30,' 
1906, Dr. Richards wrote me “On examining the specimen of the 
questionable Ephebe from Mt. Monadnock with a 1-16 Leitz I could 
certainly detect the presence of a septate mycelium covering th e 
Stigonema. I suppose, therefore, it must be a lichen.” On this en- 
tirely insufficient evidence I included the plant in my list, having 
made sure in Tuckerman that the plant had been previously collected 
in this part of New England. In my statement “determined through 
the kindness of Dr. Richards” I especially used the word ' 'through' ' 
rather than "by” to relieve Dr. Richards of any technical responsi- 
bility in determining lichen species. 
Now that five years have passed, and I have largely confined my 
lichen studies and responsibilities to the family Usneaceae, I have felt 
doubtful of this determination, and have been desirous of setting the 
matter right, especially as I feared that perhaps I had involved Dr, 
Richards in a wholly unconscious way. Consequently some weeks ago 
I sent the material to Dr. Lincoln W. Riddle for his opinion; he 
kindly reports as follows under date of March 17, 1911. “I have 
now studied yqur 'Ephebe' as carefully as my time would permit. I 
have no material of E. solida for comparison, but feel quite sure that 
this is not that species. In fact, I doubt if it is an Ephebe at all.” 
