June 15, 1908, 
Dear " r. Far low: 
Tour letter wit’ tie It. resort moss came tills a.m. 
Thank von very much for the specimen. I have just "been examining 
it in connection with th- lass, noer? seat hy "'arnstorf as laxoni. 
From the dissections, noun's , and drav/inr/s wnich I have just made 
I must admit that the Ht. 1). moss s cas to more nearly rcatdh the 
Hhodora description than tl:e lass, one, the most striding differences 
■between the two being in the si so of etc and branch leaves. The 
i 
measurements which I have just made result in the following 
lit. 1, specimen —Stem loaves about l.fC? x .500 MI. 
Branch loaves 1.30G-±.400 mm. x .350-.400 nm. 
Hass, specimen—'tern leaves 1.100-1200 x ."'50-,€00 mm. 
5 ranch leaves 2.300-2.500jfx . 500-. 600 an. 
.Bot : 3sse ei to differ from the Rhodors sc Iption in having, in 
most cases, no pores in h;.aline cells of branch leaves. The Maes, 
plant tan trapezoidal chloro; hyll colls In section and too l't, f. 
nearl rc 'irngulat. Jr. all other ...ointn cm o rineu (carte:-, tranches, 
hyalins 1 c 1 s, si s c of loaves, etc.' the oescrv /_■ i on no-:r to cover 
one tsosB almost as well a- the other. 
I don't quite understand fs discrepancy in dates, the lass, moss 
being collect', c. "16 d' t. 1111" as. the on«: send in v. It. . Is 
"June £1, 1891*'. Is the latter an error? 
■.'arnstorf’ a "Sphaqnotheea luropaes” was issued in 1884 fee 
limpricht ” ie Laubmoose" 1 , Vol. 1, . 79 , r is is all r can find 
about it. 
Very truly pour, s , 
