I think both the above answers are correct, but missing a key point that 'consist of' is normally used with more tangible objects whereas 'consist in' has an esoteric quality to it. There's a good explanation here about the difference:
American writers often ignore this distinction. Consist of is used in reference to materials; it precedes the physical elements that compose a tangible thing. The well-worn example is that concrete consists of sand, gravel, cement, and water.
Consist in (= to have as its essence) refers to abstract elements or qualities or Intangible things. Thus, a good moral character consists in integrity, decency, fairness, and compassion. ...
This construction is literary in tone and is not often seen today in general writing. Sad to say, it may now seem creaky to most readers.
(Bryan Garner, Modern American Usage (3rd ed 2009), quoted in Language Usage Weblog October 1, 2009)
I have to agree about the 'creaky' bit. I didn't even know it was legitimate to say "consist in" until I saw this question, and the examples in the earlier answers sound really strange to my ears.