to the above species, one necessarily approaches the study of related species with similar thoughts in mind. Two plants closely related to the common arrow-head were separated in 1894 by Mr. Jared G. Smith in his revision of the North American species of the genus. All the standard manuals since that time have recognized these two plants as valid species, and the distinctness of Sagittaria Engelmanniana J. G. Smith and Sagittaria longirostra (Micheli) J. G. Smith, as these two plants were named, has not been questioned. They are, of course, both thoroughly distinct from Sagittaria latifolia, but when one comes to study the distinctions relied on between the two plants themselves, he soon finds out that the distinctions emphasized are the very ones which are universally agreed to be of no value in separating forms of Sagittaria latifolia. Thus Mr. Smith's own key is as follows: "Fertile pedicels much shorter than the bracts; leaves ample; beak of the achenium stout, erect.......... R. longirostra "Fertile pedicels longer than the bracts; leaves with linear lobes; beak of the achenium erect S. Engelmanniana" Practically the same key is used in the Illustrated Flora except that the achenium characters are omitted, and properly so, because in Mr. Smith's detailed description he says that S. Engelmanniana has a stout beak, thus leaving no marks of difference in this respect. In the recently issued "Gray's Manual" the key used is "Stout; leaf-blades broadly ovate-oblong... "Slender; leaf-blades linear S. longirostra So much then for the history of the plants, and now for an experience of my own with them. Although I had collected the plants before this year, the collections never had been under the most favorable conditions, but this year conditions seemed to be just right, when on Labor Day I went to Forked River in the New Jersey pine-barrens. Immediately beyond the station there, there is an artificial pond, the shores and shallower portions of which I quickly found were lined with Sagittaria. It was in fine fruiting condition and many specimens agreed well with S. Engelmanniana as described in the manuals, but others had broader leaves. Continuing my journey around the pond I found back in the bushes at the margins other specimens with the broad leaves and stouter appearance of S. longirostra, but I also found all manner of intergradation between the two, just as one would find with S. latifolia. In fact as many forms could have been found as there have been of the common plant. As to the comparative length of bracts and pedicels all I can say is that these organs varied with individual plants just as in S. latifolia, and differences in their comparative length are of no value in separating the plants under discussion. My conclusion then is that S. longirostra and S. Engelmanniana as described in the manuals are but forms of the same species. Whether S. Engelmanniana is technically based on specimens really representing a species distinct from S. longirostra, is a question which Dr. Small is now investigating for the North American Flora. At all events, however, the characters heretofore relied on to separate these plants are plainly insufficient. NOTES ON RUTACEAE - II Xanthoxylum cubense P. Wilson, comb. nov. Zanthoxylum juglandifolium Rich. Ess. Fl. Cub. 332. 1845. Fagara juglandifolia Krug & Urban, Bot. Jahrb. 21: 587. 1896. Type locality: In high mountains of Vuelta de Abajo and around Guanimar, Cuba. Distribution: Cuba. Xanthoxylum jamaicense P. Wilson, sp. nov. A glabrous tree 5-10 m. tall with a spiny trunk; branches unarmed or armed with few, solitary, slender, brownish prickles, 3-6 mm. long; leaves odd-pinnate, 13-24 cm. long; leaflets 3-9, oblong to oval or somewhat obovate, 2.8-11 cm. long, 1.5-4.8 cm. broad, short-petioluled or subsessile, more or less crenate, short and obtusely acuminate or rarely rounded at the apex, cuneate and equilateral or inequilateral at the base, dull or somewhat lustrous above, paler and the venation more prominent beneath; inflorescence terminal, paniculate-corymbose; staminate flowers (immature): sepals 3, semioval to broadly triangular; petals 3, ovate; stamens 3; pistillate flowers: sepals 3, broadly triangular; petals 3, ovate, 2-2.2 mm. long, 1-1.2 mm. broad; ovary 3-carpellary, sessile; follicles (immature) subglobose, 4 mm. in diameter, brown, apiculate, the surface pitted. Type collected at Dolphin Head, Jamaica, N. L. Britton no. 2318; also collected in hills near Kempshot, N. L. Britton no. 2433. Distribution: Jamaica. TRIPHASIA Lour Fl. Cochinch. I 152. 1790. Triphasia trifolia (Burm. f.) P. Wilson, comb. nov. Limonia trifolia Burm. f. Fl. Ind. 103. 1768. Limonia trifoliata L. Mant. 237. 1771. Triphasia trifoliata DC. Prodr. 1: 536. 1824. Triphasia Aurantiola Lour. Fl. Cochinch. I: 153. 1790. Note: The illustration of the flower in Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (pl. 35) is incorrectly figured with five petals. Type locality: Java. Cultivated and naturalized in tropical and subtropical America as far north as Florida and Texas. PERCY WILSON. THE FIELD MEETINGS OF THE CLUB FOR 1909 In order that the field meetings of the club may be attractive to the members, and also accomplish work of permanent value, it is proposed to arrange a definite plan of campaign for the entire season of 1909. This will be done in coöperation with the chairman of the local flora committee, so that the local herbarium may be increased where it is weakest, and sufficient material may be accumulated to serve as a basis for a descriptive list of the plants growing within the area prescribed by the preliminary catalog of the club in 1888. The specimens in the club herbarium, together with the collections of the New York Botanical Garden are being critically studied and tabulated, so that when the season opens everything will be in readiness for an effective system of field meetings. These will have in view partly the enlargement of the collections, and partly the equally desirable end of providing attractive and interesting excursions for members interested in our metropolitan flora. Various features of interest will be planned from time to time such as (a) changes from month to month in the floristic aspect of restricted ecological areas, (b) the encroachment of plants beyond their supposed natural habitats, (c) the behavior of aquatic and land plants when subjected to unusual conditions, (d) introduced plants and their ability to spread and maintain themselves, (e) the pine-barrens of Long Island and New Jersey and their relation and similarity, and (ƒ) so-called “weeds" and ballast plants and their occurrence and adaptability. These are only a very few of the problems that offer delightful possibilities to those willing to take the time and trouble of collecting and making careful notes. In Torreya for July 1908, Dr. R. M. Harper has outlined scores of such problems, but many of them are unfortunately beyond the scope of the field meetings of the club. Care will be taken to distribute the excursions so that those interested particularly in the cryptogamic flora will not suffer injustice because of a preponderance of meetings planned for the higher flowering plants, and vice versa. There are about thirty-one days upon which it is possible to hold field meetings, and it is necessary in order to systematize them to make plans early in the season. To do this will require the hearty coöperation of members able and willing to act as guides. The chairman of the field committee will attend all the meetings possible, but it is essential to the success of the meetings that an efficient corps of guides volunteer for the work. Everything that can be done towards the arrangement of time and place of meeting will be carefully planned. Those willing to act as guides will greatly further the work if they will send their names, together with the dates upon which they will serve and the districts with which they are familiar, to the undersigned. NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN. NORMAN TAYLOR, Chairman Field Committee REVIEWS Recent Bulletins of the State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut * In The State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut published in 1905 "A preliminary report on the Hymeniales of Connecticut," by Edward Albert White, and "The Ustilagineae or smuts of Connecticut," by George Perkins Clinton. the latter part of 1908 there appeared notable continuations of the published results of the botanical survey of that state in "A preliminary report on the algae of the fresh waters of Connecticut" by Herbert William Conn and Lucia Washburn (Hazen) Webster, and "The bryophytes of Connecticut" by Alexander William Evans and George Elwood Nichols. The report on the fresh-water algae consists essentially of brief synopses of the classes and orders, keys to the genera and short descriptions of them, the names of the species found, and, with few exceptions, figures of all the species collected by the writers within the limits of the state. A few species are admitted on the authority of Hazen and of Setchell, and the names of a considerable number. from the "Phycological notes of Isaac Holden," published by F. S. Collins in Rhodora, have been introduced in brackets. The Cyanophyceae and Characeae are included, but no attempt. is made to treat the Diatomaceae. The treatment of the Characeae is, however, very inadequate, only one species and that an unnamed one being figured. The authors have evidently not. made use of the monographs of T. F. Allen and of C. B. Robinson, in which Connecticut materials are mentioned. The authors appear to have devoted their attention largely to the Conjugatae. Under Spirogyra, Zygnema, Closterium, Cosmarium, Staurastrum, and Micrasterias, numerous species are listed and figured, but under genera like Cladophora, Oedogonium, and Vaucheria, which may reasonably be supposed to be well represented in Connecticut, the lists are confined to two or three species each. For the *Conn, H. W., & Webster, L. W. A preliminary report on the algae of the fresh waters of Connecticut. State Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv. Conn. Bull. 10: 1-78. pl. 1-44. 1908. Evans, A. W., & Nichols, G. E. The bryophytes of Connecticut. State Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv. Conn. Bull. 11: 1-203. 1908. |