« PreviousContinue »
which are furnished towards the top with but short small hair. Inula semiamplexicaulis, Rent., from Geneva, Bois de Batie (Lagger!) appears to be a hybrid between I. salicina and I. Vaillantii, whilst 1. semiamplexicaulis, Visiani, is identical with I. squarrosa, Linn. I. media, M. B., judging from specimens from Creuznach, Bingen, and Mainz, seems to be a hybrid between 1. salicina and I. Germanica. I. hybrida, Baumg., seems to be a hybrid between I. salicina and I. ensifolia, judging from specimens from Hungary (Kruzisch!), Vienna (Skofitz !), Serbia (Pancic! mixed with I. ensifolia).
" ** Folia lanceolato-linearia, nervis longitudinalibus
percursa parallelis, sessilia, glabra v. suprema cum caulis parte superiore villosa. (1. ensifolia,
Linn.) “I. ensifolia, Linn., is the nearest ally of 1. salicina, and is confined to southern Europe, extending from the Tyrol, Piedmont, Istria, Carinthia, Austria proper, Hungary, Banat, Serbia, Prussia, to Asia Minor, where C. Koch collected it in Grusia.
“I. ensifolia, Fries ! Herb. Norm.. xiv. l; Gottland (Bunge); in petra calcarea (Träsk-Hedarne), inter Juniperos leg. O. Westöö,would seem to be on account of its narrow involucral leaves, small flower-heads, the entire glabrousness of the whole plant, and the widelydifferent geographical range, a new species, or perhaps only a more narrow-leaved form of I. salicina. Fries (Sum. Veg. p. 37) seems to entertain the same opinion. Many Compositæ occur with broad and very narrow leaves; for instance, Hieracium umbellatum, Linn.=H. filifolium, Fries, Symb. Hier. p. 178."
EXPLANATION OF PLATE XLIII., representing Inula salicina, from specimens collected at Lough Derg, Ireland. Fig. 1. A ray floret. 2. A hair of the pappus of ditto.
3. Stigma of ditto. 4. A disk floret. 5. A stamen of ditto; and 6. Stigmas of ditto, all magnified.
ON THE FECUNDATION OF LUPINUS POLYPHYLLUS.
By Rey, W. A. LEIGHTON, B.A., F.L.S. During the last summer, my attention was attracted to the operations of a small humble-bee on the flowers of Lupinus polyphyllus
growing in my garden. The bee alighted on the blossom, and by the weight of his body drew down the alæ and keel, and inserted his proboscis to the base of the stamens for the purpose of extracting the nectar. In doing so, I noticed that the stamens, covered with pollen, and the pistil, were slightly extruded from the apex of the keel, and struck against the under portion of the body of the bee, which probably carried some of the pollen away with him, and alighting on other blossoms, thus probably fertilized them.
This curious sight naturally led me to examine more particularly the structure of the blossoms. In an early stage of the flowering, I observed that the standard was flattened or laid close to the other parts of the blossom, but that in full expansion later, the lateral portions of the standard became reflexed. On opening some of the blossoms before the standard was reflexed, I noticed that there were ten anthers of two different sets and sizes, alternating with each other. One of these sets consisted of five very large sagittate anthers; whilst the other set consisted of five very small rotundo-oblong anthers supported on stamens scarcely reaching to the base of the sagittate anthers, but both sets not half the length of the pistil. Strange to say, in this early stage of the blossom, the pollen of the sagittate anthers was all matured and falling from the open anther-cells, whilst the anthers of the other set were all closed and the pollen in an immature state. On examining other blossoms whose standard was reflexed, I found that the large sagittate anthers were all withered, and their pollen gone, whilst the shorter and smaller stamens had become greatly elongated so as to become equal in length to the pistil, their anther cells expanded, and their pollen mature. In this state the elongated stamens and the pistil with the mature pollen of the, at first, small anthers, were by the weight of the bee extruded, and, I presume, fertilization effected. I compared under the microscope the size and appearance of the pollen from the two sets of anthers, but could distinguish no appreciable difference.
I now opened several blossoms with unreflexed standards, and with a camel's-hair pencil took some pollen from the sagittate anthers, and applied it carefully to the stigmas of other blossoms with unreflexed standards, cutting away first the unexpanded anthers of the smaller set of stamens. These blossoms, so treated, I covered with bits of fine muslin to prevent all insect agency. After some time I examined them, and found that fecundation had not taken place, and the legume had not swollen.
It would seem, then, that the two sets of anthers had different powers either on their own stigma or on that of the flower of another plant, for we dare not presume to say that the pollen of the sagittate anthers was wasted ; but further experiments are needed to establish these points, and it is with the view and hope that persons who have inclination and opportunity will institute such experiments, and decide this interesting question, that these crude notes are here inserted.
Shrewsbury, January 4, 1866.
SELIGERIA CALCICOLA, Mitten.
By W. CARRUTHERS, Esq., F.L.S. This inconspicuous Moss, noticed by the Rev. M. J. Berkeley in his Handbook of British Mosses' (1863), p. 289, as a new species in the possession of Mr. Mitten which he had not seen, and described and figured by Mr. Mitten in the July number of the Journal of Botany' for 1864, was published in the same year by Dr. Schimper in his first Supplement to ‘Bryologia Europæa,' SELIGERIA, p. 1. t. i., under the name of Seligeria subcernua. Although acquainted with Mitten's name, and aware that Berkeley had noticed it, he proposed this new trivial designation as characteristic of this, the only species of Seligeria which has an inclined and unsymmetrical capsule, and rejected the name calcicola, as it was equally applicable to all the species of the genus, inasmuch as they all grow on calcareous rocks.
The species, however, had already been published as British by Sir J. E. Smith, in ` English Botany,' pl. 2506, and both names must give place to his older designation. When arranging, some years ago, the collection of Mosses in the British Herbarium of the British Museum, I noticed that Smith's Gymnostomum paucifolium was a different plant from G. tenue, Hedw., to which it had been referred by Hooker, in · English Flora,' vol. v. pt. 1. p. 10, and with a query by Wilson in his · Bryologia Britannica,' p. 41. Unable to refer it to any of Wilson's species of Gymnostomum, I placed it at the time as an additional species, writing a short distinguishing character in my copy of the • Bryologia Britannica.' When showing our collection to Dr. Schimper, on the occasion of his recent visit to Britain, I drew his attention to
this plant, and he at once recognized it as his recently described Seligeria subcernua.
The history of the species begins with Dickson, who described a Moss, found on fragments of bricks, in rubbish heaps, near Wetherby, Yorksbire, under the name of Bryum paucifolium, in the fourth fasciculus of his ‘Cryptogamia.' Much uncertainty has always existed as to this plant. It was referred by Smith, in 1804, to Dicranum cylindricum, Hedw. (Ceratodon cylindricus, Br. and Sch.), on the authority of Dawson Turner's herbarium, and it is quite possible this species may have been in that herbarium, although it was not discriminated as a British plant for many years after. Wilson considers it to be Gymnostomum tenue, Sch., on the faith of specimens without lid, seen by him in the same herbarium. Smith, in 1813, obtained from Turner specimens of Bryum paucifolium, Dicks., which he had received from Eagle, to whom they had been communicated by Dickson himself as a portion of those found on a brick at Wetherby. These specimens figured and described in · English Botany' (2506) are now in the British Museum, and are the specimens determined by Schimper to be his Seligeria subcernua. It is evident that Dickson must have distributed different plants as his Bryum paucifolium, and his figure is so general that it does not assist in determining which of the three he really meant ; nor does the original draw. ing, made by Sowerby for Dickson's 'Cryptogamia,' now in the Botanical Department of the British Museum, help to a solution of the matter. As, however, the specimens in the British herbarium are a portion of Dickson's plants from the Wetherby station, they establish his species to be the Seligeria ; and, as these specimens are the very materials on which Smith founded his Gymnostomum paucifolium, there can be no difficulty as to the propriety of restoring its original trivial name. Its synonymy as a British plant will then be as follows:
Bryum paucifolium, Dicks. Crypt. Fasc. iv. p. 7. t. 11. f. 3 (1801). Gymnostomum paucifolium, Smith, Engl. Bot. 2506 (1813).
Seligeria calcicola, Mitt. Journ. of Bot. 1864. p. 194. t. 19. f. 1-6 (1864). .
S. subcernua, Sch. Bryol. Europ. Suppl. Fasc. i. (SELIGERIA) p. 1. t. 1 (1864). S. paucifolia, nob.
British Museum, Jan. 16, 1866.
ON THE ORCHIDACEOUS GENUS DIDYMOPLEXIS, Griff.
By S. Kurz, Esq. Didymoplexis pallens, described and figured by Griffith in M‘Clelland's • Calcutta Journal,' iv. 383, t. 17 (1844), does not seem to have as yet been referred to its proper place. The genus was ranged by Lindley (* Vegetable Kingdom '), probably on the authority of Griffith himself, near Pogonia, with which however it has neither a close relationship, nor any natural affinity. A short time ago I found some specimens of this interesting Orchid in flower and fruit. I also saw a drawing of it in the library of the Royal Botanical Gardens, Calcutta, and finally came across some dried specimens of an Orchid in the herbarium of the garden, which were named Arethusa Bengalensis, were evidently identical with our plant and probably collected by Griffith. In 1851 we find Didymoplexis pallens again described in Griff. Posthum. Pap. Monoc. 378. t. 343 et 344, as Arethusa ecristata, Griff., and, a year later, in R. Wight's Icon. t. 1758, under the name of Apetalum minutum, Wight. However, the plant was already described in 1825, by Blume in bis Bijdrage,' as Epiphanes Javanica. The Blumean plant is referred by Lindley with a query to Gastrodia, notwithstanding the position of the stigma. Blume (Flora Javæ ') enumerates and figures three species of Gastrodia, and adopts Lindley's view, as Miquel in his Flora of Neth. Ind. and Thwaites in his 'Ceylon Plants' have done.
We should thus have the following synonymy chronologically arranged, viz. :
Epiphanes Javanica, Blume, Bijdr. p. 421. t. 4 (1825).
Gastrodia (?) Javanica, Lindl. Orchid. Plants. p. 384 (1830–46); Blume, Fl. Javæ, p. 122, t. 52 (1828-1852); Miq. Fl. N. Ind. iïi. p. 717 (1855).
Didymoplexis pallens, Griff. in M'Clelland, Calcutta Journ. iv. p. 383, t. 17 (1844).
Arethusa ecristata, Griff. Posthum. Papers Monocot. p. 378, t. 343 et 344 (1851).
Arethusa Bengalensis, Herb. Calcut.
I am not sufficiently versed in Orchidology to determine the proper value of the situation of the stigma. Lindley in his Orchidaceous