348 UTRICULARIA MONTANA. [Cuar. XVIII. 
CHAPTER XVIII. 
UTRICULARIA (continued). 
Utricularia montana—Description of the bladders on the subterranean 
rhizomes—Prey captured by the bladders of plants under culture and in 
a state of nature—Absorption by the quadrifid processes and glands— 
Tubers serving as reservoirs for water—Various other species of Utricu- 
laria—Poly pompholyx—Genlisea, different nature of the trap for capturing 
prey—{Sarracenia]—Diversified methods by which plants are nourished. 
UTRICULARIA MoNTANA.—This species inhabits the tropical 
parts of South America, and is said to be epiphytic; but, 
judging from the state of the roots (rhizomes) of some dried 
specimens from the herbarium at Kew, it likewise lives in 
earth, probably in crevices of rocks. In English hot-houses 
it is grown in peaty soil. Lady Dorothy Nevill was so kind 
as to give me a fine plant, and I received another from Dr. 
Hooker. The leaves are entire, instead of being much divided, 
as in the foregoing aquatic species. They are elongated, 
about 14 inch in breadth, and furnished with a distinct foot- 
stalk, The plant produces numerous colourless rhizomes,* as 
thin as threads, which bear minute bladders, and occasionally 
swell into tubers, as will hereafter be described. These 
rhizomes appear exactly like roots, but occasionally throw up 
* [Hovelacque, in the ‘Comptes mountains of Dominica. Utricularia 
Rendus, vols. cv. p. 692, and cvi. p. 
310, has discussed the nature of the 
underground runners; he considers 
them to be morphologically leaves, in 
opposition to Schenk (Pringsheim’s 
‘Jahrbiicher,’ vol. xviii. p. 218), 
who rgards them as rhizomes. 
Schimper, in his paper on the West 
Indian Epiphytes (‘ Bot. Central- 
blatt,’ vol. xvii. p. 257), takes a 
view similar to Schenk’s as to stolons 
or runners in the new species, U. 
Schimperi, discovered by him in the 
cornuta, described by Schimper in 
the ‘Bot. Zeitung,’ 1882, p. 241, 
has similar underground runners, 
as well as aerial organs usually 
described as leaves. He discusses 
the possibility of a morphological 
identity between the runners and 
the “leaves” from a point of view 
opposite to that of Hovelacque’s— 
namely, that the “leaves” as well 
as the stolons may be morphologically 
stems,—F. D,] 
