206 . MR. J. SCOTT ON ISOKTES CAPSULAETS. 



different genera, I do not mean that tliey are uniform in all the 

 species of each genus. Several species of Goodenia, in their corolla 

 and style, approach more or less to Sccevola ; others have more or 

 less of the auriculate upper corolla-lobes of Dampiera, althougli 

 I have not' observed these auricles so perfect and so well-closed 

 over the indusium as in the latter genus. The rigid hair!:^, 

 erect on the back of the indusium, reversed in the tube of 

 the corolla, inflected on the margin of the auricles of some 

 DampieraSy the cilia of the margin of the indusium in most SccdvoJas 

 and OqpdeniaSj all of which appear to act their part directly or 

 indirectly in facilitating or impeding impregnation, are different in 

 different species. The nectaries or saccate protuberances or spurs 

 of the adnate corolla-tube in most Goodenias and Velleias, of use 

 perhaps in attracting the necessary insects, are wholly wanting in 

 other genera or species ; and in this case, as in so many others, 

 we cannot be too cautious in generalizing from the observation of 

 single species. 



Note on the Isoetes capsularis, Eoxb. By John Scot^, Curator, 

 Botanic G-arden, Calcutta. Communicated by Dr. AndebsoN, 



P.L.S. 



[Read November 21, 1867.] 



In collecting the native plants of Bengal with a view to their 

 introduction to the Botanic Grardens here, I had vainly searched 

 the ponds and jhecls in the neighbourhood of Calcutta for the 

 Isoetes capsiiJariSy Eoxb., never doubting (previously to consulta- 

 tion of his original description) that it was other than a veritable 

 Isoetes, as described and figured by Grriffith in his ' Notulse' (Cryp- 

 togamse) and ^Icones Plantarum Asiaticarum.' On referring, 

 however, to the description in the " Cryptogamous Plants of Box- 

 burgh,'* Calcutta Journal, vol. 4, I at once saw that the plants 

 respectively figured and described by Boxburgh and Griffith had 

 no affinity whatever. Boxburgh's plant is clearly phanerogamous 

 (the description sufficiently characteristic of the male form of 

 Tallisneria spiralis^ Linn., to induce a suspicion of their identity), 



whereas that of Griffith is a true Isoetes, 



My suspicion as to the identity of Isoetes capsularis, Eoxb., 

 with the male Vallisneria spiralis, Linn., was fully confirmed by 

 a reference to the figure of the former in the * Icon. Eoxb.,' a 

 reduced sketch of which I append, as also the description of the 

 plant from the paper he, cit. This I deem necessary from the 

 singularity of the mistake, and for the satisfaction of those mem- 



