GRIFFITH8—-THE GRAMA GRASSES. 351 
herbaria. The specimens in the herbarium of the Museum of Paris 
must be taken as the basis of his work, but some of the numbers cited 
have not been found there and a few have not yet been found else- 
where. 
DESCRIPTION OF THE GENERA AND SPECIES. 
THE BOUTELOUAE. 
Plants annual or perennial, cespitose or stoloniferous, with spikes one to many, 
mostly several to many, arranged in unilateral racemes, the spikelets mostly nearly 
sessile in two rows on a flattened rachis which may be simple or forked distally, but 
so twisted upon their very short peduncles as to appear more or less unilateral espe- 
cially when young; spikelets mostly 2-flowered, one of the florets rudimentary, in 
some cases an additional 1 to 3 rudiments; lemmas 3-nerved, 3-awned, with a 
2-nerved mostly shorter-awned palet. 
KEY TO THE GENERA AND SPECIES. 
Spikes consisting of less than 3 spikelets (except in B. uniflora). 
Spikes consisting of 1 spikelet; rudimentary spikelet 
trifid. (TRIAENA, p. 354.) 
Spikes consisting of 2 spikelets, both perfect or 1 rudi- 
mentary. (PENTARRHAPHIS, p. 355.) 
One spikelet rudimentary, represented by 2 sete 
Spikes consisting of 3 or more spikelets. 
Spikes consisting of 3 spikelets. (CATHESTECUM, p. 308.) 
Plants annual...........-------------- 20002 e eee eee 1. C. prostratum. 
4, Bentham states (loc. cit.) that he is bound to treat it as having taken date, and 
Hackel used it in the preparation of his part of the grasses in Martius’s Flora of Brazil, 
published July 1, 1883. (Bot. Centralb, 28 : 232. 1886.) 
5. Hemsley (Biol. Centr. Amer. Bot. 3: November, 1885) cites it freely and to the 
end of the grass volume from the Bentham copy. 
6. The copies of Bentham and of Hackel were not galleys nor even page proofs in 
the ordinary sense, but the signatures in sheets as they came from the press. In other 
words, the work had taken form and was printed in 1881. 
7. Hackel did not receive the index until 1886, although he applied to the printing 
office for it in 1884. He thinks that the title page was received with the index. 
(Letter to Hitchcock, Aug. 8, 1906.) 
Dr. Barnhart in response to a request for an opinion has, after reviewing the facts, 
summed up the matter as follows: ‘‘(1) Most grass specialists were able to consult 
Fournier’s work from 1881. (2) They regarded it as published (not in a trade sense, 
but from a botanical standpoint), and cited it accordingly. (3) If we do not accept 
1881 as the date, we open the question, in the case of each Fournier name that found 
its way deviously into botanical literature between 1881 and 1886, whether it was ade- 
quately published or not. (4) We have enough questions relating to the adequacy 
of publication of plant names without needlessly burdening ourselves with such a 
large number of others, On the whole, therefore, I strongly favor 1881.” 
9368°—12——2 
