TS Ue CAE 
Eu Res a ii. d MER T 
MELANTHACEA FROM THE GENETIC STANDPOINT. 163 
We may now consider the synonymy of the three species of Melanthium, 
together with that of Veratrum parviflorum, Michx., which has often been 
included in the same genus. It will be seen tist M. monoicum, Walter, 
replaces M. dispersum, Small, and M. hybridum, Walt., takes the place of 
M. latifolium, Desrouss. The reasons for these changes are as follows: Walter, 
in the * Flora Caroliniana,’ recognizes the three known species of Melanthium 
under a special section of his genus Melanthium which is thus described : 
* Petalis unguiculatis imprimis albis demum obscuro-rubris seminibus semi- 
ovatis," The first species is M. virginicum, Linn., the second he describes as 
M. hybridum, and the third as M. monoicum. Let us consider M. monoicum 
first. It is described as follows: “ Petalis planis, maculis 2 luteis ; floribus 
inferioribus masculis majoribus, paniculis lateralibus; superioribus foemineis 
racemo terminali.” Pursh describes the species as follows: ** M. panicula 
inferne mascula, superne feminea racemosa, petalis oblongis planis brevi- 
unguiculatis bimaculatis, stylis germine duplo brevioribus. Walt. Fl. Car. 
195." He adds that the flowers are smaller than in M. virginicum, and not 
so apt to change colour. Elliott merely repeats the description of Pursh. 
There can be no doubt concerning the identity of this species with the 
M. dispersum of Small. Particularly the oblong flat petals with two glands 
and a short claw, and the flowers smaller than in M. virginicum, serves to 
identify the species; also the broad panicle and the fact that the upper 
flowers are mostly pistillate. This identification clears up a long-standing 
difficulty with Walter's M. monoieum. Assurance is made doubly sure by the 
detailed description of Leimanthium monoicum, Schult., in which measurements 
and numerous other details are given. 
When M. monoicum, Walt., has been identified, the remaining synonymy 
falls easily into place. The identity of M. Aybridum, Walt., is not quite so 
conclusive as that of M. monoicum, but that it is the same as M. latifolium, 
Desrouss., there can be very little doubt. Britton * has referred it there 
with a question mark, which I think must be removed now that Walter's 
M. monoicum is recognized. 
The description of M. hybridum by Walter is in these words: “ petalis 
plicato-undulatis immaculatis, floribus masculis et fceminis mixtis." The 
word *immaeulatis" has been the source of trouble, for the other two 
features, (1) undulate petals and (2) staminate and pistillate flowers inter- 
mingled, are peculiarities of this species, while glands are usually present on 
the perianth-segments as in other species of Melanthium. The description of 
Pursh, however, leaves no possible doubt as to the plant intended, for he 
says under M. hybridum : * M. panicula superne racemosa feminea, petalis 
subrotundis plieato-undulatis vix maculatis, extus hirsutis." He gives as 
* Britton & Brown, Ill. Fl, i. (1896) 407. 
LINN, JOURN.—BOTANY, VOL. XLIV. Oo 
