PHYLLOSPADIX, ITS SYSTEMATIC CHARACTERS 
AND DISTRIBUTION 
BY WILLIAM RUSSEL DUDLEY. 
The genus Phyllospadix, Hook., was founded on plants col- 
lected by Dr. Scouler, at Dundas Td Columbia River, and was 
published in Hooker’s Flora Pineal Americana, vol. ii, p. 171, 
London, 1838. These plants were pistillate specimens of Phyl- 
lospadix Scoulert, W.J. Hooker, although the author makes no 
mention of the dicecious character of the genus and perhaps was 
unaware of it, as he observes that the genus ‘‘is separated from 
Zostera by the single style, capitate stigma, and curious leafy . 
border of the spadix.” Not only does he make no mention of 
anthers but in his figures (tab. 186) are shown an ovoid ovary, 
the ‘‘single style and stigma,’’ the pistils in a single row, and 
the retinacula forming the ‘‘leafy border of the spadix ’’ spread- 
ing if not recurved. The spadices and pistils of his specimens 
must have been imperfect, for his correct figure of the plant itself 
- enables us to know the particular form of Phyllospadix he was 
dealing with, and in all the specimens of this form collected along 
the Pacific Coast and examined by ourselves, as well as in the 
still more numerous specimens of Phyllospadix Torrey, Wats., 
we find a cordate sagittate ovary, with two laminated stigmas, 
two rows of pistils, and the retinacula of the pistillate spadix 
never reflexed or spreading. 
Since its first publication a diagnosis of the genus has natu- 
rally appeared in other works, among them the following general 
systematic treatises: 
Watson, Geol. Survey of Cal., Botany, ii, p. 192, 1880, Ben- 
tham and Hooker, Genera Plantarum, iii, p. 1017, 1883. Engler 
and Prantl, Die Natuerlichen Pfhlanzenfamilien, ii, (1) p. 204, 1889, 
Some of the omissions have been supplied—the most impor- 
tant being the dicecious character of the flowers,—and some of 
the errors have been corrected, but not all. As an example, 
figure B. (after Ruprecht) in Engler and Prantl ii, p. 204, is 
similar to Hooker’s original figure of the spadix and ovaries, 
excepting that the two stigmas are shown. Fig. A. (also after 
Ruprecht) is not so good as Hooker’s, not resembling the plant 
February 26, 1894. 
