154 Rhodora [AUGUST 
England; no Zizania occurs in Jamaica, and Sloane’s plant is probably 
Phragmites communis (L.) Trin. Z. aquatica of the Species Plantarum 
should be taken, then, as based upon Zizania of Gronovius, and the 
name of the genus itself was taken, of course, directly from Gronovius. 
Professor Hitchcock states' that the two specimens of Zizania in 
the Linnean herbarium are the narrow-leaved form, one of which is 
marked “1 aquatica,” and the other “ Zizania HU,” each in Linnaeus's 
hand. Here arises a difficult nomenclatorial question. Linnaeus’s 
reference in the Species Plantarum (i. e., Gronovius) obviously belongs 
to one plant, and his specimen (“1 aquatica") to another? Hitchcock 
solved this problem by applying the later-defined name, Z. palustris 
L., to the broad-leaved plant, thus reserving Z. aquatica for the nar- 
row-leaved one which was represented by a specimen in the Linnean 
herbarium, saying, “The fact that later he [Linnaeus] described the 
broad-leaved form as a distinct species confirms the opinion that his 
idea of Z. aquatica was the narrow-leaved species." But was Z. 
palustris the broad-leaved species, as Hitchcock stated? "The des- 
cription of this species starts, “ Culmis bipedalis;" the broad-leaved 
specles to which Hitchcock referred this name is commonly from 
two to three meters high, while the narrow-leaved plant seldom ex- 
ceeds a meter in height. “Gluma calycina diphylla rigidula” applies 
to the firm lemmas of the narrow-leaved plant much better than to 
the papery lemmas of the broad-leaved one. “Folia . . . arundi- 
nia phragmitis latiora," upon which Hitchcock based his decision, 
loses some of its force when we note that the leaves of the European 
Phragmites communis, which Linnaeus doubtless had in mind, are in 
general narrower than those of the plant with which we are familiar 
in America. 
Zizania palustris was definitely described from the Hortus Upsali- 
ensis (* H. U.’’), and there is a sheet marked “HU” in the Linnean 
herbarium, which is, according to Hitchcock, the narrow-leaved 
plant, and it is fairly evident that it was from material of which this 
sheet is representative that Linnaeus made the description of that 
specles. Schreber, one year after the description of Z. palustris, 
gave a full discussion of this plant, which he states had only recently 
! Contrib. U. S. Nat. Herb. xii. Pt. 3: 124 (1908). 
? It is interesting in this connection to note Mr. F. V. Coville's preface to Professor 
Hitchcock's work, in which he states as a principle that in such cases the Linnean 
reference rather than the specimen marked by Linnaeus should determine the appli- 
cation of a name. 
3 Mant. 295 (1771). 
