o/ 
Vol. VI, No. 11.] BULLETIN oF THE TorREY BoTanicaL Cus. (New York, Nov., 1875, 
§ 61. Notes upon Anychia dichotoma, Mx.—Michaux proposed 
the genus Anychia in the Flora Bor. Am. (1802) and transferred 
to it the Queria Canadensis, L., changing the specific name to 
dichotoma, Under this name have been included two forms of 
quite diverse aspect. Nuttall, in his Genera (1818) first separated 
the more slender one, proposing for it the specific name of Queria 
capillacea, and indicated some of the distinctive characters. In 
this he was followed in the same year by Dr. Barton in the Com- 
pend. Florez Philadelphice, who gives good diagnoses and calls Q. 
capillacea “a genuine and well marked species ” but says that Dr. 
Muhlenberg “ wished to see further” before accepting it. Dr, 
Torrey in the Flora of the Northern and Middle States makes 
Anychia capillacea to be var, f. of A. dichotoma, remarking that 
he was unable to discover any characters sufficient to distinguish 
the two. De Candolle in the Prodromus Vol. II. (1820) admits the 
two species as distinct, but adds that Dr. Torrey’s view seemed to 
be confirmed by specimens received from him and from Dr. Bige- 
low. Nearly or quite all of the subsequent writers upon the Flora 
of the U. S. have followed Dr. Torrey, and in Gray’s Manual the 
two forms are only recognized as varieties of one species. 
How great may be the range of variation in other localities I am 
not able to say, nor whether the two forms are connected by inter- 
mediate links; but for the purpose of directing enquiry to this 
point, I take this occasion to say that the plants which I have seen 
and collected in this vicinity, have strongly impressed me with the 
idea that they belong to two valid species. ‘The slender capillary 
form (A. capiilacea, Nutt.) occurs on the wooded sides of deep ra- 
vines growing singly and scattered, with something of the aspect 
of an Adiantum. ‘The other form I have found less frequently, 
and growing in close patches of considerable extent in more open 
level woods. So different is its appearance as well.as its habit of 
growth that at first glance I had no suspicion of its relationship 
to the other. Close examination proyed relationship but seemed to 
disprove identity. Compared with A. capillacea it is more pubes- 
cent, thicker and more robust in the stems and branches, shorter 
jointed, and of less height. Itsleaves are more slender and lanco- 
lete, its flowers numerous and crowded toward the ends of the 
branches, instead of being few and axillary, with the stipules at 
base of the flowers as long as the flowers. In addition to these 
points of difference, which have been previously noticed, I find that 
in my specimens of A, capillacea the persistent calyx is much 
shorter than the utricle (as shown in the figure in Gray’s Genera), 
and is usually smooth and thin, becoming scarious towards the 
edges of the lobes. In the other form I find the calyx nearly or 
quite covering the utricle, and having its lobes thicker and more 
or less costate, The difference of station has been adduced as a 
cause of variation, bat may it not as well be considered as evidence 
of diversity of species? 
_ If further examination should result in retaining the two forms 
under one name, the law of priority would seem to require a return 
to Linneus’ specific name, making the name Anychia Canadensis. 
