207 
'  § 218. Drosera-longifolia, L.—In comparing D.. longifolia, L, 
collected in Germany with D. longifolia, L., described in U. S. 
Manuals, I get somewhat confused. What these call D. longfolia, 
L., is Drosera intermedia, Hayne (D. longifolia, Smith), of German 
botanists. The D. longifolia, L., of German Manuals (D. anglica, 
Huds.) has a scape from 5 to 8 inches high, erect (that of D. cnter- 
media is ascending), twice as long as the lanceolate, wedge-shaped 
leaves. The whole plant, not uncommon in marshes of Europe, is 
more robust, has larger flowers than D. intermedia, Hayne, and 
stands. in aspect between this and D. rotundifolia. On sending 
a. specimen of D. longifolia, L., collected in Germany to our leading 
botanist, Professor A. Gray, of Cambridge, and asking for in- 
formation, I received the following answer : toes 
‘‘In Torr. & Gray’s Flora and my Manual the old English view 
was adopted.. We are now taking the German view: as on the whole 
best, and have done it in Bot. Californ. We well know the species. 
The question related to the names they should bear, Linnzeus having 
mixed them.” . : 
Having not. at hand the Species Plantarum of Linneus, I 
would only remark that the name of Linn. for the D. longifolia of 
U.S. Manuals is a very bad one. The true D. /ongifolia, 1.., of 
Europe has not yet been found in thiscountry. The name D. longi- 
folta, L., must, therefore, be changed into D. intermedia, Hayne, (D. 
longifolia, Smith.) Iwillsend D. longifolia, L., of Europe, to any one 
sending me D. /inearis, Goldie, D. brevifolia, Pursh., D. capillaris, 
Poir. J. H. Wisse. 
Osweco, N. Y. 
§ 219. Publications.—1. American Journal of Science and Arts, 
Jan.-Mch: Dr. Gray notices at some length Darwin’s “ Different 
Forms of Flowers.” Mr. Darwin adopts the term heferostyled, but 
Dr. Gray still insists on the greater fitness of his term Aeferogone or 
heterogonous, which indicates that the difference is in the stamens 
and pistils, and avoids the erroneous implication that the style is 
only or mainly concerned. He thinks that in systematic botany, © = 
we shall hereafter write, lores hermaphroditi, heterogoni, monoeti, 
dioect, gyno-dioeci, polygami, as the case may be.. To the list of 
cleistogamous flowers, founded on Kuhn’s list, are added in this 
notice Mr. Pringle’s recent discoveries of this character in Daéz- 
barda repens, Danthonia spicata, Vilfa and other grasses. Dr. Gray 
diminishes the list of genera, reducing Ruellia, Dipteracanthus and 
Cryphiacanthus to one genus, but leaves the cleistogamic character 
of Lechea unquestioned ; but who has observed it? In a “ Sup- 
plementary Note” in the Mch. No., Gentiana Andrewsei is again 
discussed in reply to Mr. Meehan’s note, BULLETIN, § 198, and Mr. 
Meehan’s observations on Zinidin perenne from Colorado are thought 
~ to show that this Z. Zewési7, Pursh, is after all a distinct species. 
Another notice of special interest relates to Parkman’s Hyéridiza- 
tion of Lilies, in the Bulletin of the Bussey Institution, Vol. II., 
No. 1s. Mr. Parkman finds after a series of very careful experi- 
ments, that in the genus Lilium the hybrid offspring, in 40 out of 
50 cases, takes almost all its traits from the female parent, and in 
