J 
41 
Students, surprised me very much until, about three years ago, in 
passing Felton Hall I noticed a vacant lot close by covered with a 
mass of yellow bloom. Except near Salem, the plant is rarely seen 
in Eastern Massachusetts. 
W. G. Farlow. 
Botanical Notes. 
On Derivation in Finns edulis and Pinus monophylla. — At a 
meeting of the Botanical Section of the Philadelphia Academy of 
Natural Sciences on December 8th, Mr. Thomas Meehan called atten- 
tion to some dried specimens oiPimis monophylla on the table, which 
were received in a fresh condition, a few months ago, from Mrs. Lew- 
ers, of Franktown, Nevada. At that time the phyllodes which took 
the place of the real leaves were all monophyllous. 
"iiicii vviis connnea to tiie i\.ui:Ky jvxuuiiLdiiis, i- 
cies being the form that prevailed further west. 
of P. edulis growing in a deep ravine in Queen x^^,,^^,, ^.x .... ^^.^j 
Mountains he had on the same tree found monophyllous, diphyllous, 
and triphyllous phyllodes, and there could not possibly be any doubt 
that the species were of one origin. The case was one worthy of 
note, because it had been charged that there was no actual evidence 
of the truth of the doctrine of derivation. Generally, when such evi- 
dences as these were offered, the objector was prepared to abandon 
his belief in the specific distinctness of the forms rather than to grant 
that two distinct species had been developed from one parent, and 
even in the case of these species there were some who regarded one 
as but a variety of the other. But there were other distinctions: The 
cones were no't quite the same, and the seeds were very different in 
size and outline, so that one could readily separate the seeds if mixed 
together. There was, in fact, a whole series of distinctions fully as 
great as we could find in many well-recognized species, and which 
fully entitled the two forms to full specific rank, though in the face 
of the evident facts that they are derivations of one original parent- 
age. Indeed, it was well known that when a plant changed its char- 
acter in one respect it must do so in others; plants in some climates 
annual would become perennial or suffrutescent in others. The cot- 
ton-plant was a familiar example. In such cases the foliage and other 
characters varied from those connected with the annual form, and 
from this fact some botanists had regarded Gossypium herbaceutn and 
Gossypium arboreum as distinct species. In the case of these two 
species of Pinus, the one which could not develop its phyllodes with 
two separate individuals would of necessity present some peculiari- 
ties in the scales of the cone, as these were, morphologically, but trans- 
formed phyllodes. Under morphological laws, that vvhich affected 
the leaves ought to affect the carpels or other parts of fructification 
which were modified from them. , _. 
The true position of the species in development was that Pinus 
