156 
1855 the same plant and similar Californian species were collected 
by the botanists of the Pacific Railroad surveys, and specimens 
were submitted to Dr. Torrey for determination. Some of these 
species were also known to Dr. Kellogg, of San Francisco, and in 
March, 1855, he described one of them under the name Marah 
muricatus, noting at the same time its near relationship to 
Echinocystis lobata. In June, however, of the same year he 
appears to have silently discarded or to have forgotten his new 
genus, for he then describes another species of the ‘‘ giant root” 
as Echinocystis muricatus. These publications were made in the 
columns of a daily newspaper. Dr. Torrey, in ignorance of this 
and as a result of his study of the Government collections made 
under Lieutenants Whipple, Parke and Williamson, referred the 
plants to a new genus which he called Megarrhiza, publishing a 
species (J/. Californica) in Parke’s report in 1856 and authorizing 
the enumeration of that species and of JZ Oregana in New- 
berry’s report upon Williamson’s plants. The descriptions of the 
genus and species he delayed, intending to give them in full in 
connection with his report upon the collections made by Lieut. 
Whipple. The publication of this report, however, was not made 
until 1857, and in the meantime he learned through Dr. Andrews 
of Kellogg’s genus Marah. Consequently, and more especially 
on account of the difficulty of determining, from the scarcity of 
the materials, whether there was really more than one species, 
he omitted from the report all reference to the matter, and 
nothing more was published by him on the subject. Neverthe- 
less, the genus Megarrhiza was recognized by Dr. Gray in 1859, 
in his list of Xantus’ Lower California plants, and in 1860, in the 
Botany of Ives’ Report. In 1860, Naudin, of Paris, who chanced 
to have Megarrhiza Californica in cultivation, knowing nothing of 
its previous history, published it as Echznocystis fabacea. His ac- 
quaintance with the eastern £. /obata appears to have been slight, 
but seeds of that species were communicated to him by Dr. Gray, 
together with a knowledge of Torrey’s genus Megarrhiza, and 
in 1862 he gave a description of it based upon cultivated speci- 
mens. He still was of the opinion that the two species were 
congeneric, “‘malgré la grande autorite de MM. Torrey et Gray.” 
_ In 1866 Naudin proposed the genus Echinopepon for sev- 
