229 



said '* a new ijjrass of uncertain genus, the single specimen mis- 

 laid." Very likely the male plant has been already published 

 under Brizopymni or DisticJilis, to which genus it bears a general 

 resemblance, but from which it differs markedly in its solid culms, 

 its manner of branching, sessile spikelets and three-nerved flower- 

 \\\^ glumes. Fournier, who knew only the female plant, allied 

 Joitvea with B?ichlol\ and Bentham followed him in Genera Plan- 

 tarum (vol iii. p. 1 173). The genus has, however, no affinities 

 with the Chloridese. Judging from the characters of the female 

 spikes, as given by Fournier, Prof Hackel (in Engl, und Prantl, 

 Nat. Pflanzenfam. 2, vol. ii. pp. jS, 78; the ''True Grasses,'' pp. 

 170-174) placed Jouvea near Moncrina and Tschmiriis in Hordeae. 



r 



Although the position here assigned is, to me, unsatisfactory, I 

 am unable to find another where the peculiar characters of the 

 grass will render the relationship less questionable. As the tribes 

 of the family are defined by Bentham and by Hackel our grass 

 would certainly fall under Hordeae, and would not fall under any 

 of the others excepting the characters of these be modified. If 



properly referred, it is remarkable as being the only dioecious 



grass among the Hordeae. 



i 



Pentarrhapiiis Fournierana, Hack. & Scribn. 



Among the plants collected by Mr. C. G. Pringle in Guadala- 

 jara, Mexico, in 1889, there is a grass which in a recent collection 

 from the same region (Palmer No. 200, 1886) was referred to 

 Boittcloiia^ {B. Fourierana^ Vasey, Proc. Amer. Acad xxii. 461, 

 without description) but from which genus it differs in several essen- 

 tial characters. I sent samples of this grass, along with some others 

 of Pringle's collection, to Prof Hackel, and in referring to the lot 

 Hackel says: "There are several very interesting species in it, 

 and above all there is what I believe to be the lon^cr-forgotten and 



Pentarrhaph 



No. 2559. It does not match fully the species described by 

 Kunth in Humb. Bonpl. Nov. Gen. et. Spec. i. p. 178, t. 60, viz. P. 

 scabra, but differs In several points, chiefly in having tzvo spikelets 

 on each node of the rhachis instead of one, and in the smaller 

 number of setae at the base of the twin spikelets. These setae, 

 which Kunth believed to be the teeth of a supposed **glunia steri- 





