272 



HARDWICKE'S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



[Dec. 1, 1S70. 



say a word about the plant itself. It is a floating 

 plant, with petioled, reniform, entire leaves, and 

 sends down long radicles, or roots, from its hori- 

 zontal stems. These roots, however, never pene- 

 trate the soil. If the reader will examine a fully- 

 developed plant, he will find that it extends itself 

 in a manner somewhat similar to the strawberry, 

 but with this difference : whilst the strawberry 

 sends out runners, which take root and produce 

 new plants, in hydrocharis a stem is produced from 

 the crown of the plant, of variable length, which 

 bears at its tip a solitary bud. This, in fact, is the 

 nucleus of a new plant. At first the bud is ex- 

 ceedingly rudimentary, but it increases in size as 

 the stem which bears it strengthens. It in course 

 of time expands, leaves are thrown out and attain 

 a rapid development, whilst from the base of each 

 leaf springs another bud ; and this process would 

 go on indefinitely, were it not checked by the 

 approach of winter. Thus, it is common to find 

 long strings of these plants so matted together 

 that it is difficult to separate them without 

 injury. 



Now, as to the means by which hydrocharis is 

 sustained during the frosts of winter. In the 

 autumn the development of buds is arrested. The 

 parent plants decay, but the buds, retaining their 

 vitality, fall to the bottom, and there rest until the 

 ensuing spring. I was aware of the existence of 

 these resting buds long ago, when I used hydro- 

 charis as an aquarium plant, but was ignorant of 

 their nature. I supposed — not having made very 

 close observation— that the plant having flowered, 

 the peduncles, as in the little Ranunculus hecleracetis, 

 became deflexed, so as to bring the seed-vessel 

 beneath the surface of the water, and that, upon 

 reaching maturity the capsules fell off and remained 

 at the bottom of the pond during winter. I hap- 

 pened, however, to place in my tank several plants 

 which I knew had not flowered ; yet, as the season 

 advanced, I observed the capsule-like objects upon 

 the tips of their peduncles. A little reflection con- 

 vinced me that they were not capsules at all, but 

 undeveloped buds. I found this to be so upon 

 dissecting a specimen. Each bud was an individual 

 hydrocharis, in miniature. There were rudimentary 

 leaves presenting the same form as those in the 

 adult, — but of course very small,— with the same 

 peculiar variation, the whole being interleaved with 

 membraneous stipules, and so compact that whilst 

 water was allowed to penetrate amongst the leaves 

 (that being necessary for the retention of vitality) 

 they could not suffer by being knocked about whilst 

 lying in this dormant condition. The outer covering 

 was of firmer texture than the rest. The whole 

 structure of the buds I found resembled that of the 

 winter leaf-buds of terrestrial plants. 



The buds of hydrocharis, as before stated, being 

 of greater specific gravity than the water, sink to 



the bottom in autumn. If they did not do this, the 

 first frost that came would probably destroy them. 

 As it is, nature has placed them beyond the reach 

 of the frost, and, as spring advances, the greater 

 warmth imparted to the water by the rays of the 

 suu sets in motion their dormant vitality: they again 

 rise, and as we look upon the surface of the pools 

 where we have so often been pleased by the sight 

 of this favourite plant, we find them again covered 

 with its lovely foliage. I believe the same hyber- 

 nating habit extends to other water-plants, such as 

 llt/riophjllum, Stratiotes, and JJtricularia. 

 Manchester. J. C. 



THE LOTUS. 



TB you have yet half a column to spare for so 

 -*- small a matter, I should wish to observe that 

 to ask for evidence to remove is not, strictly 

 speaking, the same thing as to complain of — an- 

 tiquity. 



I could not find in the frescoes at the British 

 Museum, nor on searching Sir Gardner Wilkinson, 

 sufficient evidence for the statement in the guide- 

 book provided for the public instruction at Kew 

 Gardens, that the Nelumbium speciosum of bo- 

 tanists is identical with the "Sacred Lotus" of 

 the Egyptians. The great authority I quote dis- 

 putes this identity ; and the frescoes, representing 

 other natural objects with singular felicity, fail to 

 supply one recognizable drawing of the plant in 

 question. Your correspondent, studying the same 

 books and pictures as myself, cannot help me, and 

 is content with ambiguity ; and so, for that matter, 

 am I, when I cannot remove it by further informa- 

 tion. Under many circumstances, ambiguity is 

 rather to be rejoiced at than lamented : — except for 

 ambiguity, both of fact and expression/the Pasteur- 

 Pouchet- Bastian-Beale controversy, for example, 

 might die of simple atrophy, which would be 

 melancholy indeed. 



I am now content to be assured that the " Lotus" 

 was a " sacred" flower among the Egyptians, as an 

 emblem of a certain god ; just, may be, as the 

 " Rose " is sacred among us as an emblem of our 

 great goddess Britannia; and that the "Nelum- 

 bium," whose fruit certainly nearly resembles in 

 form a poppy-head, was used as food by that ancient 

 people. But as far as direct evidence goes, it 

 appears to admit of at least a shadow of doubt 

 whether the latter is Egyptian at all ; while, to 

 ordinary mortals, it is surely very unlike a "bean," 

 and it is certainly not the object generally known as 

 the " Sacred Lotus of the Egyptians." Q. E. D. 

 Eor all which, in consideration of the dignity and 

 reputation of this beautiful flower, I am truly 

 sorry. 



C. V. w. 



