1898.] . Notes, 21 



In the same communication Prof. Hartog assumes, rather unwar- 

 rantably, that the facts mentioned in my remarks on Lathrcea were ob- 

 tained from a paper by Groom which was not published until after Mr* 

 Praeger's book had appeared. Surely Mr. Hartog is aware that the sup- 

 posed carnivorous habits of Lathnva were disproved many years ago ? As 

 far back as 1S76 Cohu— admittedly working under the impression that 

 the leaves were animal-traps — examined and dissected large numbers of 

 specimens oi Lathraa at intervals during the summer, but excepting in 

 rare instances found no animals or their remains in the cavities. He 

 therefore concludes that his first impression was erroneous. Cohn also 

 records the significant fact that " these cavities in the leaves are filled 

 with a liquid which must be regarded as the secretion of the glands " 

 {/ahresbericht des Schlesischen Gesellschaft, 1876: Breslau, 1877, pp. Ii3etseq.). 

 Two years later Krause ("Beitrage zur Anatomic derVegetations-Organe 

 von Lathnea Sqiianiaria, L." ; Breslau, 1879) adduces convincing argu- 

 ments against the view that the plant is carnivorous, and concludes a 

 summary of his investigations with the emphatic assertion ^^ Lathtcea 

 Sqiiajuaria is not an insectivorous plant." 



ScherfFel, in his exhaustive article on Lathrcea {Mittheihingen aus dem 

 Botanischen Institute zii Graz: Jena, 1888, Heft 2, pp. 187-21 1) is equally 

 emphatic in his opinion that the theory of Cohn and Krause, as opposed 

 to that of Kerner and Wettstein, is the correct one. After careful, pro- 

 longed, and repeated investigations of the leaf-cavities he only very ex- 

 ceptionally found animals or their remains in them ; he therefore agrees 

 with Cohn and Krause that " the cavities in the subterranean leaves of 

 Lathraa have nothing to do with the capture of animals." 



Finally Hovelacque (Recherches sur I/Appareil V6getatif des Bigno- 

 niacees, Rhinanthacees, Orobanchees et Utriculariees ; Paris, 1888, pp. 

 499-552), after a full account of all the previously published work on this 

 subject, afiirms that "the cavities appear to be rather secretory organs, 

 or even excretory, than absorptive; there is nothing which indicates 

 that they subserve the latter function {i.e. absorption) ; they could, 

 moreover, only act as traps in so far as the secretion which they produce 

 is attractive to insects." 



I think enough has now been said to justify my distrust of Kerner's 

 theory. In my review I mentioned Groom— perhaps inadvisedly— be- 

 cause his work so thoroughly establishes the conclusions arrived at by 

 the authors quoted above, zy^-jj*; authors are " the others " to whom I 

 referred ; not Haberlandt and Goebel as Prof Hartog states, and whose 

 papers I have not yet seen. 



In conclusion 1 should like to say that further acquaintance with Mr. 

 Praeger's delightful book has only intensified the favourable impression 

 that its first perusal made upon me. I regard it as quite the best book 

 that could be put into the hands of all lovers of wild-flowers. 



University College, Nottingham. J. W. Carr. 



