174 FETCH : 



In 1900 Fisclier reiers to Massee's statement in Grevillea, 

 XIX., p. 94 (which I have not seen), that the arms are free, and 

 refers his readers to his views expressed in 1893. 



Recently C. G. Lloyd has published an account of what is 

 known of the Phalloids of Australasia. He gives copies of the 

 figures of Lysums austrahnsis and Mutinus pentagonus, which 

 show that in outward appearance these species closely resem- 

 ble Colus Gardneri. This resemblance has been noted by him, 

 and he expresses his views in the following terms ; — ' ' The 

 early stages of Lysurus with the arms connivent have led to 

 some very misleading pictures. Thus, Berkeley's original 

 picture of Lysurus Gardneri so misled Professor Fischer that 

 he transferred it to another genus, but after he visited Kew 

 and saw that it misrepresented the plant he should have trans- 

 ferred it back. Our American species Lysurus borealis was 

 named Anthurus borealis, but in my opinion is a Lysurus, and 

 I think the same as the Ceylon species. It was originally 

 illustrated with a drawing subject to the same criticism as the 

 original drawmg of Lysurus Gardneri." " Lysurus Gardneri 

 of Ceylon, whicli was so named and described by Berkeley, is 

 a true Lysurus with spreading arms, and not a ' Colus, ^ as 

 found in Fischer's latest work. Fischer referred it to the 

 genus Colus on the strength of Berkeley's figure, and he was 

 justified, if one is ever justified in changing classification on the 

 evidence of a figure. When Professor Fischer came to Kew, 

 however, and saw the specimens, he should have receded from 

 his position, for it is quite evident the plant is a Lysurus, and 

 not a Colus in any sense of the word. The arms are entirely 

 separate and spreading when mature. Like all species of 

 Lysurus, they are connivent when young, but they are not 

 joined at the apex, however slightly." 



It may be pointed out in the first place that this does not 

 represent Fischer's account correctly : the latter did not find 

 the arms free. If the Kew specimens now have spreading 

 arms, how is Fischer's statement to be interpreted ? Again, 

 it seems strange that there should be numerous specimens at 

 Kew, in view of the comparative rarity of the species at the 

 present day. Consignments were sent to Berkeley by both 

 Gardner and Thwaites. Gardner's specimens ought to be in 



«b 



