PHYLLOSPADIX, ITS SYSTEMATIC CHARACTERS 



AND DISTRIBUTION. 



BY WILLIAM RUSSEL DUDLEY. 



The genus Phyllospadix, Hook., was founded on plants col- 

 lected by Dr, Scouler, at Dundas Id., Columbia River, and was 

 published in Hooker's Flora Boreali Americana, vol. ii, p. 171, 

 London, 1838. These plants were pistillate specimens of Phyl- 

 lospadix Scoitlcri, W. J. Hooker, although the author makes no 

 mention of the dioecious character of the genus and perhaps was 

 unaware of it, as he observes that the genus "is separated from 

 Zostera by the single style, capitate stigma, and curious leafy 

 border of the spadix." Not only does he make no mention of 

 anthers but in his figures (tab. 186) are shown an ovoid ovary, 

 the " single style and stigma," the pistils in a single row, and 

 the retinacula forming the " leafy border of the spadix " spread- 

 ing if not recurved. The spadices and pistils of his specimens 

 must have been imperfect, for his correct figure of the plant itself 

 enables us to know the particular form of Phyllospadix he was 

 dealing with, and in all the specimens of this form collected along 

 the Pacific Coast and examined b)^ ourselves, as well as in the 

 still more numerous specimens of Phyllospadix Torreyi, Wats., 

 we find a cordate sagittate ovary, with two laminated stigmas, 

 two rows of pistils, and the retinacula of the pistillate spadix 

 never reflexed or spreading. 



Since its first publication a diagnosis of the genus has natu- 

 rally appeared in other works, among them the following general 

 systematic treatises: 



Watson, Geol. Survey of Cal., Botany, ii, p. 192, 1880. Ben- 

 tham and Hooker, Geneva Planiarum, iii, p. 1017, 1883. Engler 

 and Prantl, Die Natuerlichen Pflansenfamilien, ii, (i) p. 204, 1889^ 



Some of the omissions have been supplied — the most impor- 

 tant being the dioecious character of the flowers, — and some of 

 the errors have been corrected, but not all. As an example, 

 figure B. (after Ruprecht) in Engler and Prantl ii, p. 204, is 

 similar to Hooker's original figure of the spadix and ovaries, 

 excepting that the two stigmas are shown. Fig. A. (also after 

 Ruprecht) is not so good as Hooker's, not resembling the plant 



February 26, 1894. 



