C. H. Ostenfeld: Contributions to West Australian Botany. II. 31 



uf them, I became interested in their systematical relations, which 

 are considered in different ways by different authors. 



Through the kindness of Professor A. J. Ewart and Mr. J. H. 

 Maiden I got a good number of duplicates from the rich collec- 

 tions in the National Herbariums of Victoria and New South 

 Wales. I have further had access to the specimens in the Her- 

 barium of Berlin, which have been used by the monographer of 

 the genus, F. Buchenau, and I have examined several sets of 

 Preiss's plants, of which especially the herbarium of Lund, Sweden, 

 has a very good one, with labels written by Nees ab Esenbeck. 

 With exception of the collections in Kew and London I have, I 

 think, in this manner succeeded in inspecting all the more im- 

 portant sources of our knowledge as to these plants, and have 

 seen all the Australian species of the genus, in many cases even 

 specimens from the type collection. 



The late F. Buchenau made a careful study of this genus, 

 and has written several papers about it, his last publication being 

 the monograph in "Das Pflanzenreich" (1903), in which he re- 

 cognizes 6 annual species. Later, two more annual species have 

 been published. 



Amongst these species Triglochin mucronata R. Br. differs widely 

 from the others by its turbinate fruit with reflexed mucronate car- 

 pel-apices; it seems to be common around Swan Riwer and has a 

 wide range in the extra tropical Australia. I found it in plenty 

 near Bayswater (No. 140, 18. Oct. 1914). 



All the other annual species are closely related one to another. 

 Bentham (Fl. Austr. VII, 1878) even unites all the then described 

 forms into one species, T. centrocarpa Hook., but no doubt Buchenau 

 and F. v. Müller were right in splitting these plants into several 

 species. 



T. centrocarpa Hook, and T. calcitrapa Hook, were published 

 in Icon. pi. VIII (1845) as tab. 728 and 731 respectively. Next 

 year (1846) T. trichophora was described by Nees ab Esenbeck 

 in Plantæ Preissianæ (II. 1, p. 54). Then follows T. nana F. v. 

 Müll, in Trans. Victoria Inst. I (1854) and in Hook. Journ. of Bot. 

 VIII (1856) 332. In 1867 F. v. Müller (Fragm. Phytogr. Austr. 

 VI, 82) gives a new latin diagnosis of his species, explains the 

 differences between the hitherto known species (quoting the nos. 

 of PI. Preissianæ) and mentions -- without any real description 

 — a new species T. minutissima. He is much in doubt as to 

 the value of all the species, and writes: Forsan omnes hæ plantæ 

 confluunt. 



