32 Dansk Botanisk Arkiv, Bd. 2. Nr. 8. 



A few years later F. Buchenau (Abhandl. Naturw. Verein 

 Bremen, II, 1871) for the first time makes an elaborate study 

 of the species, clearing up the differences in a very good manner. 

 Later (in Engler's Botan. Jahrb. II, 1882) he comes back to the 

 matter, and has several additions and corrections to make although 

 still in the main at the same standpoint as in 1871. Not much 

 different from this is his monograph of 1903; only he adds a 

 new West-Australian species, viz. T. Miilleri. 



Since the publication of Buchenau's monograph N. E. Brown 

 (Kew Bull. 1914, 189) has described T. Stowardii from Beverley, 

 W. A., and A. J. Ewart (Victor. Natur. 23, 1906, 43) raised T. 

 turrijera (T. centrocarpa var. turrifera Luehm.) from Victoria to 

 specific rank. 



From my examination of rich material of all these small plants 

 I have arrived at the conclusion that Buchenau's delimitation 

 on the whole holds good, and that it is not permitted, as Bentham 

 did, to unite them into one "species". But there are some smaller 

 points in which I do not agree with Buchenau. 



Often two or more species grow together on the same spot, 

 and this has made much confusion, as the older collection num- 

 bers sometimes contain more than one species and therefore have 

 been quoted in one way by one author, in another by another; 

 this is specially the case with Preiss's plants. 



Such small and simple plants with filiform leaves and small 

 inconspicuous flowers in erect racemes, do not show many di- 

 stinction marks, and it is, therefore, but natural that all authors 

 have laid stress upon the only more prominent character, viz. 

 the shape of the fruit. In reality we find here very good di- 

 stinctions between the species, but on the other hand it must be 

 admitted that there is a marked variability, pointing towards the 

 probability that even the now recognized species are collective. 

 Culture experiments will undoubtedly result in the recognition of 

 many micro-species, and it seems that this group of the genus 

 is very polymorphous. 



My investigation has led me to keep the following species 

 as distinct: 



1. Triglochin calcitrapa Hook., Icon. pi. VIII (1845), tab. 731; 

 Buchenau, Pflanzenreich (1903) 12. 



This species is easily distinguished by the 3 — 4,5 mm long, 

 pyramidal-linear fruits with long, curvate basal spurs. The leaves 

 are setaceous-filiform and much shorter than the fruiting scapes. 

 As Buchenau (1. c.) has pointed out, some specimens are larger 





