NOTES ON TRILLIUM 



333 



(ed. V.) 523 (1878). This variety is omitted from the sixth edition 

 of Gray's Manual (edited by Watson & Coulter), and Watson makes 

 no reference to it in his review of the North American Liliacea (in 

 Proc. Am. Acad, xiv.274), though, according to Macoun (Catalogue 

 of Canadian Plants, ii. 49), he there included it under T. cermmui. 

 Macoun, however, states that Watson considered it a form of 

 T. erectwii, and m deference to him places it under that species 

 in his Catalogue, but he is himself of opinion that it is either a 

 distinct species or the western and northern form of T. cernuiim. 

 He says that when fresh the two forms are very distinct, and they 

 differ also in habitat; T. cemnum moreover is scented, the variety 

 scentless. It is evidently a case where observation in the field or 

 of a large suite of carefully dried specimens is necessary. The 

 Canadian plant as sent from Macoun from Lake Superior is, 

 I think, without doubt of ceriiuuiii affinity : in fact, I find nothing 

 to separate it even varietally. 



iii. Species with stigmas springing from a definite style, 



14. T. Catesb^i Ell. Bot. S. Carol, i. 429 (1817). 



Solanum triphyllum ; flore hexapetalo, carneo. Catesb. Carol, 

 i. 45, t. 45 (1771). 



T. ceniuum L. Sp. PI. 339 in part, that is, as regards the Caro- 

 lina plant; Mich. Fl. Bor. Am. i. 216 (1803). 



T. stylosum Nutt. Gen. N. Amer. PL i. 239 (1818) ; Watson in 

 Proc. Amer. Acad. xiv. 275. 



In the absence of the specimens which Elliott had before him, 

 Catesby's figure (which he cites) is the only authority for this 

 species. Elliott remarks on the minute agreement of his speci- 

 mens, collected in the locality mentioned by Catesby, with Catesby's 

 figure, and on the unfair criticism of the latter by Sir James Smith 

 as quoted by Pursh. Smith, in his Spicilegium 4, under T. cernuum 

 L., says : " Icon Catesbaeana tarn iuformis, atque colore tam erronea 

 est, ut eam ad nostram speciem pertinere, nisi herbarium auctoris in 

 Museo Britannico inspexissem, minime crediderim; rara pulchraque 

 haec planta meliorem sane postulat." Smith's criticism recoils on 

 himself ; Catesby's plant, which is still in the British Museum, is 

 quite well represented by the figure in the Carolina book ; it is, 

 however, a distinct species from T. ceinuam L., of which latter 

 Smith's figure (t. 4) is a good representation. 



As noted under T. cernuum, the two species have been confused; 

 but T. CatesbcBi is readily distinguished by its curved undulate petals 

 much larger than the narrow sepals, and the long slender anthers 

 much exceeding the stigmas, which moreover unite below into a dis- 

 tinct style. There seems no doubt from the descriptions that this is 

 the T. cernuum L. of Michaux, Fl. Bor. Am. i. 216, and the T. stylosum 

 Nutt. Gen. N. Amer. PI. i. 239 ; a miserable little specimen of 

 T. stylosum from Nuttall in Herb. Kew. also favours this view. 



Watson [I.e. p. 275) prefers Nuttall's name, quoting T. Catesbcei 

 Ell. as a synonym. This would be correct if the date on Elliott's 

 title-page referred to the whole work, and not, as is the case, to the 

 last portion only. 



