barnhart: genera in lentibulariaceae 63 



A. Pemphigina subgen. nov. CoroUae labia lata; ascidii os 

 nudum. 



B. Hydrion subgen. nov. Corollae labia angusta; ascidii os 

 proboscidiferum. 



The genus, of about 8 species, is known certainly from the New 

 World only; but it is not unlikely that Utricularia tubulata F. 

 Muell., of Australia, wall be found to belong here. 



Vesiculina, as published by Rafinesque, was a very unnatural 

 grouping of diverse elements, and it is only by accepting the 

 first species named by him as the type of his genus that his name 

 can be made use of here. Pemphigina is the typical subgenus, 

 wuth the same type species as Vesiculina; the type of the subgenus 

 Hydrion is Vesiculina cucullata comb. nov. {Utricularia cucullata 

 St. Hil.). 



Genera excludenda 



Micranthemum Michx. was considered by St. Hilaire 8l Girard 

 (1838) to be intermediate between Lentibulariaceae and Scrophu- 

 lariaceae. No one has ever definitely referred it to the former 

 family, and it is now universally placed in the latter. 



Benjaminia Mart. {Quinquelobus Benj.) was proposed in 1847 as 

 a new genus of Lentibulariaceae. It was short-lived, however, for 

 a year and a half later Bentham called attention (Lond. Jour. Bot. 

 7: 567) to the fact that it was a mixture of three genera belonging 

 to two families, and that no portion of the mixture belonged in 

 the Lentibulariaceae. The type species is probably referable to 

 Myriophyllum . 



Byblis Salisb. was referred to the Droseraceae when first de- 

 scribed (1808), and left there by all subsequent authors for nearly 

 a century. In 1901, F. X. Lang published a study of the Drose- 

 raceae, definitely excluding ^j^^/^'^ from that family, and suggesting 

 (owing to a similarity of certain epidermal appendages to those of 

 Pinguicula!) a possible relationship to Lentibulariaceae. Follow- 

 ing up this suggestion, Engler, in the third edition of his " Syllabus " 

 (1903) and in succeeding editions, has definitely referred Byblis to 

 Lentibulariaceae, creating for it a subfamily Byblidoideae, differ- 

 ing from the rest of the family in all its essential characters. The 

 genus appears to me to be as closely related to twenty or more 

 other families as to Lentibulariaceae; it is probably worthy of 

 recognition as the type of a distinct family, related (as suggested by 

 Diels, in 1906, in his monograph of the Droseraceae for Engler's 

 " Pflanzenreich ") to the Pittosporaceae, and very far indeed re- 

 moved from the Lentibulariaceae. 



