386 
his Flora Baicalensi-Dahurica (vol. ii. part i., pp. 289, 290), insisted 
on its distinctness. Maximowiez (Primit. Fl. Amur., p. 327 
and Regel (Tent. Fl. Ussur., p. 171) also followed Grisebach, and 
so did most later writers, until Bentham (in Bentham and Flooker, 
Genera Plantarum, vol. iii., p. 1115) expressed the opinion that 
Zizania latifolia, Turez., and Z. aquatica, L., do not differ. He 
emphasised this view in his ‘ Notes on Gramineae’ (in Journ. Linn. 
Si 
p 
41) also admits only one species in Zizania, i.e. Z. aquatica, adding 
that the Asiatic form is a mere variety, The ‘ Index Kewensis,’ 
the ‘ Index Florae Sinensis’ (Rendle in Journ. Linn. Soc. vol. XXXVi., 
p. 345), and recent Japanese floras (e.g. Matsumura, Ind. Plant. 
Japon. vol. ii., p. 87) all enumerate the Asiatic ‘ Water-Rice’ 
simply as Zizania aquatica. It is, however, noteworthy that all 
_ those who have seen the two grasses in the wild state, or have had 
practical experience of them under cultivation, look upon them as 
distinct poke Hance, who published a paper on the Asiatic 
‘Water-Rice’ in the Journal of Botany for 1872 (p. 146), and 
Paillieux and Bois in their valuable ‘ Potager d’un Curieux’ (p. 89), 
treat the Asiatic grass as a distinct species, and the former gives 
specific reasons for doing so, Korshinsky, who collected it himself 
on the Amur, follows Grisebach; and Komarow although he 
enumerates it as Zizania aquatica var. latifolia (Flor. Mandshur. 
vol. i., pp. 261, 262) insists upon its structural distinctness and 
its geographical isolation. . 
It is no doubt justifiable theoretically to reduce the two Water- 
Rice grasses to a common ideal type, but as we know them in their 
present state and for practical purposes they certainly represent 
two perfectly distinct forms, which we may conveniently designate 
species, 
Hance, who knew the Asiatic water-rice well in the living state, 
has given a fairly good account of the characters wherein this grass 
differs from its American congener ; but as his paper has been little 
noticed, it may be useful to point out these differences once more 
and more fully. 
Innovation and duration. —It is well known that Z. aquatica is an 
annual even under conditions which would seem to favour a pro 
longed duration. The young plant early develops vegetative buds 
in the axils of the basal leaves which grow up intra-vaginally into 
leaf-bearing culms. All or most of the culms of a bunch flower 
towards the end of the summer, mature their seeds in the autumn, 
ae then die down, The juvenile state of Z. latifolia is not known ; 
? the adult state it is characterized by the presence of stolons 
whic persist as rhizomes. The latter are deseribed by Hance as 
being “as thick as a swan’s quill, or of even twice that diameter. 
pee rhizomes run to some length, and are clothed at the nodes, 
where they put forth stout fibres, with three ovate-lanceolate 
tongh membranous semi-transparent scales,* embracing their entire 
ee Pe aereR var s 2 ch a aaa 
readily iain Sat hardly be called ‘tough’; they are rather thin and split 
in association cs — ete Hance into stating that there are three of them 
