242 flora indica. [Nymphaacece . 



similar to all the figures quoted above. It is quite impossible to reconcile the de- 

 scriptions of authors with all the plants we have brought under JV. Lotus, whether in 

 a state of nature, cultivation, or in the Herbarium, fie Candolle describes JV. Lotus, 

 pubescens, and rubra, as distinct species, but gives no diagnostic character, except the 

 spots of the leaves of JV. pubescens, which we do not find to be constant even on in- 

 dividuals. Andrews (Bot. Kep.) says of JV. rubra that it is allied to JV. Lotus, but 

 is certainly specifically distinct in the colour of the flowers. Sims, in the c Bota- 

 nical Magazine/ figures JV. rubra, var. rosea, with spotted leaves ; and De Candolle 

 quotes the plate under his JV. rubra, whose diagnostic character is "foliis immacu- 

 latis." Lehmann (Ueber die Gattung Nymphaea) enumerates JV. Lotus of Roxburgh's 

 'Flora Indica 5 as the plant of Linmeus, and retains also JV. rubra, Roxb., and pubes- 

 cens, "Willd., as distinct; whereas Planchon, who publishes, in the same year with 

 Lehmann, his f Etudes sur les Nympheaeees,' quotes JV. Lotus, Roxb., under L. pu- 

 bescens, Willd., and keeps JV. Lotus, L., and JV. rubra, Roxb., distinct ; he also 

 quotes the var. rosea under rubra, but remarks its spotted leaves. Wight and Ar- 

 nott distinguish JV. pubescens, Willd., from JV. rubra, Roxb., by its spotted leaves 

 and white flowers. Planchon lays some stress upon the colour of the stamens ; these, 

 however, vary from white to red, with often an orange-yellow shade, and when much 

 pollen is scattered about, they appear still more yellow, whence probably the yellow 

 stamens of Wight's figure. Roxburgh says of JV. Lotus, that it differs from JV. rubra 

 in the colour of the flowers only, which are white or pink, and yet he describes a 

 variety of rubra as having rose-coloured flowers. These contradictory statements 

 are of themselves suggestive of all belonging to one species ; and that such is the 



case we are perfectly satisfied, after an attentive study of all the states, living and 

 dried. 



With regard to Edgeworth's JV. sagittate, it is founded on a young leaf of JV. 

 rubra : we have from Assam a perfectly similar leaf attached to the same rhizome 

 with an older leaf of the ordinary form. In Royle's Herbarium we find one speci- 

 men labelled "JV. Lotus, rosea, and pubescens ;" indicating that these are considered 

 one species by him; and another specimen, called " N.Lotus flore.rubro," is Roxburgh's 

 JV. rubra. W T ith regard to the JV. Devonienxis of the 'Botanical Magazine,' it is a 

 common Bengal state of JV. rubra, as described by Roxburgh, and not, as some sup- 

 pose, a hybrid. We have most carefully compared the Indian plant with many 

 African specimens of JV. Lotus, from the Nile, Senegal, and Sierra Leone, and con- 

 fidently pronounce them the same, as indeed Roxburgh supposed. Planchon charac- 

 terizes the Egyptian variety of JV. Lotus as having all the anthers shorter than the 

 filaments, but this is certainly not the case in Daraietta specimens. Under JV. pu- 

 bescens, Willd., he says that, except by the locality, it is difficult to distinguish it 

 from JV. Lotus, but that, whereas the dense pubescence is constant in JV. pubescens, 

 it is accidental in JV. Lotus; this appears to us to be saying, in other words, that one 

 of these is an accidental variety of the other, for if it varies in pubescence in Egypt, 

 and is always pubescent in India, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the pubescent 

 state is the typical. 



Lehmann's N. semisterUis is the common form of the JV. Lotus of Limircus and 

 Roxburgh, as we ascertained on collecting it; nor can we doubt that Waldstein 

 and Kitaibel were right in referring the Hungarian plant to JV. Lotus, from which it 

 does not appear to be distinguished by any character of importance. To ourselves, 

 indeed, it appears very remarkable that it should not ditFer as a strongly marked va- 

 riety at least, considering that Hungary is far north of its usual habitat, and that it 

 is dependent on the thermal springs for its existence. We have very carefully com- 

 pared dried specimens and the plate with our Indian and Egyptian plant. We have 



not^ seen other authentic specimens of JV. edulis, DC, than those in Wallich's Her- 

 barium. 



Planchon says of the section Lotus, "anthesi nocturna." This is a subject re- 

 quiring investigation. In India we have found JV. Lotus expanded during the day, 

 but cannot say whether the weather had any influence. Sims (Bot. Mag.) states that, 

 though the Marquis of Blandford's specimens and those in Kew Gardens blossomed 



