lo ns n\ ■^ ^\' * si: m *. äg © c «t § r 



of imicli confusinii. Lcdchoni',''' at first, had a very wide collective concep- 

 tion of tlic s])ccies includiiiL; liis Siberian sjjeciniens under Chrysanthemum 

 arciicmii L. ]5ut De Caiidolle''' considered the Siberian jjlant as a new 

 species anel described it under the name of Leucanthcinum sibiricum DC, 

 clearly distinijuisliini^ it from J.citcanthcimuii aicticiun DC. of the Kamtschat- 

 can type. This correction is very reasonable from every point of view. But 

 on the other hand his jud^ancnt in reijard to their distincti\e characters are 

 not entirely correct. Mrst, he jwinted out as a differential character the 

 ranious stem of the Sibiiicwn t>'pe antl the simple one of the 

 arcficiiii! type. 'I'his si:ems to me, by no means, to be always constant- 

 Because I find one Kamtschatcan specimen in the Herbarium of our 

 l^ni\(:rsity clearly showing an axilar flower butl, while its leaf characters 

 and other points are exactlj- of the arcticinn type. Moreover this is 

 sup])orted 1)>' the facts that in their nati\-e habitat, we find in the plant 

 of the arctioun t3'i)e l)oth simjile and branched forms growing mixed 

 t(iL;etlier, and that wlien these simj)le stemmed forms were brought under 

 cidti\ation, they became extreniel)- ramous the next j-ear. This plainly 

 shtiws that the ramous and simi)le character of the stem is the result of the 

 niitritixe or some other secondary influences. Secondly it seems to be errone- 

 ous in that lie considered the Gmelin's Kamtschatcan plant as identical to 

 his LcucantlicmiDii sibiiicinn . .\s lias been shown by the subsequent autho- 

 rities, especially, Torry and Gra\-,'^ Herder'-' and Miyabe,''' Leiicantkemmn 

 sibiriciim DC. is an inland plant, while L. arcticuin DC. is a littoral one. 

 This latter fact corresponds very well to the thick and shining characters of 

 lea\-es. l'"or this reason it is ver)- questionable to call the Kamtschatcan 

 plant of (inielin as Leucanthcinum sibiricum DC, although the>' have some 

 resemblance to each other, especially on the point of the branching habit of 

 tlie stem. Besides these two points discussed above, there are also good 

 distinctive characters between them as have clearly been pointed out b}' De 

 Candolle, i.e., pinnatiparted radical and lower stem lea\es and oblong involu- 



1) Ledeboui-, 1-). .\jt., \'ol. IV., \\ 105. 



2) De Candolle, I'rwli-. VI., 45. 



3) Ton-ey ct Gray, I'l. N. Am., \'o!. II.. p. i.p, 



4) Herder. H. R.add. Monop. Bil. III., Heft I., p. 48. 



5) Mi)abc, Fl. Kuiilc I5. p. 242. 



