If we take our idea of the genus Lysurus from the original species, 

 it has a columnal stem constricted at the top, and bearing at the summit, 

 free, spreading, pointed, tubular arms. It is an idea essentially dif- 

 ferent from that of the genus Anthurus in the sense of Kalchbrenner. 3 

 A comparison of the figure which is supposed to represent the original 

 Anthurus, and of our American plant (fig. 169) will I think show that 

 they should be classed in different genera. 



Alcoholic specimens of the eggs of the original species of Lysurus 

 were sent to Patouillard and he found the gleba was borne on the outer 

 surface of the arms, and from this one fact he evolved a theory of 

 classification of the phalloids, the primary division being those with 

 the gleba "internal" or "external." Fischer, in Saccardo (vol. 7) 

 and in his early work, draws the distinction between Anthurus and 

 Lysurus on the lines of the authors of the original genera. When 

 Patouillard's paper appeared, Fischer changed his definition and dis- 

 tinguished "Lysurus from Anthurus by the former having the inner 

 faces of its arms smooth and not covered by the gleba, while they are 

 so covered in Anthurus." I think it would have been better to have 

 left it as it was originally, for it was a very plain and easy dis- 

 tinction between the genera, and according to the modern definition I 

 do not believe that any one can tell to what genus most of the museum 

 specimens belong. They seem, as does Burt's sectional drawing, to 

 have the gleba pretty well surrounding the arms. We therefore believe 

 that our American plant should be placed in the genus Lysurus accord- 

 ing to the original, and in our opinion, the only practical distinction 

 between these two genera. 4 



I have a very interesting note from Professor H. C. Beardslee in 

 regard to the occurrence of Lysurus borealis at Cleveland. 



"The first time I saw it, it was sent to Cass School by a gardener from 

 the west side of the city, where it had appeared in some abundance on a pile 

 of rotting sod, and was sent to Professor Comstock for identification. The 

 same year a second collection was made also on rotting sod. This was the 

 last appearance for three years when I again found it in Cleveland, this time 

 coming from the public schools, where it was brought by a boy who was a 

 member of the botany class. He reported that it grew in a neighboring garden 

 and that he gathered more than one hundred plants. I again discovered it when 

 I was visiting my brother in Cleveland for a day or two. He reported that a 



2 The original drawing from Perrottet, India, that was sent to Montague and on which the 

 genus Calathiscus was based, is an Anthurus in the sense of Kalchbrenuer. The figure that 

 represents the genus Calathiscus appears to have been purely an imaginary production with 

 no resemblance whatever to Perrottet's sketch. We expect to explain the matter in full some 

 day, and at present only refer to it incidentally to show that there is collateral proof of a genus 

 Anthurus in the sense of Kalchbrenner. We hope however that Professor McGinty will not 

 run across this item, for if he does he will undoubtedly transfer all the species of the genus 

 Anthurus to the genus Calathiscus, in keeping with the " rules." 



3 And reference to Kalchbrenner's description of Anthurus (Grev. 9, p. 2) shows that it was 

 this distinction that he had in mind when he proposed the genus, and he expresses it very 



<We also believe from our comparative study of dried specimens of Lysurus Gardneri of 

 Ceylon Lysurus Australiensis of Australia and Lysurus borealis of America that they are all 

 one and the same species. We are not now in position to prove it, however, and shall employ 

 these local names until (or unless) we can procure further evidence. Photographs of the fresh 

 plants of Ceylon and Australia would soon settle the question. 



352 



