28 The Botanical Gazette. {January, 
naica, microglochin, gynocrates, and dioica to a section 
‘‘Psyllophore” and CC. capitata and scirpoidea to ‘‘Capi- 
tate,” both sections of the group Monostachye. These 
species are widely separated from each other in the system of 
Bailey, so far even that C. microglochin has been enumerated 
as no. I under the section ‘‘Physocarpe,” C. scirpoidea as 
no. 184 under Sphaeridiophore, C. pyrenaica as no, ZI! 
under Lamprochlaene, C. obtusata as no. 215 in the same 
section, while the remaining C. capitata, C. gynocrates, and 
C. dioica as nos. 255, 258, and 259 under the section Acroar- 
rhenz 
Lemcke shows now that these species are most naturally 
combined in one single section, Psyllophore, of the Mono- 
stachyez. C. pyrenaica and C. scirpoidea are closely related 
to each other by having subepidermal groups of stereome in 
their rhizomes, which the others have not. C. pyrenaica has 
thick walled epidermis cells, while these are papillose-prom- 
inent in C. scirpoidea. CC. Fraseri is closely related to these 
two species. 
Tangential aeriferous lacunes are present in the bark of C. 
capitata and C. gynocrates, while these are radial in C. 
dioica and microglochin. C. dioica has a closed sheath of 
stereome around the mestome bundles, which is not observed 
in C. microglochin. It is to be seen from these investiga- 
anatomical structure if we compare the species as they have 
been arranged by Bailey. The large number of well differ- 
entiated species in proportion to the relatively few morpho- 
logical characters makes it exceedingly difficult to reach 
even an approximation to a truly natural classification, but 
we should not be surprised if extended studies justify the 
system given by Drejer in his excellent treatise, Symbolz 
Caricologice.—THEO. HOLM 
