OUR AMPHIBIOUS PERSICARIAS 3 
passing from the spring to the fall plant of one individual; or that 
the plants which “in spring and early summer were Helianthus 
illinoensis were at the time of blooming and fruiting simply Hel- 
ianthus occidentalis.’’ Instead of suppressing the former the 
investigator “proposes that these plants should bear the name 
Helianthus occidentalis ilinoensis Comb. nov.” Strange as this 
may seem, the author of the Helianthus “subspecies”? has made 
a proposition not a jot more absurd than the suppression of P. 
Hartwrightii from specific to varietal standing if 7t was done because 
Massart had shown that it changed into P. amphibia according to 
habitat in which it was found. Such was not the reason for rele- 
gation of P. Hartwrighttt as a variety of P. amphibia though some 
symposium members seem to think so. This is evident from the 
manual itself as the terrestrial form, Polygonum amphibium var. 
terrestre is also mentioned, which may be taken, perhaps, for the 
phase spoken of by Massart. It would seem, however, that in 
view of Massart’s discovery the use of the term “var. terrestre” 
would be eminently objectionable, for one might as well say that 
the caterpillar is a variety of butterfly, a method of phraseology 
which I doubt the authors of the Manual would tolerate or subscribe 
to. 
I have in my personal investigations in the field found that the 
plant which the editors of the new Gray’s Manual designate as 
P. amphibia with its varieties ferrestre and Hartwrightw, has been 
known to have all the three kinds falling under the description of 
that book, on one and the same individual. In other words, by 
uprooting the rhizome near the water’s edge I found branches com- 
ing from it and taking to the water, appear as shiny glabrous floating 
aquatic phase. The shore branches were upright and rough 
pubescent, and the shoots coming out in the grass farther up the 
bank had at least earlier in the season spreading herbaceous tips 
to the ochreae which according to the manual are characteristic 
of the variety Hartwrightu. Three “varieties” on one individual 
rootstock! And yet not one of these phases or forms of the same 
individual were either P. amphibium Linn., or the P. Hartwrightw 
A. Gray, but as I shall indicate later three distinct phases of Per- 
stcaria mesochora Greene! = 
On hearing of the assertion that P. amphibia had been con- 
verted into P. Hartwrightu I made it a point carefully to study 
Massart’s work, and I was not a little surprised on first reading 
