OUR AMPHIBIOUS PERSICARIAS 207 
P. Hartwrightti A. Gray. never except in some subaquatic or 
riparian phases actually at any season is devoid of the character- 
istic spreading borders of its ochreae, and when these are absent 
the short inflorescence and characteristic glabrous long narrow 
leaves make it unmistakeable. If after remembering all these facts 
concerning the resemblance of P. amphibia and P. emersa, as 
also the great differences between the former and P. Hartwrightu, 
we consider that the manual makers have suppressed the specific 
status of the last and retained that of P. emersa, then indeed we 
are justly entitled to wonder by what standards of taxonomy 
such things are done! This too in face of the fact that the aquatic 
phase of P. emersa was described and well known by some who 
took the trouble to investigate. 
The very characterization of plants as “ varieties’? which 
have over and over again been shown to grow on one plant, as is 
done by the manuals, leads us to infer that either the authors have 
a new meaning for the word, or they know not the plants which 
they are trying to describe. What then is it that makes P. emersa 
a valid species, and P. Hartwrightii only a variety? The only 
characters worth while mentioning are the broad leaves of the 
former, its longer inflorescence, crimson flowers. All the others, 
as well as these in fact, vary in the plants so much that I can 
show plants and phases of them that may be referred to any and 
all of the descriptions as found in the New Gray’s Manual, for P. 
Muhlenbergii, P. amphibia or P. amphibia “var’’(?) (!) Hart- 
wrightii. (Gray) Bissel, and yet the specimens grew on one root- 
stock! If then the difference between P. amphibia and P. Hart- 
wrightit is insufficient to merit, in the minds of the manual writers, 
a valid specific standing for the latter, how then is it that with 
no greater reasons for the validity of P. emersa as a species, the 
latter is retained? Reasons or show of reason if any exist I have 
never been able to find. It follows, then that if P. Hartwrighti 
is to be rejected then P. emersa must be reduced to synonymy, 
or made a ‘‘variety.’’ If the two are both valid then Dr. Greene’s, 
and Sheldon’s segregates having equal or greater reason for specific 
standing, must also be accepted. : 
There can be no “half way”’ between accepting all, or rejecting 
all, where all individually have the same or equal reasons for recog- 
nition. We must, therefore logically accept either Dr. Greene’s 
position in the matter of the status of the amphibious smartweeds, 
