114 THE AMERICAN MIDLAND NATURALIST 
disk of Monotropsis as 5-cleft, while later authors describe 
it as 10-crenate and consider the difference rather a matter 
of degree in»that the earlier authors ignore the secondary 
lobation as a mere trifle, referring only to the primary loba- 
tion while later authors seem to overrate the deepness of the 
secondary lobation. It may be stated here that the descrip- 
tions of certain, if not most of the authors, are not original, 
or else are based on herbarium material of this rare plant. 
The arrangement of the stamens in the Alabama plant is 
2-cyclic in conformity with the pentacyclic flower-plan, which 
is the normal for the group of monotropoid plants. Rafin- 
esque’s statement cited above, indicates that in case of Mono- 
tropsis, deviation from the normal plan occurs. In accordance 
with the statement we are to assume suppression of one stam- 
inal cycle, the antipetalous one, accompanied by duplication 
of the members of the other (antisepalous) cycle. Now, as 
mentioned before, the later authors describe the disk of Monv- 
tropsis as 10-crenate, which means that there are ten spaces 
left which are not occupied by the disk. These unoccupied 
spaces correspond in number with the stamens, of which there 
are likewise ten. This suggests that each space represents 
the position of a respective single stamen. - Judging from this 
point of view, it seems more likely that the arrangement of 
stamens is the same in Monotropsis as in the Alabama plant. 
I surmise that Rafinesque, relying on Schweinitz’s conception 
of a 5-lobed disk, based his opinion upon the same evidence 
used in the above argument, viz., the number of available 
spaces—five in consequence of a 5-lobed disk. If so, then 
the presenting of mere inferences as positive facts would 
appear somewhat unscrupulous. In Monotropsis as well as 
in the Alabama plant the anthers are awnless, transversely 
2-saccate, the sacs introrse, horizontal in the bud with one sac 
superposed above the other, vertical in anthesis, becoming 
confluent and opening by pores. 
The conception of the genus Monotropsis is originally based 
on Schweinitz’s description published in Elliott’s Sketch (1). 
Unfortunately the text is seriously incomplete, eontaining no 
statement on the internal structure of the ovary and none 
whatsoever on fruit. It is therefore of no service for further 
