PYROLA APHYLLA: A MORPHOLOGICAL STUDY, 
THEO. HOLM. 
(WITH PLATE XVII) 
It would seem very strange if there really existed a trily 
leafless species in a genus like Pyrola, of which all the other 
representatives are not only leafy, but even evergreen. One might 
think at a first glance that the lack of proper leaves would influ- 
ence the species so much in its mode of growth, as a saprophyte 
or parasite, as to warrant its segregation from the genus Pyrola 
Entire genera devoid of proper leaves are not so very scarce is 
the phanerogams, but in no case does there exist a genus which 
contains autophytic, saprophytic, and parasitic species. There 
are several families, on the other hand, in which we meet with 
both leafy and leafless genera; for instance, the apparently leat 
less Epirhizanthes among the Polygalacee; Voyria and Voyti 
ella among the Gentianacez ; Monotropa, Sarcodes, Pterospol™ 
etc., among the Pyrolacee; Neottia, Corallorhiza, etc. among 
the Orchidacee; and, finally, Baillon’s remarkable Oe 
among the Iridacee.t These instances are familiar to nae 
we are unable to cite any genus which has both mee: Ge 
and parasitic species, with the exception, as it has pare : 
of Pyrola. The fact is, however, that, notwithstandi | | 
ments made by such prominent authors as DeCa® ee eg 
Hooker, the plant is not by any means aphyllous, but o 
dently received its name for the same reason that Galax “— 
named aphylla by Linnzus, the original specimens having 4 
imperfectly represented the species. Thus has ispecies 
described our Pyrola as ‘‘foliis veris nullis” and as 4 
absentia foliorum spectabilis et quasi ad Monotro} alle 
while Hooker goes still further in stating ‘‘folia © 
. asticle: : 
‘For references consult the bibliography appended to this ~~ [an® 
246 
