a a = 
a a i 
SOME LITTORAL SPERMATOPHYTES OF THE 
NAPLES REGION. 
Jj. ¥. BERGEN. 
THE strand flora about the Bay of Naples differs so much from 
most of those which have been studied with reference to the toxic 
effect of sodium chlorid solutions that it seemed to the writer worth 
while to investigate the conditions of existence of a characteristic 
association. 
Along a strip of beach sand not quite two meters above the average 
sea level and less than ten meters from the water line, on the margin 
of the Bay of Baiae, a well defined association of somewhat more 
than fourteen members was found. All of these occurred within a 
distance of a hundred meters, measured along the shore. The 
species determined were: 
Euphorbia Paralias, E. terracina, Polygonum maritimum, Matthiola sin- 
uata, *Alyssum maritimum, Plantago Coronopus, Medicago marina, M. litora- 
lis, *Lotus ornithopodioides, Eryngium maritimum, Echinophora spinosa, 
*Senecio vulgaris, *Artemisia variabilis, *Inula viscosa. 
I shall refer to this group as Association A. Other species occur 
as members of the association, but none could be identified with cer- 
tainty at the time when these studies were made (January, February, 
and March). The five species designated by asterisks are much 
more abundant in inland stations than they are as strand plants. 
Conspicuous members of other strand associations neighboring the 
one above given are: Narcissus Tazzetta var., Thymelaea hirsuta, 
Glaucium flavum, and Verbascum sinuatum. Out of the fourteen 
listed above, Euphorbia Paralias, Polygonum maritimum, Eryngium 
maritimum, and Echinophora spinosa are the most notably psam- 
mophilous species. All four of these are capable of growing out of 
drifting sand, emerging again and again as they are partially buried. 
Only a few of the structural peculiarities of halophytes, as enu- 
merated by WARMING,' were to be noted in the association under dis- 
cussion. Studies carried through a considerable part of the year 
* Oekologische Pflanzengeographie. Zweite Auflage. Berlin. 1902. pp. 305-308 . 
327] (Botanical Gazette, vol. 41 
