394 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [NOVEMBER 
opposes this point of view and argues for a “‘final” (which he makes synonymous 
with teleological) neeeriae REINKE cites as illustrations upon which his 
argument is based the behavior of Nuphar luteum and Ranunculus aquatilis 
which in flowing water Aaa no floating leaves or flowers, of Euphorbia Cypar- 
issias whose shoots are distorted by a rust fungus, and of Lentinus lepideus which 
in darkness develops a branching non-fruiting form. These cases he considers 
as undoubted malformations because they are forced departures from the normal 
type. In Nuphar, for example, the form developed in still water is “abnormal,” 
though it always occurs under these conditions. This character, REINKE claims, 
not being “normal” is not heréditary; only the capability of reaction to this 
stimulus is hereditary. One is tempted to ask here, what is the “normal” form 
of this plant but evidence of its capability of reaction to the conditions of still 
water ? 
The branched non-fruiting form of Lentinus occurring in the absence of light 
REINKE discusses at length, and claims it to be a true malformation because it is © 
the result of abnormal conditions, while the fruiting form is “normal” because 
it is the result of “normal” conditions, the test of normal or abnormal conditions 
here being very apparently whether they are the rule or the exception in nature. 
Such “abnormal” modifications according to REINKE all have this character, 
that they are not necessary for the life of the plant, and are not hereditary, but 
only potentially so, in that they occur only as reactions to definite stimuli, 4. ¢., 
the reaction ability is hereditary. When an organism responds to two different sets 
of stimuli by definite reactions in each case it seems to the reviewer rather futile 
to argue that one response is normal and the other is anything else. 
Kiess’s work is freely quoted, and REINKE, as would be expected, takes 
exactly the opposite view, maintaining that there is a definite form which the 
plant is striving to assume, but when certain inhibiting conditions exert their 
influence the morphological equilibrium is disturbed and the plant, against its 
innate forces, is compelled to assume another form. These external factors 
REINKE considers as opposed to the ‘‘normal” form, and the plant, so to speak, 
resists them.—W. B. MacCaLtum 
ITEMS OF TAXONOMIC INTEREST are as follows: K. SCHUMANN (Bot. Jahrb. 
34: 325. 1904) has described a new African genus ise of Apocynaceae, 
and also (idem 331) one (Dolichometra) of Rubiaceae.—W. H. B LANCHARD (Amer- sh 
Botanist '7:1-4. 1904) has Pipe a new species of Rubus (blackberry), ¥! , 
a variety, from Vermont.—H. Curist (Bull. Herb. Boissier 4: 936-951: a 
has described new species of sac eciam (x2), Trichomanes (2), Cyathea (9) : 
and Alsophila from Costa Rica.—P. HENNincs (Hedwigia 43:353-4°° 904), in 
concluding his Ule’s Fungi amazonici, has described as new genera Saccar dom aed 
(Englerulaceae), Zukaliopsis (Perisporiaceae), Asteropeltis and Phaeos 
(Microthyriaceae), Metadothella (Pa digliadsiatench Cicinnobella, Diplodie wi : 
and Septodothideopsis (Sphaeropsidaceae), Poropeltis, Peltistroma, Seynesio ) 
and Phragmopeltis (Leptostromataceae), and Bactridiopsis (Tuberculariacest 
