‘278 NOTES ON THE GENUS YUCCA. 
It thus happened that these plants fell into the hands of professed horticulturists, and — 
perhaps because the herbaria could afford only few and very incomplete specimens — scientific 
botanists rather shunned them, as they did many other such plants, and notably among them the 
Cacti. With these they share the precious property of being easily propagated from some, perhaps 
a single, imported specimen; hence, the individual peculiarities of such specimens, propa- 
gated a thousand and a thousand fold in the course of a century (for most of our cultivated [18] 
Yuccas have been thus long in the hands of nurserymen), at last impress the observer with 
the dignity of specific characters. But the botanist finds it necessary to fall back on the organs of 
inflorescence and fructification as the only safe guide in such difficulties; here, however, the culti- 
vated Yuccas leave us in the dark. They yield us flowers, to be sure, but we find the flowers so 
very similar in many species, and again so dissimilar in different forms of the same species, that 
evidently but little light can be obtained from their study. And the fruits? Unfortunately the 
Yuccas scarcely ever have borne fruit in European gardens. The difficulties are increased by 
the fact, that, as will be shown below, in their native homes these plants vary remarkably in the 
structure and the form of even their more important organs; and until fuller examination of native 
forms can be had we must remain in considerable doubt as to the limits of species. 
My attention was drawn to this genus, when, since 1842, Mr. F. Lindheimer sent several then 
undescribed species from Texas, and Dr. A. Wislizenus, and after him Dr. J. Gregg and Mr. A. 
Fendler, others from New Mexico and Northern Mexico. <A few years later the botanists of the 
Mexican Boundary Commission and of the Pacific Railroad exploring expeditions added to the 
stock of our knowledge, and within the last decade the explorers of the botany of California and of 
Arizona filled up some further gaps. Within the last two years an unpretending physician of South 
Carolina, Dr. J. H. Mellichamp, who does not even claim to be a botanist, but is imbued with 
arduous zeal and keen sagacity, and who lives right among the Yuccas, has wonderfully improved 
his opportunities, and has very greatly aided me in my investigations by specimens as well as by 
his observations. I may add here that also on other families of plants of his rich State, already so 
long and well known through the labors of a Walter and an Elliott, have his researches shed new 
light, as will appear in future pages of these Transactions. 
aving thus been interested in the Yuccas for many years, I ever had an eye on these plants, 
and in my travels in Europe I neglected no opportunity to study them in the herbaria as well as in 
the gardens. There I was first struck with the “fact” that “Yuccas do not bear fruit.” To be 
sure, I had seen the fruits in the Texan and New Mexican collections, and had observed the 
capsules in our St. Louis gardens; but I found none in Europe, or almost none, I should say, [19] 
for in the botanic garden of Venice I gathered the pulpy pods from a large Yucea aloifolia, 
about 15 feet high. This was the only Yucca fruit seen by me in Europe, though I have since 
learned that in other instances also, yet exceptionally, way and good seed have been produced there, 
principally by this same species, and very rarely b ; 
The question why the flowers should almost meiner fail, had been frequently discussed and 
various reasons suggested, such as sexual incompleteness of the flowers or impossibility of self- 
fertilization of plants originating from the same stoc 
I had observed that all the Yuccas which came under my notice, opened their more or less 
pendulous flowers in the evening, and half closed them during the following day, after which they 
withered.* The anthers were observed to open a little before the flowers did, and to expel a large- 
grained glutinous pollen, which did not seem to readily find its way to the stigma. And how is the 
stigma constituted? The conspicuously papillose termination of the pistil had always been con- 
sidered the stigma, but closer examination showed its papille to be epidermidal appendages, corres- 
* See notes by the author, in Bulletin Torrey Bot. Club, 1872, III. 33, 37; and Gardeners’ Chronicle, July 13, 1872. — Eps. 
