239 



publishes it under a new specific name, 6\ occidcntalis. His de- 

 scription agrees in every respect with that of Michaux, except 

 that the leaves are described as linear, acute, and finely serrulate. 

 Rafinesque, in reviewing Pursh's Flora in the American Monthly 

 Magazine, criticized Pursh's treatment of the plant and proposed 

 a new name Philotria, under which the plant is now to be known. 

 Nuttall, in his Genera, proposes another new name Udora, and 

 cites Elodea Michx. as a synonym, but describes the plant as 

 being dioecious, the staminate flowers as having nine stamens and 

 the pistillate as having three sterile filaments and three ligulate 

 bifid stigmas. He added also : " flowers very small and evanes- 

 cent, the female emerging ; the male migratory, breaking off con- 

 nection usually with the parent plant, it instantly expands to the 

 light, the anthers also burst with elasticity and the granular pol- 

 len vaguely floats upon the surface of the water." Torrey, in 

 the Flora of New York, describes Udora as being polygamous, 

 the sterile flowers with nine stamens, the fertile ones with three 

 to six stamens and cuneiform two-lobed stigmas. 



How are these conflicting descriptions to be reconciled ? Have 

 some of the authors mentioned given erroneous descriptions ? 

 Are there more than one species which have been confused, or is 

 Philotria canadensis such a variable plant both as to flowers and 

 leaves? If there are more than one species, are they all polyg- 

 amo-dioecious with three kinds of flowers : staminate with very 

 short perianth-tube and nine stamens, pistillate ones with long tube 

 and no stamens or merely rudimentary filaments, and hermaphro- 

 dite flowers similar to the pistillate ones but somewhat larger and 

 with three to six stamens ? These are questions to be answered, 

 and botanists who have an opportunity to study the plants are 

 invited to make thorough field study on these interesting water- 

 weeds. 



The study, as far as it has been done now, has given the fol- 

 lowing suggestions and conclusions, drawn mostly from the litera- 

 ture on the subject and from herbarium material. There seem 

 to be more than one species, probably six or seven. As far as 

 the material on hand shows, the plant with broad and obtuse 

 leaves, originally described as Elodea canadensis, seems to be 



