(4) D. PRAIN. REVISION OF THE GENUS CHELIDONIUM. '>l'-'> 



trouble bas been caused by tbo only native American Chélidonium. 

 Tbis species, first described by Michaux in 1803 and then correctiy 

 referred tn its truc genus, was in 1818 advaneed to generic rank by 

 Nuttall. Taken by itself this plant certainly présents no small difficulty 

 since, in place of havinga 2-carpelled.it often bas a 3-4-carpelled ovary. 

 In 1821, however, De Candolle feltthat Nuttall's Styhphorum did not 

 sufficiently differ from Viguier's Meconopgis, a genus founded on the 

 stylate poppy of western Europe (Papaver cambrimm Linn.): and 

 indeed it was not tili 1848 that Asa Gray vindieated the right of 

 Styhphorum to generic rank as apartfrora Meconopsis. This remark is 

 raade with a füll knowledge of the fact that, in 1825. Sprengel still 

 terrned the plant a Styhphorum. For Sprengel in reality dealt with the 

 genus in exactiy the Candollean manner; only, instead of using the 

 narne given by Viguier in 1814 as De Candolle quite properly did, 

 Sprengel with no justification employed that of Nuttall which dates 

 from 1818. 



In spite however of its Papareroid character of ovary and capsule, 

 there is now no doubt. in the light of the évidence afforded by two 

 recently discovered Chinese species, that Michaux was amply justified 

 in referring the American one to Chélidonium. One of thèse, C. lasio- 

 carpum, was described by Mr Oliver in 1887; Mr Oliver bas shown 

 conclusively that though this is a congener of the American Styhphorum 

 it is also undoubtedly a Chélidonium; the further description by 

 Mr Franchet of another, C. mtchuense, almost exactiy intermediate as 

 to fruit between C. diphyllwm and C. lasiocarpum, but bearing greater 

 resemblancc, as regards habit and foliage, than either of thèse others 

 to C. ma/us, makes the séparation of Styhphorum from Chélidonium 

 absolutely impossible. The attempt to separate Chélidonium from Styh- 

 phorum bas been based on the Statement that in the former the stigmas 

 are opposite to, in the latter alternate with. the placentas. The stigmas 

 are, however. in both exactiy the same : in Chélidonium majus the stigmas 

 are alternate with the placentas, the true condition being accurately 

 figured by Caspary iXees, Gen. PL Flor. Germ.) and by Payer (Organ- 

 ogenie, t. 45). 



A similar difficnlty bas occurred. though at a much later date, in 

 connection with a species from Japan and North China. This was first 

 described by Thunberg in 1784 as C. japonictim and was again de- 

 scribed as recently as 1846 by Siebold and Zuccarini. who did not 

 recognise in it Thuuberg\s plant, under the naine of C. uniflorum. 



