NOTES ON POTAMOGETON 127 
of Stockholm, and he informed me _ Dr. Tiselius referred the 
specimens to P. nitens Weber. Some of the specimens seemed to 
me to indicate an affinity with P. welaidiie Fryer (non Wulfg.), 
but Mr. ryer on seeing them noted on the sheet, ‘‘ too many veins 
for undulatus.” 
Among a ety series of North American specimens of the genus 
sent me by Dr. Morong were other and more developed specimens; 
i One of the 
changed, no one would discover the difference. I say of ‘“ Nolte,” 
because I believe with Mr. Fryer the bie plant eee had in 
view was more like Mr. Fryer’s f. inv I have a specimen, 
kindly sent from the Kiel Herbarium, ee the plant to artcek Weber 
refers—t. e. one named as a var. of lucens by Hhrhart, and referred 
by him to his nitens. Mr. Fryer sent me a drawing of a cultivated 
plant of nitens in Nov. 1892, which in the upper leaves is quite like 
Khrhart’s plant, and much resembles the floating leaves of P. lon- 
chites (small form), and gesnge: ie P. Claytonii. I have come to 
the conclusion that we must hile: e Weber for nitens; Dr. Tiselius 
cites Nolte as the authority, and we ae many specimens named by 
him ; but the idea that Weber’s -_ might have been polygonifoltus 
I think cannot be upheld. It aid that Weber’s seas is 
om accurate in every detail, Gat ‘qoak old descriptions are? We 
st always remember what scanty material the earlier botanists 
othe had to deal with. Moreover, P. Dolygors/avres is not recorded 
from North America, a very doubtful plant from Newfoundland 
me 
except 
states of P. Claytonii, so much so, that I have specimens cross- 
named by American collectors. And Nolte himself (Nov. Fl. Holsat. 
p. 18), under P. heterophyllus Schreb., says, ‘‘ Affinis est hac species 
BD. nitentt Weberi.” Weber s herbarium seems to have been in the 
possession of a chemist at Neustadt, but I es been unable to trace 
it further. Prahl (Krit. Fl. Schlesw. “Holst. 207) gives under 
nitens ‘* Nortorf in Graben (Weber 1780)” this is in Schlesvig. 
In this Journal for 1865, p. 259, Prof. Babington considers the 
P. lanceolatus of Reichenbach’ s Icones as “ almost certainly a state 
of P. nitens.”’ Reichenbach himself refers it to 
elongatus ; there is in the De rage herbarium a specimen of 
nitens named ‘ P. lanceolatus Sm. B latifolium pape in herb.” : 
I can find no other reference to en: the two. If P. nitens 
Weber were abandoned, the name to be adopted would be P. curvi- 
folius Hartmann, Skan d. Fl. ed. 1, p. 78, 1820: this is six years 
before Nolte’s, which was published i in 1826. 
P. Curtiss Morong in Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, xiii. 145 (1886) ; 
and N. Amer. Naiad. (Mem. Torr. Bot. Club, iii. part 2, p. 36, 
t. 43 (1893) ). 
This rare species is known by very few specimens; no fruit has 
yet been seen, and its habitat (Florida) is remote and rarely visited. 
Dr. Morong makes no comment on its affinities.. In his clavis he 
* Journ. Bot. 1896, pp. 1-3, tt. 353-4, 
