NOTES ON POTAMOGETONS. 1838 
Presl. The Ladrone Islands are quite in phe area of its growth, 
and though Chamisso’s description may n actly agree, still 
the imperfect material he had to deal with: will fally explain the 
difference ; hence I am iecog: inclined to think that P. Gaudt- 
chant Cham. will prove to be the proper name for P. mucronatus 
Pres] = P. malaina Miquel, as it antedates Presl’s name by twenty- 
i years. 
P. aNcEPs Fe ae Cat. Pl. Amer. Sept. No. 9 (1813).— 
I see that Mr. N. E. Brown (Suppl. Eng. Bot. p. 56), under 
Impatiens biflora Walt., accepts the above Catalogue for a publi- 
cation of a name. Is this generally so recognised ?* If so, it may 
alter the nomenclature of several North American ee of 
Potamogeton, which I feel sure my friend Dr. T. Morong will be 
glad to have discussed. I know of no safe reference for this species 
of Muhlenberg. 
pamedaNe) | in the New York Medical Repository, v. 350,t named 
several species of N. American Potamogetons; his specimens were 
apparently Dee when he was shipwrecked off the United States 
coast. me at least of them have been traced by various 
means, but about the following I have no serine information :— 
P. borealis, P. epihydrum, P. ar a P. tenuifo 
C . Var. COLEOPHYLLUS Geacahel and P. prcti- 
NATUS ar. ENANTROPHYLLUS Franchet (Camus, Cat. Plantes de 
Prose, ‘Suisse et Belaiants p. 278, 1888) are eye curious errors, 
arising from M. Camus having mistaken sections for var ieties in 
Franchet’s oe de Loire-et-Cher, p. om for _ i of this 
I am indebted to Dr. Bonnet, of Pari 
y of the apenas described . Wolfgang in Boomer & 
Schultes Mantissa, 3, 1827, have been ascertained, but ‘ P. divari- 
catus = P. setaceus Herb. Gilibert”’ is still Sie unth 
(Enwn, iil. 139 (1841) ) suggests ‘* P. obtusifoliv affinis ?”’ P. rigidus 
is another doubtful plant: according to N yman, Supp, Consp. £1 
Europ. p. 286, Lindemann refers this to P. fluitans, while Schmal- 
hausen assigns it to P. petiolatus—two names that may well 
mean the same thing. Probably both these species are contained 
in Lindemann’s herbarium, so rich in Russian plants. If not, 
species to which they should be referred could likely enough be 
ascertained from the MS. of Wolfgang’s monograph of the genus in 
the Moscow Library. Neither Nyman nor Richter mention P. 
divaricatus. 
Of P. reptans Humnicki, Cat. Pl. Luxeuil, 61 (1876), nothing is 
known at Paris (side Dr. Bonnet). Can anyone throw any light on 
this yg i Soca ? 
DR s 0. F. Lang in Flora, p. 472 (1846), is a form tae 
pectinatus, identified by Lang himself with ‘« P, pectinatus L. B. d. 
paceus Koch in 
P. ELEGANS Wallich, ae 5178.—The type specimens of this in 
* (1 1e list is reeily one of names, yey et descriptions or synonymy, 
and has no claim to recognition.—Ep, 
+ This paper is translated by peeveus' in his pt n. de Botanique, ii. 166-178. 
