

6 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



which W. Bartrarn obtained his specimens, and which has been 

 visited by the writer. While describing the pitchers accurately, be 

 mistook these for a floral part — probably a spathe — and so says : 

 " La fleur et son parapluie, colores de blanc et veines de rouge, ne 

 presentent cependant aucun vestige de fecondation, ni etamines, ni 

 pistils, ni ovaires," &c. Having no special botanical proclivities, he 

 failed to name the species so graphically described, but this want 

 was supplied by Rafinesque,* who gathered Robin's account into 

 the following diagnosis: — " 17 Sarracenia leucophylla Raf. Foliis 

 tubulosis, strictis, elongatis, teretis, albo coloratis, rubro venatis, 

 intus retrorsum hirsutis, fauce undulata, appendice fimbriata dilatata 

 operculis Ratpathe (sic) velu I Rob. p. 832, and v. ii. p. 48. Grows 

 in swamps near Pensacola ; leaves smelling like honey, and decoy- 

 ing insects, who, seeking for the honey, are entrapped within the 

 leaves, and prevented to come out by the rigid thick hairs. Robm 

 took the leaves for a flower or spatha." 



Thus Bartram's S. lacunosa (1794) and Rafinesque's S. leuco- 

 phylla (1807) alike antedate Croom's name (1848), and both writers 

 sufficiently characterize the species. It seems remarkable, there- 

 fore, that Gray, in his Synoptical Flora, i. 79 (1895), should say, 

 under the section S. Drummomlii, u 5. leucophylla Raf. Fl. Lud. is 



essentially fictitious." One is at a loss to understand how a 

 botanist — speaking of the work of another botanist, erratic though 

 he may have been — should have so characterized a good specific 

 description, even though drawn from the observations and descrip- 

 tions of another. Granting, as seems to be true, that Rafinesque 

 wrote his descriptions of species collected by Robin from the 

 writings of the latter, without having seen his specimens, the 

 reference to Rafinesque's diagnosis as "essentially fictitious 1 ' can- 

 not be justified, particularly as Gray seems to have made no effort 

 to compare Rafinesque's and Robin's descriptions, or to ascertain if 

 such a plant grew in the Pensacola region. 



IV. 



VARIOLARIS 



This species was first sufficiently described by Walter under the 

 above name in his Flora Caroliniana, p. 153 (1788). Though his 

 nomenclature has since been retained by various European and 



botanists, the later name of Michaux— S. varioiaris—h&z 



American 



gained greater popularity. I do not see, however, that the prior 

 name should be supplanted, especially as it has gained fairly wide 

 acceptance. But the species was known much earlier, and several 

 good specimens exist in the older herbaria which long antedate 

 Walter's time. Thus, in the Sloane Herbarium, vol. cccxiv. 34, 

 are two leaves and three flowers of this species labelled, " Limomo 

 congeneri Clusii affinis." Ray's description is by no means so 

 perfect as might be desired, but it antedates that of Walter by fully 



eighty years. 



Mr. Britten has brought together information regarding the 



t 



* Flonda Ludoviciana, 14 (1817). 

 t Joum. Bot. 1894, 332. 



