Western Species of Echinocystu. S4 



old hens of the poultry yard, who took advantage of their tender 

 age and unprotected condition to abuse them terribly; but now 

 the tables are turned, and woe betide the imprudent hen which 

 dares to come near these haughty young natives of the Pacific 

 Ocean. 



I hope to keep the two birds to observe the change of plumage 

 as they approach the age of the adult, in which case I seriously 

 think it advisable that I purchase a meat shop — just for the sake 

 of economy. — H. R. Taylor, in Ornithologist and Ooiogist. 



THE WESTERN SPECIES OE ECHINOCYSTIS. 



That these plants, commonly called Big Root and best known 

 to botanists as species of Megarrhiza constitute a genus distinct 

 from Echinocystis is a doctrine which has nowhere been seriously 

 defended. Dr. Kellogg of San Francisco was first to suggest 

 for them generic rank, publishing early in the year 1854 his 

 "^Mara muricata. But only a year afterwards he brought out a 

 second species not as Mara but as Echinocystis. 



In the sixth volume of Pacific Railroad Reports, published in 

 1857, in a catalogue of the plants of Williamson's Expedition, the 

 name Megarrhiza lor the first appears in print; but no generic or 

 specific character is given, or any synonym or citation of a de- 

 scription; but Dr. Torrey's name being appended as authority for 

 each of the two species indicates that he, at that time, was enter- 

 taining the thought of founding a genus upon these plants; an 

 opinion which, it is quite certain, he very soon afterwards relin- 

 quished; for only three or four years later, in preparing his elab- 

 orate report upon the Botany of the Wilkes' Exploring Expedi- 

 tion, he referred the same plants to Echinocystis. As late as 

 1875, two years or more after Dr. Torrey's death, Mr. Sereno 

 Watson, in the Proceedings of the American Academy gives what 

 is indexed as a Revision of Megarrhiza; but this paper, so far from 

 being the systematic revision of a previously published genus, is 

 the very first appearance of it as characterized. The appending 

 of Dr. Torrey's name as authority for Megarrhiza as a genus was 

 no doubt kindly and reverently meant. Still, the advisability, the 

 lawfulness even, of bringing an author's name, posthumously, to 

 the support of a genus which he in his life time declined to pub- 

 lish, and declined because he doubted, and which he at length 

 cast out of his mind altogether, is to be questioned. 



* Erroneously written Marah by Dr. Kellogg who, as if writing an English name, follows the 

 anglicised spelling of it given in the Kingjames version of the Sacred Scriptures. But the final 

 aspirate in such Hebrew words is always omitted in Latin writing; and this not only because its 

 presence is an obstacle to the declension of a name ; it does not, even in Hebrew represent any 

 sound whatever and therefore ought to be omitted in English as well as Latin. 



