340 FLOHA INDICA. [NymplnjeucecE . 



Several authors have asserted that Ni/mi^htsaceiv form an exception to the rule that 

 ■water-plants are widely dilTused, a statement we cannot confirm, for a detailed study of 

 the Asiatic varieties assures us that they afford a remarkable confirmation of that rule. 

 The species, however, are exceedingly variable, exhibiting that tendency to sport 

 which so many thalamiflorous polypetalous plants do ; and this circumstance, together 

 with that of there being few badly preserved specimens in Herbaria, sulEciently 

 accounts for the prevalent but most erroneous impression that the genus contains 

 many species, and that these are confined to narrow areas. Of the amount of vari- 

 ation to which they are subject, few botanists appear to have any idea ; but we have 

 been accustomed in India to see the same species assume several varieties in one tank, 

 differing in leaf and flower, size, colour, number of petals, stamens, and stigmata, 

 and we much doubt if there be more than four decidedly distinct species within the 

 limits of our Flora. 



Upwards of sixty species have been recorded by lehmaun, in his recent enumera- 

 tion (' Uebcr die Gattung Nymphsea'), of which eleven are said to be Indian, the 

 latter estimate being quite at variance with our experience. Planchon again cur- 

 tails the genus to thirty-eight species, including eight or ten doubtful ones, and nine 

 Indian, of which four are doubtful. This also exceeds om- estimate, and evidently 

 Planchon's too, for that author indicates with great judgment a considerable number 

 of the described forms as being possibly varieties, but these he is not able to reduce 

 for want of materials. We are perfectly aware that, in reducing almost all the 

 Indian species, except N. alba- and N, pjc/mcBa^ to the weU-known N. Lotus and 

 stellata, we are exposing ourselves to a most severe criticism on the part of both 

 botanical authors and horticulturists ; we must, however, in accordance with our 

 principles, do so, admitting, at the same time, that we , shall be only too glad to 

 revise our opinion wheu botanists with equal means of judging shall point out some 

 structural peculiarities that may afford tangible characters whereby to discriminate 

 them. We cannot, in the meantime, withhold the result of our very long and 

 detailed study of the species in a wild, cultivated, and dried state, nor hesitate to 

 impress upon botanists the obvious bearings of the facts, — that all authors who have 

 written on this genus are at variauce with one another, — that it is impossible to 

 distinguish their species in a dried state, — that the characters hitherto published as 

 specihe are those of individuals, and not of species, — that all water-plants are vari- 

 able, and have wide ranges, — that all polypetalous flowers with a gradual transition 

 from sepals to stamens are notoriously variable, — and that, though no single author 

 has grouped all those species under two which we now have, there is not one of 

 the species wc have so reduced that has not been referred to Lotus or stellata by 

 some author of note, excepting the most recent species of Lehmaun and Edgeworth, 

 and these we have ourselves fortunately examined in the living state. Lastly, we 

 are glad to be able to give the authority of J. Smith, whose botanical knowledge 

 and experience in the Royal Gardens at K.ew entitle his opinion to the greatest re- 

 spect, for saying that all the species we have referred to N. Lotus and N, stellata 

 present no specific characters whatever under cultivation, the differences amongst 

 them being all of degree and inconstant throughout. Except, indeed, considerable 

 allowance be made for variation in the species of this genus, there are no limits to 

 them, for twelve have been made out of the European N. alia alone, excludiug the 

 Indian N. Cacliemiriana, which is the same plant, as is probably the N. odorata* 

 of North America also. 



1. N. alba (L. Sp. PL 739); foliis cordatis integemmis, Horibus 

 alljis, sepalis obtusis tenuiter iiervosis, antheris mutiois, stigmatis radiis 



* Professor Henslow, who has both plants in cultivation in the same pond, fails 

 to find any characters whereby to iJistinguish them. De CandoUe says it is often 

 confounded with N, alia, but certainly distinct : he gives no distinctive characters, 

 however. 



