Macbride — New or otherwise interesting Plants 3 
further points of difference in the groups Jones shows clearly the 
fallacy of creating the genus Toricoscordion Rydb. as distinct 
from Anticlea Kunth, a course which results in the placing of Z. 
Fremontii, because it has a free ovary, in a genus containing species 
to which it obviously is not very closely related. But Jones in 
thus disposing of Toxicoscordion as a segregate of Anticlea (with 
which it should be merged) has failed to show why the latter should 
not be maintained distinct from true Zigadenus, i. e. Z. glaberrimus, 
nor has he answered Rydberg’s statement (quoted above) in regard 
to the relationship of other genera in the Veratreae. Obviously the 
status of Zigadenus as a genus rests upon the value for purposes of 
generic distinction of the differences existing between the original 
species (Z. glaberrimus) and those referable to Anticlea. Rydberg’s 
statement of these points of difference may be repeated here. 
Plant with a rootstock; each petal and ee with two 
Oo 6 0s 6 0 6's 6 6 0 66 6 48 66 6 ee Obes © OS O18 0 6 ee oe 86 8 ee 
In spite of the fact that Jones would dispose of these differences 
as but modifications in each case of a single structural phenomenon 
their existence as distinct and stable characters must be acknowl- 
edged and therefore they must be dealt with solely from the stand- 
point of their value as generic characters. Since, according to 
Rydberg, Amianthium and Stenanthium, Melanthium and Vera- 
trum, genera each 
other than are Zigadenus and Anticlea it becomes necessary either 
to show that Rydberg is wrong in this assertion or to accept Anti- 
clea as a valid generic segregate. Upon first acquaintance with the 
above genera their differences appear, as Rydberg says “ rather 
trifling,” but further study soon discloses the fact that, in reality, 
they are strong. Amianthium and Stenanthium, for instance, are 
ordinarily distinguished simply by the perfect (in the case of the 
former) and the polygamous flowers. But in addition they differ 
widely in the arrangement of foliage and in the type of inflores- 
cence, differences which render them quite distinct in aspect. 
In like manner, investigation of the characters of Melanthium and 
Veratrum leaves no doubt in one’s mind of the distinctness of 
these genera which, though somewhat similar in aspect, possess 
at least three very distinctive characters. It appears, then, that 

