T. Holm — Anemonella thalictroides. %43 



Art. XXIY. — Anemonella thalictroides (L.) Spacli ; an ana- 

 tomical study; by Theo. Holm. (With five figures in text, 

 drawn from nature by the author.) 



Among the plants that have been changed from one genus to 

 another Anemonella offers a good example. It was an Anem- 

 one according to Linnseus, who called it A. thalictroides, and it 

 was placed as the last species of this genus. According to 

 Richard it became a Thalictrum: Th. anemonoides, and as such 

 it was accepted by De'Candolle and Gray: Bentham and Hooker 

 brought it back to Anemone, while Prantl removed it from 

 there, and placed it once more under Thalictrum, as a mem- 

 ber of the section Camptonotum. Meanwhile our plant had 

 been raised to generic rank as Syndesmon by Hoffman nsegg, 

 though only as a name (1832), but a few years afterwards 

 Spacli (1839) described it as a monotypic genus : Anemonella. 

 As such it was finally accepted by Gray in his manuscript to 

 the Synoptical Flora. 



In several respects our plant is quite remarkable and 

 possesses some features in common with Anemotie (the involu- 

 cre and the white, petaloid calyx), some others with Thalic- 

 trum (the costate achenium with one pendulous ovule), and 

 finally with Tsopyrum (the habitus). In accordance with our 

 own observation the ovule of Anemonella has two integuments, 

 and in this respect it agrees with Thalictrum, but not with 

 Anemone, in which only one integument is developed. In 

 Lecoyer's* monograph of Thalictrum, our plant is considered 

 a close ally of Th. tuberosum and enumerated as a member of 

 the section " Brevistamines " ; the same disposition has been 

 made by Marief in a paper dealing with the anatomy of the 

 Ranunculacew. 



The anatomical treatment by Marie is, as far as concerns 

 Anemonella, very incomplete, since only dried material was 

 studied. For this reason we have examined the plant again, 

 and the following notes may, thus, be considered as a supple- 

 ment to the various diagnoses already given by other authors. 

 But to draw a comparison between our genus and Isopyrum 

 from an anatomical point of view, as attempted by Marie, is at 

 present not possible ; because Isopyrum is actually an aggre- 

 gate of several very distinct types, of which I. thalictroides 

 seems to be the only one, that has been studied, so far, from 

 satisfactory material. We shall therefore confine ourselves to 

 treat Anemonella alone, but leave the comparison between 



* Bull. Soc. Eoy. de Bot. Belgique, vol. xxiv, p. 78, 1885. 

 f Ann. d. Sc, ser. 6, vol. xx, p. 40, 1885. 



