BOTANY. 299 
the expediency of retaining Elodea as the genuine name is very 
doubtful, as the sec. Elodea of Hypericum hasbeen separated as a 
genus by the name of Elodea by Pursh, Spach, Endlicher, and 
others, and as there was manifestly a m mistake in Richard’s original 
definition of his Elodea as applied to the species of Anacharis (if 
they were intended to be included i in it), although that definition 
does suit the South American species described by him and by 
Humboldt. It appears, therefore, to me that we had better retain 
Anacharis as the name of the plant well known in A orth America, 
and, unfortunately, now too well known in Englan 
Doubtless Richard was led to suppose that “the p AiR s plant 
is hermaphrodite from its very close resemblance to his E. guyan- 
ensis, which he had seen alive and then ascertained its hermaphro- 
dite structure. The barren filamen ts found in the female flowers 
Sessile male flowers; the s e of the male “flowers of ‘Anachavis 
being figured and described oe Richard as tubular and bifid, and 
described by A. Gray as sessile, tubular, and 2-cleft. Richard also 
Says that the male ng of Anacharis are stalked and so figures 
_ them, but A. Gray does not say anything on that poin 
r. Syme gives as his opinion that * there are no characters of 
sufficient importance to separate the ERS Hydrilla, Elodea, and 
nacharis,” but in that opinion I cannot concur. Dr. Hooker 
States that the staminodes of the foak flowers of Anacharis are 
: ari derived (?) the state ment f m A. Gray, in who yond book 
mowers ever ge do exist in the United States or ae aie for, 
Axorner Dougie Wip Fiowrr. In July of last year (1871) 
