BT ER 
spora from all localities (namely as to stomata).Those from some 1o- 
callities, e.g. from Ontario-San (Herb Hoober) look exactly as the 
specimens from Feldberg. If it should appear, that the sparse ex- 
istence of stomata is specific to forms of definitive localities, 
namely the southern ones,then we must distineuish a variety or sub- 
species, which is interesting, becanse it represents a transition 
of two lines’and takes an unbalanced position. In that case I shall 
name them ambirua, as the name Braunii must luckily not persist, be- 
cause this name had been given by Unger long ago to another species, 
namely an Isoetes of the Tertiary,which certainly has priority, and 
in addition the advantage, that nobody can know,that it is a bad 
species,because its characteristics are unknowm except for habitat 
and erowth in water, 
I.saccharata probably a good species. Rich with stomata,without 
vescular bundles. 
I.melanopoda With abundand material I have examined exhaustively 
in every respect.Besides the 4 stronger vascular bundels of Engel - 
mannri I saw other smaller ones,those like most europaean Isoetris 
of amphibian habitat. The stomata of water specimens exactly (Canuot 
Okcipher ) as with other Isoetris and with the small terrestial forms, 
but everything smaller. 
Now I want to report about lacustris macrospora. I have seen the 
twin specimen of Mr. Duvien,which has the label "Bethlehem", examined 
it thoroughly, and found not the slishtest difference except the con- 
siderably larger megaspores. But I also have found the twin specimen 
in the Petersburg herbarium and on this it says only "In Sept. Schwei- 
nitz".I thought first that it was riparia, however the description 
shows that it was lacustris macrosp., and in all individual characte- 
ristics so similar to the twin sent to me for inspection,that I do 
not doubt, that all 3 specimens come from Schweiritz, and "Bethlehem" 
% 
6 7 8 9 10 MIıSSOURI 
| BOTANICAL 
(efoJe)igtelai m d-t:1-1@17-Te GARDEN 
