Hegelmai er Jan.l?, 1868 - 2 - 



entirely different. 



Wolf f ia arrhiza My stomata measurments agree with yours almost 



exactly. Small specimens fron Leipzig had those from 0.03^2- 0.0 36 



robust ones from there 0.03^2- O.O38 



those from Caen( Normandy) O.038 - 0.0^0 



(very robust) 

 Wolffia brasiliensis , Illinois 0.021 - 0.0228 



from Hatto Grosso 0.019 - 0.025 



These values harmonize all more with yours than Weddel!!, and I 

 believe for this reason, that he gave somewhat too small measures. 

 Weddell 1 § work contains by the way much- of excellence». I have not 

 yet compared the fruits of these two Wolf f las , but will undertake in 

 the fall 1 another comparative examinatiorr of all Wolf f ias «What you 

 write about the modus vivendi of W. columbiana does tie in with the 

 small number of stomata and the Image, which one must form a priori 

 by her need to swim. . Karsten communicated something similar to me 

 upon questioning but not clear and definitive. 



Lemna paQclrostata Concerning the difference in the epidermis 

 with 1 perpusilla , the specific examination will have to wait t as I have 

 not yet had the time. In the Berlin herbarium,in case, you are 50041 

 consult it t it exists from y >Ceylon v (Thwaiser ) , f rom the east-indian 



continent (Morker ) f , f rom Japan (Wichura) ;I also have it from. 



thus it is very well distributed,considering f what is knowrr 



•til now of perpusilla . I also include hypothetically sterile ones 

 from Java, Polynesia etc. Those in the Berlin herbariuirr had beenr de- 

 signated from the very beginning as L. minor . In part they were typed 

 by me at the first, hurried perusal; later I iq^L dealfwith the col- 

 lection once more^nd discovered my errors.but have not yet corrected 

 them, because I plan to wait until the plants would have a name# 



