370 Holm . — On Obolaria virginica. 
spoken of as Anonymos humilis , and it was after this that 
Linnaeus gave it the name it now bears. 
The Schiiltzia obolarioides of Rafinesque does not seem to 
be identical with this plant, judging from a comment in the 
author’s diagnosis, in which he says, ‘ It is very near akin to 
Obolaria ’ ; and also from the fact that, according to his 
description, the calyx and corolla do not correspond with 
these organs in our plant. Notwithstanding these differences, 
however, Otto Kunze adopted the name given by Rafinesque, 
changing obolarioides to virginica , O. K. 
Considered from a systematic standpoint, there is a great 
difference of opinion in regard to the classification of this 
plant. For instance, Elliott, Persoon, and Walter placed it 
under Didynamia, and Meisner under Scrophularineae ; End- 
licher believed it to be related to these families ; Bartling, 
Clayton, Don, Jussieu, Lindley, Morison, Plukenet, Rafinesque, 
and Ray placed it under Orobancheae, while Linnaeus and 
Willdenow alone considered it as Orobancheis affinis. Credit 
is due to Nuttall for classifying it under the Gentianeae, 
and to Darlington for having observed that the stamens are 
equal and not didynamous. 
Although the true systematic position of the plant has been 
ascertained, there still remain several points to be settled. The 
peculiar aspect of the plant, especially when dried, has led 
botanists to suspect that it is a saprophyte or even a parasite. 
Gray speaks of it as ‘ suspected as partially parasitic ’ ; Johow 
says it is * an almost chlorophyll-free humus plant Knoblauch 
believes it to be ‘ an imperfect saprophyte 5 ; Gilg thinks it 
is ‘doubtless a saprophyte’; and Don has declared that it is 
‘ terrestrial, not parasitic.’ 
These statements, together with the diversity of opinion in 
regard to the supposed' relationship to the Orobancheae, as 
indicated above, show the general lack of knowledge in regard 
to the true nature of the plant. 
Notwithstanding the fact that elaborate studies of the 
Obolaria virginica have been published by Baillon, Gilg, 
Gray, and Knoblauch, there is as yet no detailed description 
