96 
NUPHAR 
arising from the rhizome. Inflorescence solitary, with a long peduncle with a rudimentary bract at 
the base, arising from the rhizome. Receptacle convex or hollow. Flowers large, showy, the parts 
often spirally arranged, rarely trimerous. Perianth showing a tendency to become heterochlamy- 
deous, with 6 — oo segments. Stamens 6 — oo , showing a tendency to become petaloid ; anthers in- 
trorse ; connective sometimes prolonged. Carpels 3 — 00 , apocarpous (as in the exotic Nelumbo) or 
syncarpous and multilocular, superior (as in Nuphar ) or semi-inferior (as in Nymphaea ) or inferior 
(as in the exotic Victoria). Ovules usually anatropous, rarely orthotropous. Fruit a head of achenes 
(as in Nelumbo ) or many-seeded and indehiscent, or dehiscing irregularly. Pericarp thick (except in 
Nelumbo ) dry or mucilaginous. Seeds with endosperm and perisperm (except in Nelumbo ), sometimes 
with an aril. Cotyledons thick. Radicle short. 
Several botanists have felt more or less strongly inclined to refer the family Nymphaeaceae to the Monocotyledones rather 
than to the Dicotyledones. This is apparently quite an old view, for, as Smith {Eng. FI. iii, 16 (1825)) states, Linnaeus at 
first regarded the plants as monocotyledonous ; but Linnaeus altered his view later. The characters of the Nymphaeaceae 
which suggest the monocotyledons are the tendency to trimerous flowers in some genera, and the scattered and closed vas- 
cular bundles of the stem in other genera, though other less convincing characters have also been mentioned in this con- 
nection. An account of the Nymphaeaceae from this point of view is given by M. T. Cook in the Bot. Gazette xlii, 376 — 392 
(1906). However, the monocotyledons and dicotyledons are so very closely allied that it is easy to over-emphasize the 
importance of the characters which are used to separate the two groups. Sir J. E. Smith’s remark ( loc . cit.) on the subject 
is singularly naive-, the Nymphaeaceae, he states, do not correspond “uniformly with the Monocotyledones and Dicotyledones..., 
as it is much to be wished they could have done.” 
The British species belong to the subfamily Nymphaeoideae (Caspary op. cit. p. 4 et p. 6), with united carpels and seeds 
with endosperm and perisperm. 
8 genera, and about 60 species ; cosmopolitan. 
British genera of Nymphaeaceae 
Genus 1. Nuphar (see below). Perianth-segments yellow at least on the inside, springing 
from the receptacle, furrowed, with nectaries on the outside. Ovary superior. Pericarp hard, 
shining. Seed with no aril. 
Genus 2. Nymphaea (p. 98). Perianth- segments white (in the British species) or red or 
blue at least on the inside, arising from the carpels. Ovary semi-inferior, with nectaries on the 
stigma. Pericarp soft. Seed with an aril. 
Genus 1. Nuphar 
Nuphar Smith in Sibthorp and Smith Prodr. FI. Graec. i, 361 (1808 or more probably 1809, hut the title- 
page dated 1806); Eng. Bot. no. 2292 (1811); Caspary op. cit. 9 (1891); Nymphaea [Tournefort loc. cit. partim ;] 
L. loc. cit. partim ; Salisbury in Ann. Bot. ii, 71 (1806) non Smith ; Nymphozanthus L. C. Richard Demonstr. 
Bot. 68 (May, 1808); Nymphona Bubani FI. Pyr. iii, 260 (1901). 
Perennial, aquatic herbs with stout rhizomes and floating laminae. Petioles long, springing from 
the rhizome. Laminae markedly cordate at the base ; those of the floating leaves smaller than 
those of the submerged leaves. Sepals 5 — 12, converging above. Petals 00, staminodal, much smaller 
than the sepals, in 2 whorls, inserted on the thalamus. Anthers 00, filaments broadly ligulate, anthers 
introrse, inserted on the thalamus. Ovary superior, bottle-shaped. Fruit with as many loculi as 
there are stigmas, without external scars, ripening above water, not becoming mucilaginous, indehiscent. 
Seeds 00 in each loculus. 
In recent years, some confusion has arisen regarding the names of the two British genera of Nymphaeaceae, which we, 
following most authorities, designate Nuphar and Ny?nphaea. Linnaeus and his predecessors placed all the plants in ques- 
tion in a single genus which was called Nymphaea. Later, Salisbury {loc. cit. 1806) separated the aggregate genus into two, and 
retained the name Nymphaea for the yellow water-lilies, whilst our white water-lily he placed in a genus which he named Castalia. 
Smith {loc. cit. 1808 or 1809) kept the name Nymphaea for the genus containing our white water-lily, and named the yellow water- 
lilies Nuphar. Smith’s allocation of names has been followed by. nearly all later botanists. Recently Greene {Bull. Torr. Bot. 
Club xiii, 257 (1886)) has proposed the restoration of Salisbury’s names. Greene contends for the principle of priority: he states 
that “in nomenclature... the oldest Linnaean or post-Linnaean names are those which genera must bear.” Greene was supported 
by Britten {Journ. Bot. xxvi, 6 (1888)) who maintained that priority is “the only sound principle” in nomenclature. As for 
our own position, we follow the international rules promulgated at the botanical congress at Vienna in 1905 and at Brussels 
in 1910; and we have determined therefore not to make any changes in the names of genera, which are based on mere 
priority (see Journ. Bot. Iii, 196 — 201 (1914)). Briquet {Prodr. FI. Corse, i (1910)) has shown that, according to the inter- 
national rules, Smith’s names — Nuphar and Nymphaea — are correct; and Rendle {Journ. Bot. xlix, 277 ( 1 9 1 1 )) has accepted 
Briquet’s view. 
There appears to have been a certain amount of personal antagonism between Smith and Goodenough (Bishop of Carlisle) 
on the one hand and Salisbury on the other. Greene and Britten refer to this ; and Britten remarks that Goodenough 
