ART. XVIII. Note respecting the RANUNCULUS LACUSTRIS. By LEWIS C. BECK and JAMES G. TRACY. (With a Plate.) Read June 7, 1830. One of the first papers read before the Albany Lyceum, now a branch of the Institute, was a description of a new species of Ranunculus, and for which the above name was proposed. This description, together with the reasons which led us to the conclusion that this plant had either been overlooked by botanists, or been confounded with some other species, was published at length in the second volume of the New-York Medical and Physical Journal. The facts which we shall hereafter state, will we trust be a sufficient excuse for a few additional remarks upon this subject. The plant which we described under the name of R. lacustris, had been previously, though incorrectly, described by Dr. Bigelow as R. fluviatilis ; (Flor. Bost. 1st edit. p. 139) from which last species it was clearly proved by us to be wholly distinct. We further stated, that though it might be the R. multifidus of Pursh, that name had previously been given to an Egyptian plant by Forskall, from which also our plant was found to differ. (See Dr. Smith in Rees' Cyclopædia, article Ranunculus.) In the mean time however, De Candolle, now at the head of European Botanists, changed the name of Forskall's R. multifidus to R. Forskæhlii, and left to Pursh's plant the name of R. multifidus. For what reason this change was made, does not appear; but it is evident that it was by no means in accordance with the common usages of naturalists. Following in this track of De Candolle, Dr. Bigelow, in the second edition of his Florula Bostoniensis, describes our plant as the R. multifidus of Pursh, acknowledging that he had previously mistaken it for R. fluviatilis. Such were the opinions concerning this plant until the publication by Dr. Richardson, of his Botanical Appendix to the narrative of Capt. Franklin's first journey, when our R. lacustris, or a mere variety of it, received the name of R. Purshii. And finally, this view is also taken by Dr. Hooker, in his splendid Flora of British America, who gives a figure of one state of the plant, not however the most common. It appears therefore that our ideas of this plant have been confirmed by the authorities just cited. That they are not by De Candolle and Dr. Bigelow, arises from rather an unwarrantable licence in the change of names previously occupied ; which cannot be too much discountenanced. Our name and description having been first published, is certainly entitled to the preference. The species is characterized as follows: R. lacustris: leaves submerged, dichotomously divided into numerous capillary segments: flowers terminal, yellow; calyx spreading or reflexed, caducous, half the size of the petal; nectary petal-like; fruit subglobose; style straight, ensiform. Plate V. This, at least in our vicinity, is by far the most common state of the plant. But when it grows in shallow waters, or in ditches, the upper leaves assume various shapes, from reniform palmately 3-parted, to multifid. Dr. Hooker describes several distinct varieties. To these we might add some others which have fallen under our observation. But all these varieties may be referred to slight differences in situation. This species was first observed by us in a small pond near Lansingburgh in this vicinity. It is also found at Salina, near Rochester, and various other parts of western New-York. It extends north to Arctic America, and as far west as the Missouri. Explanation of the Plate. plant 1-4 natural size. Plate V. Fig. 1, represents our Fig. 2, the flower, full size. ART. XIX, Reclamation of SALAMANDERS-in a Letter to the Baron F. Cuvier, from JACOB GREEN, M. D. Professor of Chemistry in Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, Corresponding Member. Read June 7, 1830. When on a visit to Paris in July and August, 1828, in consequence of an introduction to you from our mutual friend J. G. Children, Esq. of London, I received that attention and kindness in your hospitable mansion at the Garden of Plants, which I shall ever remember with delight. I mention this circumstance both with a view of expressing my gratitude and with a faint hope of recalling myself to your memory. My principal object in this letter is to correct an error which by some inadvertence has crept into the last edition of your "Regne Animal," where you attribute to R. Harlan, M. D. the animals of the genus Salamandra, which were discovered and first described by myself. A full account of them you will find in the first volume of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and in the first number of the contributions of the Maclurean Lyceum. Most of them are also noticed in the Nouveau Dictionaire Hist. Nat. of Paris. I have for a long time paid special attention to these animals, and hope at no distant date to give a monograph of them with figures, as you have suggested in your excellent work. Some of my animals, with my own labels affixed to them, I noticed in the museum attached to your magnificent Garden of Plants-they were probably sent to France by our friend C. A. Lesueur. Those species of American Salamanders which are best characterized, and about which there can be no doubt, are the following: These six are always found in moist situations, and never to my knowledge absolutely in the water. I have described in the works above referred to, two other land Salamanders, under the names of S. tigrina and S. cinerea. The S. cinerea is almost always found associated with the S. erythronota, and though very different from it in colour, I am disposed to think it merely a variety of that species. Their favorite places of retreat are under large stones, and not under prostrated logs or fallen trees, as is common with the other land species. The S. Tigrina is perhaps the finest of our species, and serves to form a natural link in a chain of resemblances, between the S. subviolacea and the S. fasciata. These three animals, together with the S. glutinosa and S. variolata, form a group which is exceedingly analogous in many particulars. I have no doubt of the correctness of your remark, that the S. punctata of Gmelin is the same with the S. symmetrica. This last is not so numerous as many of the other species, but it inhabits our country from Florida to Maine. Our well characterized aquatic species, are Salamandra Longicauda. Subfusca. Green. Green. The S. Rubra of Daudin, which appears to have been the first of these animals described, comes very near to my S. Rubriventris. Var. Whether the S. maculata be a distinct species, is yet doubtful. These three, in certain stages of growth, and especially when preserved in alcohol, require minute attention to distinguish from each other. The S. porphyritica, in some of its characters, approaches to S. Jeffersoniana, but it is distinct. Were I not fearful of becoming tedious, I could add many other particulars on this subject. I shall therefore reserve them for my contemplated monograph. The error which I have noticed in your late invaluable work, I hope you will correct, by the publication of a portion of this letter, or in any other way which your better judgment may dictate. Were it not that your book is destined for remote posterity, I should not be at all solicitous on a subject which is in itself so unimportant. With sentiments of gratitude and respect, I am yours truly, JACOB GREEN. P. S. I shall publish a portion of this letter in some scientific periodical in this country. Philadelphia, May 10, 1830. OFFICERS OF THE ALBANY INSTITUTE FOR 1830. President, STEPHEN VAN RENSSELAER. Vice-Presidents, SIMEON DE WITT, OLIVER KANE, ALFRED CONKLING. Treasurer, CHARLES R. WEBSTER. Corresponding Secretaries, PETER GANSEVOORT, M. HENRY WEBSTER, NICHOLAS F. BECK. Recording Secretaries, HENRY W. SNYDER, ELISHA W. SKINNER, JULIUS R. AMES. Librarian, JOSEPH HENRY. Curators, T. ROMEYN BECK, RICHARD V. DE WITT, |