It is marked with an asterisk, which indicates its being looked upon as an obscure plant. Taking into consideration Persoon's inclination[1] to include it under P. Persicaria, it seems reasonable to conclude that it was not glandular, and if so, the naked stipules are the only character which leans towards an identification with P. lapathifolium, and that is by no means an absolute one. In all other respects the description agrees better with a large state of Greuier and Godron's variety elatum of P. Persicaria, especially as a preference for damp situations is indicated. This is the view adopted by Syme (Eng. Bot. vol. viii. p. 75) ; Meisner, in DC. Prod. vol. xiv. p. 118, also places it in the section[2] with non- glandular peduncles, with P. Persicaria, and away from P. lapathifolium.
The P. laxum of Reichenbach is described and figured by him (Iconog. Bot. ic. 68.5, Cent. V. p. 36) as a non-glaadular plant, with the stipules veiy slightly cdiated, but the peduncles and pedicels strigose-hispid. The styles are shown in the figure to be connected halfway up as in P. Persicaria, and not as in P. lapathifolium, nearly free. Bearing in mind Syme's remark that P. nodusum, auct., has very much the aspect of the var. elatum of P. Persicaria, it will probably be admitted that, as between the two plants, the arrangement of the styles aiul die absence of glands carry P. laxum, Reich., rather towards P. Persicaria than towards P. lapathifolium.
Since, then, the descriptions neither of P. nodosum, Pers., nor of P. laxicm, Reich., clearly characterize the P. nodosum of authors, we are forced, if we regard it as of specific or sub-specific rank, to search for another name; and though by no means satisfactory, Gray's Persicaria maculata appears to be the earliest post-Linnfean one unquestionably applying to the plant.[3]
Reichenbach, in his description of this plant (l. c.), speaks of it as "vario modo confusa atque cum aliis concussa." And if additional illus- tration of this remark were needed, it could be supplied in abundance from English books. Babington, in the first four editions of his ' Manual,' quotes Reichenbach's P. nodosum as a variety of P. lapathifolium, quite connected by intermediate forms. As he named the plant which he described and figured in E. B. S. 2822 (clearly identical with Reichen- bach's nodosum), laxum, Reich., he was compelled, contrary to the fact, to represent Reichenbach's laxum as a glandular plant with an arrangement of styles resembling that of P. lapathifolium rather than P. Persicaria. In the fifth edition "P. nodosum, Pers.," disappears as a variety of P. lapathifolium, to take the place of "P. laxum, R.," which is reduced to a synonym of it. Yet there is no reference to Reichenbach's characteristic figure of "P. nodosum," but his figure of P. laxum, which contradicts the description, is quoted instead. The same arrangement is maintained in the sixth edition. Bentham looks upon P. lapathifolium as probably a mere variety of P. Persicaria, only distinguished by the "pedicels and perianths being dotted with small prominent glands." This might very
- ↑ Fries remarks (Mant. ii. p. 25), "Pers. a lapathifolio separans, P. Persicariæ subjnngere vellet."
- ↑ Pedunculi eglandulosi, laeres, glabri vel pubescentes.
- ↑ In the Kew Herbarium are examples with the name P. paniculatum, Andr., on the authority of Besser. This good descriptive name, looking at the arrangement of the inflorescence, seems never to have been published, and has besides been appropriated to a Java species by Blame.
