Elliott, Stephen, 1771-1830. Stephen Elliott papers, 1791- approximately 1947. Observations on the genus Glycine, and some of its kindred genera, 1818; unsigned manuscripts. gra00020. Archives of the Gray Herbarium, Botany Libraries, Harvard University.

Elliott, Stephen Jour. Phila. Acad. I. 1818 [1] Elliott on the Genus Glycine

1818.] GENUS LANCEOLA. 319

both females, the above descriptions are taken ; the male not having yet come under examination. I am sensible that it is not perfectly consistent with a due degree of caution, to construct a genus for the female of an animal, when, as in this case, the male may present diverse characters, or such as are much more prominent and accessible, although this has been often done. But in the present instance we have an animal to give an account of, whose generic traits widely differ from those of any other as laid down by naturalists, so that in order to be introduced into this paper at all, it is believed that the formation of a distinct genus is unavoidable; this is therefore offered provisionally, to be altered, rejected, or retained, as the male, when discovered, may justify.

Its generic affinities are rather difficult to determine. It is allied to Amphipoda by the vesicular branchiae, and by the caudal appendices to the genus Phronima, more than to any other of this order; in the external appearance of the mouth there is a great similarity to the Linnaean Oniscii, the labium being nearly the same in form. In general form it somewhat resembles Oniscus cæruleatus of Montagu, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. vol. xi, from which I suppose Doct. Leach has formed his genus Praniza, which, although but slightly characterized by Mr. Latreille, in Le Règne.Animal, tom. 3, p. 54, and without any reference to books or specimens, is evidently very distinct.

320 GENUS GLYCINE [August

# Observations on the genus GLYCNE, and some of its kindred genera. By Stephen Elliott, of Charleston, S. C. Read June 23, 1818.

In endeavouring to examine, and reform, the characters of plants, an inhabitant of this country feels sensibly the disadvantages under which he labours. There are here no Botanic Gardens, where living plants, collected from different countries and climates, may be collated and compared ; no large herbariums, where even specimens may be examined; and no large libraries, devoted to natural history, where figures might sometimes serve to explain and illustrate an ob- scure or doubtful plant. I shall not, therefore, at- tempt to arraige all the species which have hitherto been thrown together in the genus Glycine, but shall confine myself, in this paper, to those native plants of North America which I have had an opportunity of in- specting.

The genus Glycine appears to have served for some time, in the class Diadelphia, the same purposes which the genus Sophora answered in the class Decan- dria; to have been an ill defined genus, where every plant, (some scarcely kindred species) which did not, by marked characters, belong to other known genera, found a resting place. In this manner the spe- ties have increased from two to forty-four, and now present an assemblage of ill associated plants. Many Hate writers have noticed some of the anomalies of this genus, but no one, I believe, has yet attempted a radi-

1818] GENUS GLYCINE. 321

cal reform. This, therefore, as far as the North American species are concerned. I mean now to propose.

The Glycine apios is acknowledged to be the species from which this genus was originally formed; the name is even derived from the sweetness of its leaves and roots. Correctness, therefore, requires that this species shall still be considered as the type of the genus, and that those species only shall be permitted to remain which agree with it in habit and essential character.

An original error crept into the description of this genus, by Linnaeus, which has led to many subsequent mistakes ; perhaps not knowing the character which most strongly separated it from Phaseolus, he was fearful of confounding those two genera, if he ascribed to Glycine a spiral carina; he therefore described it as deflecting the vexillum with the point of the carina. Now the Glycine apios has really a spiral style and carina, and this character having been given exclusively to Phaseolus, some of our species of Glycine have been inaccurately transferred to that genus. The real difference between Phaseolus and Glycine, is discoverable in the fruit, the Phaseolus having a flat, falcate legumen, and flat reniform seeds; and the Glycine a cylindrical legumen, with seeds cylindrical, and truncate at each end. The Glycine thus understood, unites a number of plants very naturally allied, and which exhibit no other differences than those that are strictly specific.*

* Still it may be remarked that the G. apios, with pinnate leaves, flowers in a thyrsiform panicle, and a stem climbing to a considerable height; and

322 GENUS GLYCINE. [August

The Glycine tomentosa, its supposed varieties, and some kindred species, form a tribe of plants very distinct from Glycine; they have, in fact, no character in common with that genus, except the one arising from their class; and were placed by Walter perhaps quite as correctly in the genus Trifolium, as they were by Linnaeus in their present station. These plants form a very natural family, and are distinguished by small petals, almost straight, and exhibiting but a trace of the papilionaceous structure; legumen scarcely longer than the corolla, compressed, slightly falcate, and in every species, with which I am acquainted, dispermous; seed flat, reniform. Of this genus we have several very distinct species.

There are still some plants connected with this group, which create some embarrassment. If on the one band it is burdensome, and in many respects disadvantageous, to create a multitude of genera, on the other hand we obstruct and retard the progress of botany itself by uniting in one genus plants of discordant habits, and of varied structure. It is only by investigating and noting the prominent and peculiar cha racters of plants, that we can hope ultimately to form natural genera; and it is only from natural genera that natural orders can ever be correctly established.

The Glycine frutescens is one of the two species originally given to the Glycine by Linnaeus, yet it agrees in scarcely any circumstance but habit with the G. apios. Its style and carina are simply falcate; its

the G. angulosa, &c. with stems trailing or feebly climbing, ternate leaves, and flowers in small clusters, resembling capituli, form sections, which may mark future genera.

1818] GENUS GLYCINE. 323

vexillum deflected apparently without the influence of the carina ; and its legume, which Linnaeus did not note, nearly cylindrical, and coriaceous. Its legume, however, forms its most important point of resemblance.

The Glycine monoica forms another anomalous species ; in habit distinct, in the structure of the corolla resembling some species of Vicia, and in its legumes varying from the Glycine. Walter, whose accuracy of observation merits more praise than it has yet received, while he was misled by the spiral carina, to place two species of real Glycine with the Phaseolus, yet perceived the discrepance between these two plants, and the G. apios, and has pointed them out as distinct genera.

A third plant, hitherto I believe undescribed, which grows along the southern coast of Carolina and Georgia, is connected with this group; but as I wish to compare further, if possible, its affinities with some foreign genera, I shall, for the present, postpone its consideration.

I can readily perceive, that the arrangement I have proposed, will require the removal of many of the existing species of Phaseolus and Glycine, yet the result I hope, will be, that those which remain in each genus, will be plants which nature, and not man, has chosen to associate. So many corrections and modifications of the genera estabłished by Linnaeus, have been made as the knowledge of plants has become more extensive, that all appear to require frequent revision ; and it may become necessary, in the class we are now examining, to consider the spiral style and