Bartonia;proceedings of the Philadelphia botanical club ...

No. 21

PROCEEDINGS OF THE —

A Woodfern Hybrid Deserves a Name .---- :

5

Sok
waco ilee
Te an
Sabie Hohe

fica
ectiat ae
waged

BARTONTA

Proceedings of the Philadelphia
Botanical Club.

A journal devoted to the Flora of the mid-eastern and south-
eastern United States, especially of eastern Pennsylvania, New
Jersey and Delaware.

Subscription Price, $1.00. Numbers 1-10, 50 cents each; later
numbers, $1.00 each.

Contributors of articles having four or more pages will receive
gratis fifty reprints. Additional reprints, if ordered in advance,
may be purchased at cost.

dress
DR. FRANCIS W. PENNELL,
Editor,
Academy of Natural Sciences, Logan Square, Philadelphia, Pa.

Bartonta No. 21 PLATE

Fic. 1. (upper) Dryopteris leedsii Wherry, Maryland.

Fie. 2. (lower) Currania robertiana (Hofim.) Wherry, in Blair County,
Pennsylvania.

BARTONIA

PROCEEDINGS OF THE PHILADELPHIA BOTANICAL

No. 21 PHILADELPHIA, PA. 1940-1941

A Woodfern Hybrid Deserves a Name

Epcar T. WHERRY

When a hybrid between two well-known species of plants appears only rarely
or sporadically, and gives no indication of being able to perpetuate itself, a special
name for it is rarely necessary or desirable. On the other hand, when the proto-
plasmic makeup of two species is such that their hybrids are frequent and at least
locally prove able to reproduce without reverting to parent types, independent
epithets may well be applied to them.

Among ferns we have such cases of acceptable quasi-species names assigned
to more or less obvious hybrids in the cases of Dryopteris boottiu (Tuckerm.)
Underw., which represents D. cristata X intermedia; Dryopteris celsa (Palmer)
Small, which seems to be D. clintoniana X goldiana; and Asplenium ebenoides
Scott, recently renamed Asplenosorus ebenoides (Scott) Wherry.* which has
actually been synthesized from its evident parents Asplenium platyneuron and
Camptosorus rhizophyllus.

The hybrid between Dryopteris goldiana and D. marginalis was apparently
first recorded by Dowell,? although no individual name seems ever to have been
applied to it. That it may become locally abundant was pointed out in a recent
paper on the way in which the hybrid combines the features of the parents by
Greenfield.2 Several years ago the late Arthur N. Leeds discovered the largest
colony known to date, on the bank of the Susquehanna river below the Conowingo
Dam in Harford County, Maryland.

A few field notes on this colony may well be placed on record. A careful
estimate indicated that in the autumn of 1941 at least 200 individual plants were
present. They are of all sizes, from huge clumps with fronds up to at least
150 cm. tall, down to infants showing only the first leaf and having the prothal-
lium still attached; there can be no question that the hybrid is reproducing itself.

1 Amer. Fern Jour. 27: 56, 1937.
2 Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 35: 139, 1908.
3 Amer. Fern Jour. 28: 55, 1938.

2 BARTONIA

As noted in Mr. Greenfield’s article above referred to, individuals vary some-
what, now approaching the one, and now the other parent in features, but there
is no evidence of any reversion to parent stock. Indeed, although one parent,
D. marginalis, is abundant in the immediate vicinity, the other, D. goldiana, is
totally absent there, and has been observed to grow only at two stations respec-
tively 2 and 3 miles distant. It may of course have grown nearer at one time
and have been destroyed by the clearing of the land for agriculture; but in any
case, spores of ferns can blow considerable distances, and hybrids sometimes
appear remote from one of the parents.

In view of the above circumstances, a name for the plant concerned seems
appropriate; it may well be:

X Dryopteris leedsii Wherry. Plate 1, fig. 1.
(D. goldiana x D. marginalis Dowell)

Plant strikingly intermediate between the parent species; fronds evergreen, the sori aver-
aging about medial in position. (Planta hybrida inter Dryopterem goldianam et D. mar-
ginalem, foliis sempervirentibus, soris medialibus.)

Type, in the herbarium of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, collected at
the above-mentioned locality by Arthur N. Leeds, No. 287, May 30, 1931.

Amaranthus of Philadelphia and Vicinity

Louis CurreR WHEELER

Most species of Amaranthus are relegated to the despised category of “weeds”
and ignored though a few as A. tricolor Hort. and A. caudatus L. are cultivated
for their bright-colored foliage or both flowers and foliage. At least two species
have been used as esculents, and olericulturists may look to this genus for the
stock from which to develop a pot herb devoid of the poisonous oxalic acid which
makes spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) of doubtful desirability. Amaranthus
blitum has a race which is cultivated and used as greens in southern Europe.
Rafinesque, in his Medical Flora, states that A. pumilus may be pickled like
other fleshy sea plants.

There are several species of Amaranthus which have been either introduced
into this area recently or have lain misdetermined or neglected in herbaria.
Discussion of these follows. The following abbreviations are used for the
herbaria in which the specimens cited are deposited: (A)—Academy of Natural
Sciences, Philadelphia; (P)—University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

| BuituM L.; ballast iron-ore heaps, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, —
Nov., 1890, R. G. Bechdolt (A). This plant is introduced from Europe.
of additional ions indicates that it has not become established in spite of
the abundantly fruiting condition of the single plant collected in 1890. Identity

AMARANTHUS OF PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY 3

has been confirmed by comparison with European specimens at the Academy
of Natural arr Philadelphia, and in the U. S. National Herbarium,
Washington, D

A. CRASSIPES Schlecht. ; on ballast, Kaighns Point, Camden, “ Herbarium of
Isaac Burk,” (P). This pare introduction probably came from the West Indies
or Florida since that is the range of the species given by Standley, North
American Flora 21: 104. 1917.

A. Patmeri 8. Wats., Delaware River & Pennsylvania Railroad Bridge,
Richmond, Philadelphia, Oct. 12, 1938, Thomas O’Neill (P); along Delaware
River, north of Pennsylvania Railroad Bridge, Richmond, Philadelphia, Oct. 7,
1937, Thomas O’Neill (P); land filled in with mostly coal ashes, ca. 0.2 miles
southeast of intersection of Marshall Road and 69th Street Boulevard (future
site of Drexel Institute Stadium), Upper Darby, Sept. 30, 1941, L. C. Wheeler
5560 (P). This introduction from the western U.S. may persist and become a
part of the naturalized flora.

A. pumitus Raf.; ballast ground below Navy Yard, Philadelphia, July 23,
1865, £. Diifenbaughl (A). There is little occasion for astonishment in find-
ing this plant of the adjacent sea-coast here. Lack of subsequent collections
suggests that conditions were unsuitable for establishment.

A. Torreyr (A. Gray) Benth.; land filled in with mostly coal ashes, ca. 0.2
miles southeast of intersection of Marshall Road and 69th Street Boulevard
(future site of Drexel Institute Stadium), Upper Darby, Delaware County, Penn-
sylvania, Sept. 30, 1941, L. C. Wheeler 5563 (P); Lakewood roadside east of
Red Lion, Burlington County, New Jersey, Oct. 3, 1932, W. H. Witte (P). It
is quite possible that this introduction from west of the Mississippi may persist
as it has been collected in Virginia by Fernald & Long, and in Michigan by
Farwell. In herbaria it may be sought among the specimens of Acnida since
staminate specimens of some species of Acnida are difficultly distinguishable from
staminate specimens of Amaranthus Torrey.

A. virwwis L.; on ship ballast, Girard Point, Philadelphia, July 23, 1878,
“ Herbarium of Isaac Burk” (A). Standley, North American Flora 21: 117.
1917 called this plant A. gracilis Desf., but according to Merrill, Amer. Journ.
Bot. 23: 609-612. 1936, the specimen in the Linnaean Herbarium is to be taken
as type of the Linnaean species which fixes A. viridis as the correct name for
this plant. This species is pantropic in its distribution.

In order to encourage collectors to take an interest in collecting Amaranthus
and to assist students in identification of the species of this difficult genus, the
following key for the identification of the species of Amaranthus known to occur
in Pennsylvania is appended:

1. Utricle indehiscent; flowers always monoecious
2. Paired stipular spines borne at each node; ode; ticle abruptly contracted above the middle

into a wrinkled portion filled with spo smooth and membranous below; napale
and stamens 5. ‘ spinosus L

4 BARTONIA

2. Plants vey. devoid of spines of any sort; utricle tapering gradually above, essentially
uniform ghout and entirely hollow
3. Pistillate ese broadly spathulate ; utrinis papillate ; peduncles oe and oe
at maturity of fruit; (pistillate sepals 5; staminate sepals 4; stam : ca. 0.5
mm. ; seeds ca. 1 m

; ‘ aiene: Schlecht.
3. Pistillate sepals gitNiolanaiolaie- seals never papillate; peduncles ae Piikeoed
4. Sepals 2 or 3; seeds ca. 1 mm. long; stamens 2 or 3, anthers 0.5-0.6 mm. long, thecae

use ; inflorescence cmally both of terminal often spiciform panicles and small
axillary clusters.
5. Utricle twice as long as the seed oe 2 mm. long), smooth even when eA seed
oval in outline; stamens and sepals 2. ............cccecceccceccccs A. deflexus L.
5. Utricle less than twice as long as as seed (ca. 1.6 mm. long), more or sa ss rugu-
lose at least when dry; seed orbicular in outline; stamens 3; sepals 3 at least in
the staminate flowe
6. Utricle strongly samba: even when fresh; sepals 3 and similar in the pistillate
flowers; larger leaves deltoid-ovate, tapering, not at all or but stghthy ag
A. viridis

6. Utricle no more than faintly rugulose; sepals mostly 2 in the pistillate flow-
ers, the third, if present, ear smaller; ‘larger leaves OVS eparaminte to shortly
ovate-oblong, deeply emarginate ko 7,
4. Sepals 5; seeds 2-23 mm. long; ——— bel Ponemate 11-12 mm. hg thecae
scence only in short axillary cl A

1. Utricle perfectly circumscissally dehiscent; flowers rosa dioeciou

7. Inflorescence of only small axillary clusters; low plants (less oa 1 m. tall); usually
a prostrate or decumbent or profusely branched.

paige dry mostly 4, (rarely 5 or 3); anthers 1.2-1.3 mm. long; pistillate sepals mostly
5 (rarely 4); staminate sepals mostly 4 (rarely 5 or 3); seeds 13-1 7 mm. in diam-
eter. A s 8. Wats.
8. ae 2 or 3; anthers 04-08 mm. long; pistillate sepals 3 (rarely 4); staminate

9. Bracts greatly exceeding the ng to: ae bracts and sepals attenuate into aris-
tate tips; seeds 0.9-1.1 mm. in diamete A. graecizans L.
9. Bracts shorter than the flowers; ute bracts nor sepals either attenuate or aris-
tate; seeds 12-15 mm. in diameter A. blitum L.
7. Inflorescence of —— “bagne elongate and spiciform, panicles; axillary clusters or
panicles 2 often prese: psi erect, frequently tall (over 1 m.); stems simple or
at least y not rofl ched.
10. Flowers ema ; Inflorescence green or at most faintly pinkish, long slender ter-
minal spiciform ma rat-tail ”) " loans plus some smaller Tatoral ~ hg rminal panicles;
pistillate sepals much the broadest toward the apex; foliage gr
11. Bracts no longer than either emer _ staminate aipiy aa gh wen stami-
nate sepals at most abruptly mucronate........... A. Torreyi (A. G ray) Benth.
11. Bracts conspicuously exceeding both oes staminate and pistillate calyx; seeds
brown with a blackish cast; the outer staminate sepals slenderly attenuate into
a bristle. Palmeri 8. Wats.
; —— monoecious; terminal panicles rapes not long and ade, vas pendulous
sually red; pistillate sepals broadest at about the middle, tapering above, or
often reddish or or fa ohak-red

i

= in not obvi viously wider above; entire plant urp
12. Pistillate a linear-oblong, conspicuously exceeding the Piers broadly
spreading abov: troflerus L.
12. Pistillate sepals “‘tepeting. shorter than or at least not Nee exceeding
the utricle, not broadly
13. a spiciform i pa long (over 10 cm.) and — ) dulous;
te flowers ca. ; anthers ca. 1.25 mm. y A beasts LE

A New Azalea from the Mountains of Georgia
W. P. LemMon

Additional study of the Southern Mountain azaleas (see Bartonia 19: 14-17,
1938) has disclosed existence of another new species, which first attracted the
attention of Mr. J. A. McKay in 1934, and has been under observation and study
since then. There is only one known colony, of approximately one hundred
plants, located in Vogel State Park at Neel Gap, Georgia, (although plant at
Station 33, established on Gregory Bald in the Great Smoky Mtns. National
Park, apparently is the new species; further study at blooming time will be
necessary to definitely establish this). Plants showing hybridism with A. arbore-
scens were found nearby, while specimens hybridized with some undetermined
species have been transplanted by Mr. W. H. Reynolds, of Jonesboro, Ga.,
from a point on the South River about 44 miles from that town, to his farm:
the original colony being reported as containing six plants with no other azaleas
within a half a mile. In the National Herbarium at Washington are specimens
from Piedmont Georgia indicating parentage of the new species. In both of these
eases the location is on the southern watershed and almost due south of the
colony location at Neel Gap.

During the investigation of the new species, questions arose as to the possi-
bility of its being a variety of either A. arborescens Pursh. or Rhododendron
roseum Rehder. From A. arborescens the new species differs in type of growth,
the eglandular pedicel, the unequal calyx-lobes, the white glands of the corolla
hairs, and from all other known species in the coloring of the corolla.

From a southern pink-flowered specimen conforming so closely to Rehder’s
description of R. roseum it might be considered typical, the new species differs
in type of growth, shape of leaves, glabrous twigs and winter buds, eglandular
pedicels and calyx-lobes, the strongly ridged corolla-tube, the size and color of
the corolla, the blooming period, absence of fragrance and complete absence of
leaf transformation as indicated by apical awns on the winter budscales.

From A. prinophylla Small, the new species differs in type of growth,
glabrous twigs, the thick, stiff mature leaves, shape of calyx-lobes, length of
corolla-tube, color of corolla and absence of fragrance.

Honoring Mr. Robert T. Furbish, of Neel Gap, Ga., the new species may be
known as Azalea furbishii Lemmon & McKay, spec. nov., and described
as follows:

Shrub, not over 1.5 m. tall, much branched, flat-topped. Twigs grayish, glabrous or with
an occasional hair. Winter buds ovoid-conical, 7-10 mm. long, 45 mm. in diameter, scales

5

-

6 BARTONIA

glabrous, less than 15 to first flower-bud, eS edged with brown, tipped with
short apical awns, ciliate. Leaves of an elliptic type, with slightly tapering base, blade
gland-tipped. Petiole 2-4 mm. long, ec. channelled above, edges pubescent with long
hairs. Blade 3-6 cm. long, 1.5-3 em. wide; above light green, somewhat lucid, with veins
and aia deeply impressed, midrib strigillose; beneath glaucesent, midrib strigillose and
pubescent. Pedicel 5-8 mm. long, pale green, somewhat strigillose, eglandular. Calyx-lobes
lanceolate, of unequal length, 1-2 mm. long, ciliate, base strigillose, eglandular. Corolla-tube
2-2.5 em. long to beginning of expansion, strongly ridged, slightly arched near base, ridges
light yellowish-green, valleys pinkish, pubescent and with some glandular hairs—the entire
exterior of the corolla is definitely viscid. Limb oblique, the tube gradually expanding;
color of the tube-ridges extending through midrib section of the lobes to the abrupt, sharply
pointed, eglandular tips; color of the lobe-edges, within and without, a delicate shell-pink,
the upper lobe with a large orange blotch, the midrib section sometimes being of a lighter
shade. Upper lobe 15 mm. wide, 21 mm. long ; laterals 12 mm. wide, 21 mm. long; lower
12 mm. wide, 21 mm. long; all tips recurving, edges somewhat revolute, the upper showing

a@ marginal crease. Corolla-tube pubescent within, eglandular, the ribs very prominent.
ieaeale white and pubescent below, carmine above; anthers deep orange. Style carmine,
pubescent at base only. Stigma dark carmine. Ovary densely pubescent with long hairs.
Mature capsule ovoid, pubescent, 12 mm. long, 6 mm. in diameter.

(Frutex, 1-15 m. altus multiramosus; alabastri squamae ciliatae aristate; foliorum
laminae ellipticae 3-6 cm. longae, supra glabrae, subtus glaucescentes costa strigillosa pubes-
centeque; calycis segmenta maequalia ciliate; corollae tubus _— costatus, costis ochro-
leucis, sulcis roseis, 20-25 mm. longus et lobi 21 mm. lon supremo 15 mm. lato
aurantiaco-signato; staminum flainends pubescentia distaliter ini stylus basin pubescens.)

Type in herbarium of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, col-
lected in flower June 17, 1939, at Vogel State Park, Neel Gap, Georgia, by W. P.
Lemmon. Colony on south side of trail from the Gap to the reservoir. Physio-
graphic province, Blue Ridge Mountains of Georgia and North Carolina, at eleva-
tions above 3000 feet.

Characteristic of this species is the low, flat-topped, heavily branched growth
and the semi-fastigiate, rugose appearance of the thick, recurving leaves. A dark
color form also occurs.

Two more Available Plant Names of William Bartram *
Francis HARPER

On October 1, 1765, two new shrubs were discovered by John and William
Bartram near Fort Barrington, McIntosh County, Georgia.2 One of these was
Franklinia alatamaha Marshall (1785) ; the other is currently known as Pinckneya
pubens Michaux (Flora Boreali-Americana, vol. 1, p. 103, 1803). The younger

Penrose Fund of the Ameri
2Cf. lvania Hist.
Eyl hn eS tat ae Biography, vol. 57, pp. 193-208, 1933; Harper

1 Investigation supported by the John Bartram Association and aided io a grant from
the Penrose can Philosophical Society.

TWO MORE AVAILABLE PLANT NAMES OF WILLIAM BARTRAM 7

Bartram (Travels, p. 16, 1791) gives descriptions of both species, but in this
place applies no technical name to the latter. On pages 467-468 of the same
work he gives a more extended description of Franklinia. At the same time
(p. 468) he refers to ‘ the other new, singular and beautiful shrub,’ and remarks
in a footnote: ‘I gave it the name of Bignonia bracteata extempore.’ The last
word is obviously an adverb modifying ‘ gave’; it forms no part of the plant
name. This name, in connection with the description on page 16, is valid and
available.

Further information on the subject has turned up in the shape of some manu-
script notes that Bartram sent in 1788 to ‘Friend Barclay’ in London, along
with some drawings and plant specimens. This material has been preserved in
the British Museum (Natural History), and photostat copies of the notes and
drawings are in the Manuscripts Division of the Historical Society of Penn-
sylvania. On page 18 of the notes we read concerning ‘ Bignonia bracteata’:

‘If it should prove to be a New Genus, I have a Request that It may be
call’d Bartramia (bracteata) in Memory of My Father John Bartram deceas’d,
The American Botanist & Naturalist, Whose Labours, Travels, collections &
Communications to the Curious in Europe hath contributed perhaps as much as
that of any Man of his time, toward increasing the Stores of Botanical knowl-
edge; with respect to North american productions.’

Since Bartram’s specific name bracteata has 12 years’ priority, it must replace
Michaux’s pubens. Accordingly, the Georgia bark is to be known hereafter as
Pinckneya bracteata (Bartram) F. Harper, n. comb.

Even in 1788 the generic name Bartramia was preoccupied in Linnaeus (Sp.
Pl., p. 389, 1753). The’name proposed by Linnaeus also preoccupies Bartramia
Hedwig (1789), currently used for a genus of mosses.

Bartram’s manuscript notes, referred to above, also shed a final ray of light
on the long-standing question, whether Franklinia and Pinckneya were found in
close association. For in these notes he writes of having had the pleasure of
seeing the latter ‘in the spring season, together with the Franklinia which then
flowered in sight of it.’ A sand-hill bog 1.7 miles northwest of Cox, on the
north side of the road leading to Fort Barrington (Everett City quadrangle,
1918), may be considered the type locality of both species. There is a specimen
of Pinckneya from this locality in the herbarium of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia; it was collected on April 8, 1933, by Arthur N. Leeds.

The Magnolia pyramidata of Bartram is another puzzling case, which does
not seem hitherto to have been solved properly. The name is introduced
(Travels, p. 6, 1791) as a nomen nudum, among a list of plants of Colonel’s Island,
on the coast of Liberty County, Georgia. On page 340 of the same work
Bartram describes (but does not name) a new species of magnolia that he ‘ dis-
covered in the maritime parts of Georgia, particularly on the banks of the
Alatamaha.’ Finally, on page 408, he gives a nomenclaturally valid description

8 BARTONIA

of Magnolia pyramidata from near the head of the Mobile Delta, Alabama. This
tree and the one from the Altamaha are apparently identical with the one cur-
rently known as M. pyramidata Pursh (Flora Americae Septentrionalis, vol. 2,
p. 382, 1814). Pursh gives a reference to Bartram, but does not specify the page,
and his description is not an exact copy of Bartram’s. In any event, Bartram
must supersede Pursh as the author of the name pyramidata. It is rather re-
markable that his valid description on page 408 has been so long overlooked.
‘ Bartram’s magnolia’ is suggested as a fitting common name for this species.

Le Conte (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 7, p. 174, 1855) considered
the tree of Colonel’s Island ‘ merely a variety of M. grandiflora’; but even if
that were true, the M. pyramidata of page 6 would remain a nomen nudum, and
the validity of the name on page 408 would not be affected.

The type locality is probably somewhere in the vicinity of Boatyard Lake,
about 4 miles west of Tensaw, Alabama (soil map of Baldwin County, 1912).
The herbarium of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia contains a
specimen collected about 7 miles south of this point, at Melton’s Landing on
the Tensaw River, on June 18, 1939.

SwarRTHMoRE, Pa.

The Location of Walther Schumann’s Mexican Collecting
Locality, “‘ Jaral ”

Corne.tivus H. MuLuLER

There is to be found in recent monographs a distinct difference of opinion
concerning the location of “ Jaral” where Walther Schumann collected the bulk
of his Mexican plants. Some opinions favor the identity of Schumann’s Jaral
with a locality in Coahuila, probably El Jarral, while others locate it in the
south near the Federal District.

The author’s attention was first drawn to the apparent inconsistency by the
treatment of certain Schumann collections by Trelease* in his monograph of
the American oaks. All four of the species collected by Schumann, allegedly at
“ Jaral, Coahuila,” could have come equally as well from the south. One species,
Quercus macrophylla Née, ranges from San Luis Potosi across Guanajuato to
Michoacan and Jalisco. It is a species of definite tropical affinities and require-
ments and could not possibly grow near El Jarral, Coahuila, a locality on the
severe desert northwest of Saltillo. Camus? followed Trelease without reserva-
tion in assigning Schumann’s collections to Coahuila. Additional Schumann

1 Trelease, W., Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci. 20: 241. 1924.
2 Camus, A., Monogr. Gen. Quercus. 1938-1939.

WALTHER SCHUMANN’S MEXICAN COLLECTING LOCALITY, ‘“ JARAL ” 9

collections from Jaral have been credited to Coahuila by Hitchcock,* omg!
and Brand.°

Pax and Hoffmann,* and Wolff,’ place Schumann’s Jaral in Hidalgo. It is
very doubtful that the place is located in this state since the quite detailed map
of Hidalgo in the Atlas Geogrdéphico de la Republica Mexicana (Tacubaya,
México, D.F., 1919-1921) bears no locality of that name. In one instance Pax
and Hoffmann spell the name “ Jacal.”

Pilger * and Detling ® locate Jaral in Guanajuato, a disposition which seems
reasonable in view of certain other collections. For instance, a collection of
Lobelia fenestralis Cav.2° by Schumann is marked “ Jaral, July 27, 1886.” This
species ranges from Oaxaca to Arizona and western Texas and is confined to the
very high and mesic mountain habitats. It could scarcely be attributed to the
low desert mountains northwest of Saltillo, Coahuila.

Salvia obtorta Epling is known only from the type collection by Schumann,
marked “ Jaral, vepeetnivet 7, 1885.” Epling™ records this as “ Mexico prov.
Guanajuato prope Jaral,” and he has annotated the type sheet “prob. Jaral,
Guanajuato.”

Bidens angustissima H. B. K. is treated by Sherff ?? as ranging from “ San Luis
Potosi southwestward across State of Guanajuato to northeasternmost Jalisco.”
He cites Schumann no. 110, Jaral Mts., Oct. 10, 1886, inferring that this locality
falls within that range

Innumerable citations of Schumann’s specimens are made under “ Mexico:
without locality ” or ‘ México: without locality: Jaral.”

The only biographical sketch of Schumann at hand is given by Urban.** He
writes as follows:

Schumann, Walter. ... . In 1884 he went to Haiti, where he collected in the
environs of Port-au-Prince, and from there in the same year [he went] to Mexico.
Here he obtained a position as head gardener at the Hacienda del Jaral in the vicinity
of the capital city, ranged through the country from March [1884] to August 1888
collecting plants, birds, reptiles, and insects, and then became owner of a nursery in
Mexico itself. [Author’s translation from the German.]

3 Hitchcock, A. S., Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 17: 216, 257, 270, 295, 301, 304, 310, 312. 1913.

4 Chase, A., Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 28: 23. 1929.

5 Brand, A., Pflanzenreich IV. 251: 146. 1913.

6 Pax, F., and K. Hoffmann, Pflanzenreich IV. 147. XVI: 25, 27, 90. 1924.

7 Wolff, H., Pflanzenreich IV. 228: 173, 186, 194, 196. 1913.

8 Pilger, R., Pflanzenreich IV. 269: 398. 1937.

® Detling, L., Amer. Mid]. Nat. 22: 516. 1939.

10 The author is oe to Dr. Rogers MeVaugh of the Bureau of Plant Industry for
the data on this speci

11 Epling, C., nie: Sp. Nov. Fedde Beih. 110: 217. 1939.

12 Gherff, E. E., Field Mus. Bot. Ser. 16: 489. 1937.

28 Urban, I., Symbolae Antillanae 3: 124. 1902.

10 BARTONIA

Urban indicated that he received his information on this subject by corre-
spondence from three sources, presumably men who knew Schumann and his work.

The author has received a letter dated September 19, 1941, from Sr. Alberto
Covarrubias, administrator of the Hacienda Jaral de Berrio in Guanajuato, from
which the following excerpt is translated:

“T reply to your letter .... to state that truly the German Walther Schumann
was at this Hacienda in the year 1888, charged with the garden of this ranch, and
certainly with great ability, having sent then on various occasions many specimens of
different plants of cactus or maguey to the United States.”

It is doubtful that Schumann sent plants to the United States, but there is
no doubt about the correctness of the remainder of this report which checks
closely with Urban’s sketch quoted above. The Hacienda Jaral de Berrio appears
on the map of the state of Guanajuato in the Atlas Geogréfico de la Republica
Mexicana. This place is situated in the extreme northern edge of the state, about
50 Km. south of the city of San Luis Potosi and about 325 Km. northwest of
México, D. F.

It is very clear from these sources that Schumann spent a great deal of time
at a place called Jaral in the vicinity of Mexico, D. F., and it is reasonable to
assume that had he also collected at another Jaral (or Jarral) in Coahuila, he
would have indicated that fact on his labels. Also, the plants he collected consist
of a relatively high percentage of species well known in the south and in the
mesic habitats of the high Sierra Madre (both eastern and western) which have
never been known in the desert region of southern Coahuila (exclusive of the
high moutainous Saltillo area). Their presence there would be contrary to the
nature of the species as indicated by their known habitats. The location of Jaral
in Guanajuato near Mexico, D. F., therefore explains several instances of
strangely disjunct and disharmonious ranges published by various authors.

Division or Prant Exproration AND INTRODUCTION,

Bureau or Prant INpusrray, WasHINcTON, D. C.

The Ferns and Lycosphens of Pennsylvania

Epcar T. WHERRY

In Porter’s Catalogue of the Bryophyta and Pteridophyta found in Penn-
sylvania, published in 1904, there were listed in the latter group 75 species
and 10 varieties. Five years later a 19-page article by Poyser? on the Fern
Flora of the State appeared, and in this 15 additional subspecies, varieties, forms,
and hybrids were included. During the succeeding 33 years so many further
finds have been made that a new summary seems desirable. At the same time,
certain taxonomic and nomenclatorial novelties may be placed on record.

First of all, the second term used in the caption of this article needs explan-
ation. Modern morphological and anatomical research (cf. Eames*) has shown
the classic group Pteridophyta to be so unnatural that its abandonment is called
for. The members of it generally known as the Fern-allies prove to be less
closely allied to the ferns than are the latter to the seed-plants. Actually,
vascular plants are divisible into four major groups: Psmopsma (including
Psilotum); Lycorsma (Lycopodium, Selaginella, and Isoetes) ; SPHENOPSIDA
(Equisetum) ; and Preropsipa, the ferns plus the flowering plants. Ignoring the
first of these as relatively unimportant, the initial syllables of the second and
third groups are here combined to produce, as a synonym of “ fern-ally,”
the new term Lycosphen.

While in many respects the Lycosphens are more primitive than the Ferns,
the latter group is so much more important that it will be discussed first. In
accordance with modern views as to evolutionary relationships, however, the
Eusporangiate Grapeferns* are taken up before the Leptosporangiates.

The writer’s interpretations of infraspecific categories are:

Susspeciges, abbreviated to ssp. Applicable in cases where the plants are
decidedly different morphologically and / or geographically.

Variety, abbreviated to v. Used when the morphologic and geographic
differences are of minor significance.

Form, abbreviated to f. Used for variants in which the morphologic
features involved are trivial and superficial, and there is no geographic
segregation whatever.

1Ginn & Co., Boston, 1904.

2 Fern Bull. 17: 65, 1909.

3 Morph. Vasc. Plts., Lower Gr. McGraw-Hill, N. Y., 1936.

4Common names mostly as in Stand. Pl. Names, Ed. 2: 223, 1942.

il

12 BARTONIA

Nomenclatorial-Taxonomic Discussion

Botrychium multifidum (Gmel.) Rupr. A comprehensive species, divided by
Clausen? into five subspecies, two of which occur in Pennsylvania and are
here classed as varieties:

B. multifidum v. intermedium (Eat.) Farw. The earliest name in varietal
status for the larger and more widespread representative of the species in the
state. It grades into:

B. multifidum v. typicum (Claus.) W., stat. nov. B. m. ssp. typicum Clausen.2
This differs only in its lesser size at maturity and the greater compactness of
its segments. Such differences seeming too unimportant to constitute subspecies
distinctness, varietal status is proposed.

B. obliquum Muhl. ex Willd. In the writer’s Guide to Eastern Ferns the
typical representative of B. obliguum was termed v. pennsylvanicum in accord-
ance with Article 16 of the International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature of
1930. Further study of the matter has indicated, however, that Recommendation
XVIII of these rules, although made only for new epithets, should be followed
in all cases in naming the typical representative of any species in an infra-
specific category. Accordingly the original Botrychiwm obliquum Mubhl. ex
Willd.? may be known, when varieties are under discussion, as v. typicum W.,
nom. nov.

Some authors make the Eastern Grapefern a subspecies, variety, or form of
B. dissectum Spreng., but since in the majority of cases the two are entirely
distinct in aspect, their maintenance as independent species is favored here.
They exhibit partial geographic segregation, in that southward there are many
colonies showing only the obliquum, and northwestward some showing only the
dissectum, type of cutting. Intermediates between them, the existence of which
has led to confusion as to their independence, may occur in any colony of
B. obliquum; these appear to represent mutants of that similar to one which
in some past geological period started a line of descent which culminated in
B. dissectum. They have actually been observed to develop by Tryon* (whose
interpretation was, however, quite different from that here favored). The
original crenulate-margined form of the species may be designated B. obliquum
f. typicum W., nom. nov. The variant may then be known as:

Botrychium obliquum f. eonfusum W., nova. Margins more or less distinctly
dentate, but the teeth not definitely linear, as they are in B. dissectum.
(Margine plus minusve dentato, dentibus vix linearibus.) Type in herbarium
Academy Natural Sciences Philadelphia, collected by the writer August 29, 1941,
in weedy thicket on old field north of Bowmans Hill, Bucks Co., Pennsylvania.

1 Mem. Torr. Bot. Club 19(2): 26, 1938.

2Sp. Pl. 5: 63, 1810.
3 Amer. Fern Jour. 26: 26, 1936.

THE FERNS AND LYCOSPHENS OF PENNSYLVANIA 13

Botrychium obliquum v. oneidense (Gilb.) Waters. This has been made by
various authors a distinct species, a variety of B. dissectum, B. multifidum,
B. obliquum, or B. ternatum, or a form of some of these. It actually lies inter-
mediate between the presumably ancestral B. multifidum and the derivative
B. obliquum. Some individuals of it occur in colonies of the former, and evi-
dently represent mutants of that similar to the one which in some geological
time started the line of descent which culminated in the present-day B. obliquum;
while others appear in colonies of the latter species, often far south of the range
of B. multifidum, and are to be regarded as a sort of throwback to an ancestral
condition. Separate names for the plants of these respective origins would be
desirable; but since they seem indistinguishable morphologically, and since
collectors rarely record on their labels with which species their specimens were
associated, this would be impracticable. The earlier of the two combinations of
the names concerned is accordingly accepted here.

B. lanceolatum v. angustisegmentum Pease & Moore. This plant was raised
to species rank by Fernald, and given the intermediate status of ssp. by Clausen.
The differences between it and the original B. lanceolatum are, however, of minor
significance, so it is here kept in varietal status.

B. simplex v. typicum Clausen. Following Article 16 of the Rules, the
writer? termed this plant “v. cordatum.” In accordance with Rec. XVIII
Clausen named it v. typicum, and he is now followed.

B. virginianum v. typicum (Claus.) W., stat. nov. B. v. ssp. typicum Clausen.”
The differences between our plant and the boreal one seem too slight to justify
their subspecific segregation, so a reduction to varietal status is favored. In
the Guide to Eastern Ferns, Art. 16 was followed and “v. intermedium” was
used; Rec. XVIII calls, however, for the epithet “ typicum.”

Ophioglossum vulgatum L.$ Fernald* has recently recognized two varieties
of this plant in eastern North America. The differences between them are
rather inconstant, but they can not be classed as mere forms because they have
geographic differences: one is dominantly northern, growing in open acid-soil
situations and fruiting late; the other dominantly southern, in shaded circum-
neutral soils and fruiting early. They are accordingly accepted as varietally
distinct. ‘There seem to be no essential differences, however, between the north-
ern one and the original European plant, so following Rec. XVIII this may
be designated:

O. vulgatum v. typicum W., nom. nov. O. v. v. pseudopodum (Blake) Farw.
The commoner variety in Pennsylvania, although O. v. v. pycnostichum Fern.
occurs along our southern borders.

12 Am. Fern Jour. 27: 58, 1937.

2 Mem. Torr. Bot. Club 19(2): 98, 1938.
3Sp. Pl.: 1062, 1753.

4 Rhodora 41: 494, 1939.

14 BARTONIA

Pteridium aquilinum v. latiusculum (Desv.) Underw. ex Hlr. In recent years
American fern students have tended to classify our common eastern Bracken
as a distinct species, P. latiusculum. As pointed out by Tryon} however, the
differences involved are of no more than varietal rank.

Pteridium aquilinum v. pseudocaudatum Clute. The original combination
for this variety, which barely enters Pennsylvania.

Athyrium asplenioides (Michx.) Eat. v. typicum (Butt.) W., status novus.
The original Nephrodium asplenioides Michx.2 A. a. f. typicum Butters.
The two forms recognized by Butters seem to differ sufficiently to deserve
varietal rank,

Athyrium asplenioides v. subtripinnatum (Butt.) W., status novus. A. a.
f. subtripinnatum Butters.* This high-altitude representative of the species does
not merely occur sporadically in colonies of v. typicum, as a form would do,
but in independent colonies. It was informally raised to varietal status by
the writer * in 1923, and is now so treated again, with literature-citation.

Asplenium platyneuron (L). Oakes ex Eat.® v. typicum W., nomen novum.
The original Acrostichum platyneuros L. as generally interpreted. It requires a
varietal epithet for comparison with the following:

Asplenium platyneuron v. incisum (Howe) Robinson. The first name in
varietal status for the representative of the species with deeply cut margins,
but normal sori. Essentially the same plant was later named A. ebeneum Vv.
bacculum-rubrum Featherman,’ A. e. v. serratum Miller,® and A. pl. v. euroaus-
trinum Fernald.® So long as this plant was known only as a sporadic mutant in
the midst of normal colonies, its status could well have been considered that
of a mere form; but now that it is known to be dominant over considerable
areas of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, it is preferably treated as a variety.

Asplenium platyneuron v. hortonae (Dav.) W., comb. nov.; A. ebeneum v.
hortonae Davenport.’° The assignment of this plant to varietal status is often
erroneously attributed to Clute, but he expressly used the term form; it was
called a variety, but informally and without references, by Rugg This has
been confused with v. incisum, but differs from that in being completely sterile,
and being cut in a different pattern. Even though because of this sterility it
cannot show any geographic segregation, it may well be classed as another
variety, in view of its striking morphologic distinctness.

2 Rhodora 43: 1, 1941. 7 Rept. Bot. S. La. 1870: 75, 1871.
2Fl. Bor. Amer. 2: 268, 1803. § Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 4: 41, 1873.
* Rhodora 19: 190, 1917. ® Rhodora 37: 382, 1935.

* Amer. Fern Jour. 13: 105, 1923 10 Rhodora 3: 1, 1922.

5 Ferns N. Am 24, 1878. 11 Fern Bull. 14: 86, 1906

® Rhodora 10: 29, 1908. 12 Am. Fern Jour. 24: 84, 1934.

THE FERNS AND LYCOSPHENS OF PENNSYLVANIA 15

Asplenium ruta-muraria L. v. cryptolepis (Fern.) W., status novus, A.
cryptolepis Fernald... A. r-m. v. cryptolepis Christensen ? (non-valid because not
accompanied by discussion) ; Massey ® (still less valid in that neither literature
citation nor discussion are given). A. r-m. ssp. cryptolepis Clausen & Wahl.*
The differences between the European and the American plants pointed out by
Fernald are constant when one compares specimens from porous stone walls in
the moist atmosphere of the former region with those from solid limestone cliffs
in our dryer climate. However when colonies of our wall-rue growing in moist
masonry are examined, they are scarcely distinguishable from European plants.
The American plant is accordingly considered to deserve at most varietal rank.
Since two earlier attempts to assign it to this are apparently non-valid, under
the rules of nomenclature, validation is here undertaken.

A. ruta-muraria v. ohionis (Fern.) W., comb. nov. A. cryptolepis v. ohionis
Fernald. <A. ruta-muraria vy. linceslans. Farwell, 6 not Christ. This variant
would be accorded only the status of form, were it not that it locally forms
independent colonies. It is here newly reported from Pennsylvania.

> Dryopteris slossonae (Hahne) W., comb. nov. Nephrodium slossonae
Hahne.? =D. cristata * D. marginalis. When hybrids between species-pairs
are of frequent occurrence, it is convenient to have quasi-specific designations
for them. The above transfer is accordingly proposed.

Currania dryopteris. Linnaeus ® placed the Oak-ferns as well as the Beech-
ferns in the genus Polypodium. In 1851 Newman® created a genus Gymno-
carpium, and two years later Fée*° proposed Phegopteris, to include both of
these groups. Subsequent name-shifters have referred them to at least six
other genera.

In 1909 Copeland ** published for an Asiatic fern possessing the jointed lower
pinna-stalks of the Oak-ferns the genus name Currania. When Ching* in
1933 urged the generic distinctness of the two groups, he resurrected the long-
overlooked Gymnocarpium, and restricted it to the Oak-fern group alone. Since
Copeland’s name had already been applied to a member of this group, the rules of
nomenclature require its use if generic status is accepted. I therefore propose
that Polypodium dryopteris L.** be replaced by: Currania dryopteris (L.) W.,
comb. nov. The Limestone Oak-fern, originally named Polypodium yubiontian
Hoffm.}* will correspondingly become: Currania robertiana (Hoffm.) W.,
comb. nov.

1 Rhodora 30: 41, 1928. 8 Sp. Pl.: 1089, 1093, 1753.

2 Index Filicum, Suppl. ® Phytologist 4: 371, 1851.

8 Claytonia 2: 34, 1935. 10 Gen. Fil: 243, 1853. .

4Rhodora 41: 29, 1939. 11 Phil. Jour. Sci. Bot. 4: 112, 1909.

5 Rhodora 30: 43, 1928. 12 Contr. S. 8. China, Bot. 9: 30, 1933.
6Am. Midl. Nat. 12: 273, 1931. 18 Sp. Pl.: 1093, 1753.

7 Allg. Bot. Ztg. 10: 103, 1904. 14 Deutsch. Fl. 2: 20, 1795.

16 BARTONIA

Lycopodium selago L.,: v. typicum W., nomen novum. In accordance with
article 16, the original representative of this Clubmoss was termed in the writer’s
Guide to Eastern Ferns? var. appressum Desv. Under Recommendation XVIII,
however, it requires a different designation.

Lycopodium obscurum L., v. genuinum W., nomen novum. While this com-
bination was made in the Guide * no literature citation was there given, so that it
might be considered non-valid. Formal proposal is therefore made here.

Geographic Treatment
OPHIOGLOSSACEAE
BorrrcHIuM

B. multifidum v. intermedium. None of the varieties of the circumboreal
Broadleaf Grapefern were included in Porter’s or Poyser’s lists, two collections
of the present variety being overlooked: near Erie by Guttenberg in 1882 and in
Monroe County by Harshberger in 1904. We now know it in 8 counties: Berks,
Erie, Lackawanna, Monroe, Pike, Sullivan, Susquehanna, and Wayne. Localities
in the first-named county represent its southernmost occurrences in the eastern
United States, latitude 40° 32’:

B. multifidum v. typicum. This variety was not recognized in the state until
1938, when it was collected by Dix. It has been found thus far only at a few
points in Wayne and Susquehanna counties, its southern limit being in the latter
at 41° 50’. However, intermediates between it and the preceding variety occur
as far south as Lackawanna.

B. obliquum v. oneidense. No mention of this plant was made by Porter or
Poyser, and its occurrence in the state was first pointed out by Graves * in 1935.
Three years later it was recorded by Clausen * from 6 counties, and is now known
from 20, scattered throughout.

B. obliquum v. & f. typicum. This species, for which the common name Eastern
Grapefern is suggested, was collected in Pennsylvania by Muhlenberg and sent
to Europe for naming, being given the accepted epithet by Willdenow? in 1810.
Its type locality may be presumed to have been Lancaster, where Muhlenberg
lived. There are 60 county records from all parts of the state.

1$p. Pl.: 1102, 1753.

2 Guide East. Ferns: 161, 1937.

3 Ibid.: 173, 1937.

“Amer. Fern Jour. 29: 19, 1939.

5 Amer. Fern Jour. 25: 110, 1935.

* Mem. Torr. Bot. Club 19(2): 50, 1938.
7Sp. Pl. 5: 63, 1810.

THE FERNS AND LYCOSPHENS OF PENNSYLVANIA 17

The common form of the Eastern Grapefern, Botrychium obliquum, has more
or less oblong pinnules; but in juvenile and sometimes in mature individuals they
may broaden and become ovate to deltoid. Such plants were named by Graves *
var. pennsylvanicum, the type specimen being from Morrisville, Bucks County.
Clausen? held that “ This is the weakest of the named leaf forms of the B. dis-
sectum complex and certainly does not merit the rank of variety or even of form.”

B. obliquum f. confusum. This is the form the existence of which has led
many authors to class B. obliquum and B. dissectum as conspecific; but it is
here considered too rare to justify this. The name was given on an earlier page
on the basis of a specimen collected in Bucks County. Similar material is
represented in herbaria also from Greene, Luzerne, Philadelphia, and Susque-
hanna counties.

B. dissectum. The Cutleaf Grapefern, readily distinguished by its dentate
type of cutting, has been collected in only % as many counties as the crenate-
serrate margined B. obliquuwm, with which it is usually associated.

B. lanceolatum v. angustisegmentum. Although once supposed, as stated by
Poyser, to be “ confined to the mountain belt,” the circumboreal Triangle Grape-
fern is now known to occur also in the lowlands, down to Chester and Lancaster,
making 27 counties in all.

B. matricariaefolium. Earlier compilers used for the Daisyleaf Grapefern
the names B. neglectum and B. ramosum, neither valid. Though like the next-
preceding attributed by Poyser to the “ mountains and northern portion ” of the
state, it is now known to occur throughout, having been collected in at least
50 counties, down to sea-level in Philadelphia. Both f. gracile and f. palmatum
are included.

B. simpler v. typicum. There are but two records of Dwarf Grapefern for
Monroe county and one each for Northampton and Wayne. The occurrence
near Easton, Northampton County, represents its southern limit in the eastern
United States, latitude 40° 42’, except for a possible representative of the v. com-
positum from Berks County.

B. simplex v. tenebrosum. This smallest of the grapeferns, with its sterile
segment borne especially high, has been classed as an independent species, but
grades too freely into the admitted varieties of B. simplex to be so maintained.
It was first reported in Pennsylvania by Poyser on the basis of a single plant
collected in Lehigh county, and has since been found also in Berks, Bucks,
Dauphin, Philadelphia, Pike, Warren, and Wayne. The Philadelphia station
represents its southern limit, latitude 40° 3’. The juvenile state known as
£. simplicissimum, with tiny entire sterile segment, is frequent.

1 Amer. Fern Jour. 25: 118, 1935.
2 Mem. Torr. Bot. Club 19(2): 51, 1938.

18 BARTONIA

» Botrychium simplex v. laxifolium. The representative of the species bearing
a relatively large sterile segment about the middle of the aerial stem remained
without a name until 1937, when Clausen proposed for it v. lazifolium. This
rare eastern variety has been found thus far in Berks, Bucks, Lycoming, Phila-
delphia, and Sullivan counties. Its western range-limit is the Lycoming station,
longitude 76° 54’, and its southern the Philadelphia one, latitude 40° 3’.

Botrychium virginianum v. typicum. Rattlesnakefern is one of Pennsyl-
vania’s commonest, occurring in every county. It sometimes fruits while still
small, and is then known as f. gracile; this is often seen here.

OPHIOGLOSSUM

O. vulgatum v. typicum. The widespread eastern representative of this
species, essentially the same as the original European one, is represented in
herbaria from 30 Pennsylvania counties. The most luxuriant colony seen is at
the margin of an ancient alluvial terrace of the Schuylkill river, west from
Schuylkill Haven. Here the adderstongues grow by hundreds, not only in the
humus-rich loamy soil of the flats, but also well up under the Rhododendron
bushes of the hill-slope. A growth form resulting from crowding by other
plants, with the sterile segment to 20 cm. long and but 2 em. wide, named
f. lanceolatum, came from Delaware county.

O. vulgatum v. pycnostichum. When this endemic was segregated by Fernald
in 1939 it was not recognized to grow north of Montgomery county, Maryland.
Study of herbarium sheets from Pennsylvania has now shown, however, that
it ranges into our more southern counties, there being unmistakable material
with the subcordate sterile segment and ellipsoidal sporangia from Delaware,
Lancaster and Montgomery, and plants intermediate between the two varieties
from Dauphin, Franklin, and Perry counties.

OSMUNDACEAE
OSMUNDA

O. regalis v. spectabilis. Rarest of the three Osmundas of the state, Royal-
fern has been collected in but 55 counties, in some only once.

O. claytomiana v. vera. Growing in drier and richer soil than the other
two, the Interrupted-fern is very conspicuous in Pennsylvania, and has been
collected in every county but Washington. Forma dubia, with spaced pinnules,
is reported from Monroe county.

O. cinnamomea v. typica. Cinnamonfern is common in sterile swamps
throughout the state, and is represented in herbaria from all but three coun-
ties. Several of its named forms are of interest here.

THE FERNS AND LYCOSPHENS OF PENNSYLVANIA 19

Osmunda cinnamomea f. auriculata. Known in Lancaster and Wayne.

O. cinnamomea f. bipinnatifida. This form with obtusely lobed segments is
recorded from Berks, Lancaster, Tioga and Wayne counties.

O. c. f. cornucopiaefolia. A form with the lobe-midveins more or less bare
terminally and bearing medially funnel-shaped outgrowths has been known thus
far only from the original northern Ohio station. A specimen matching the
original in all respects was collected by Frank Bell 1% mile northeast of Chalk
Hill, Fayette County, in 1939. Subsequent search through the myriads of plants
growing there has failed to relocate the one which bore this frond.

(O. c. f. crenulata. Described from Wayne County; a mere juvenile f.)

O. c. f. frondosa. Forms with the fertile fronds bearing more or less sterile
tissue may occur in almost any large colony.

O. c. f. glandulosa. Originally described both as a variety and a form, the
representative of the species with glandular pubescence deserves only the latter
status. The single known Pennsylvania collection is from Little Gap on the
Carbon-Northampton line at an altitude of 1100 feet.

O. c. f. incisa. Plants with the segments acutely lobed have been found in
Berks, Sullivan, and Wayne counties.

O. c. f. latipinnula. A form with the segments abnormally broad and few,

recorded by Gruber? from two Berks County stations.

SCHIZAEACEAE
LyGopIuM

L. palmatum. Pennsylvania may have been the source of the original intro-
duction of this Climbingfern to science; for when Bernhardi announced it in 1801
under the name Gisopteris palmata he stated it to have been first recognized by
Willdenow, who in turn recorded that it had been received from Muhlenberg.
Unfortuntaely the latter never published any data as to where he found it.
Rare though locally abundant, it yields an attractive effect as it twines over the
bushes in moist, acid swamps. Leaving out supposed records from Lehigh and
Philadelphia counties, which are wholly unauthenticated, it is known to grow
in the following, all eastern: Bucks, Carbon, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Monroe,
Schuylkill, Sullivan (western limit, longitude 76° 20’), Wayne and Wyoming.

MARSILEACEAE
MaARSILEA
M. quadrifolia. This native of Europe has locally escaped from cultivation
in Pennsylvania ponds, in Delaware and Monroe counties.

1 Amer. Fern Jour. 30: 46, 1940.

20 BARTONIA

DICKSONIACEAE
DENNSTAEDTIA

D. punctilobula. Hayscented-fern prefers sterile acid soil and is common
only in areas underlain by gneiss or sandstone, but has been collected in every
county of Pennsylvania. Plants with crested pinnae, known as f. cristata, are
occasionally found.

POLYPODIACEAE: PTERIS SUBF.
_ PrermiuMm

P. aquilinum v. latiusculum. Eastern Bracken, now regarded as a variety of
a world-wide species, also grows chiefly in sterile acid soils. Occurring through-
out the state, it has been collected in every county but Washington.

P. aquilinum v. pseudocaudatum. The material reported under this name
from Delaware and Lehigh counties seems to represent an anomalous develop-
ment of the widespread variety rather than this southern one.

POLYPODIACEAE: ADIANTUM SUBF.
ADIANTUM

A. pedatum v. originarium. The attractive Northern Maidenhair grows in
woodlands in all parts of Pennsylvania, and is represented in herbaria from all
but two counties. Reports of the Southern Maidenhair in the state are based
on immature fronds of the northern one.

CRYPTOGRAMMA

C. stelleri. Until recently the circumboreal Slender Rockbrake was supposed
to reach its southeastern limit in Pennsylvania, but it is now known further
south, in West Virginia. Poyser stated it—as Pellaea gracilis—to grow on lime-
stone which it does in many places; however, in Pennsylvania it occurs only on
north-facing cliffs of shale with calcareous water oozing from the crevices.
Very rare, it was known to Porter from but a single rock, and even now has
only two or three stations each in Lycoming, Sullivan, and Wayne counties.
The most accessible is at Lincoln Falls, near Estella P. O.

PELLAEA

‘ P. atropurpurea. Hairy Cliffbrake is known in all Pennsylvania counties
in which there are extensive limestone outcrops, and in a few where such rocks
are but poorly developed, the total number being 32.

THE FERNS AND LYCOSPHENS OF PENNSYLVANIA 21

Pellaea glabella. Though named as early as 1869, this species has been
generally overlooked, and was not mentioned by Porter or Poyser; certain of
their records of P. atropurpurea prove, however, to have represented the Smooth
Cliffbrake instead. The earliest collection in the state was made at the soap-
stone quarry on the Montgomery-Philadelphia county line near the present
Miquon by A. H. Smith in July, 1861. It is now known on bleak cliffs or walls
of limestone and other highly calcareous rocks in at least 14 counties: Berks,
Bucks, Centre, Chester, Cumberland, Dauphin, Huntingdon, Lancaster, Lehigh,
Montgomery, Northampton, Perry, Philadelphia, and York.

CHEILANTHES

C.lanosa. Hairy Lipfern was well-known to Porter, and was listed by Poyser,
under the name Ch. vestita, from 9 eastern counties. Subsequent exploration
has disclosed its wider occurrence, the total number of counties to date being 20,
but it is evidently absent from the northern half of the state.

POLYPODIACEAE: WOODSIA SUBF.
Woopsta

W. ilvensis. Rusty Cliff-fern has long been known in the state and was listed
by Porter and Poyser from 8 or 9 eastern counties. At present the list stands
at 24, all east of longitude 79°. In Bedford and Fulton counties the plants are
decidedly less pubescent than those oceurring farther northeast, and might well
be named as a distinct form.

W. obtusa. In contrast with its relative, the Eastern Cliff-fern is one of the
commoner species of the state, although becoming rare toward the northwest
corner. Herbarium specimens are preserved from at least 50 counties. Its type
locality is believed to have been Lancaster County, from which it was sent to
Europe by Muhlenberg.

POLYPODIACEAE: ONOCLEA SUBF.
PTERETIS

Pt. nodulosa. Ostrichfern has been variously placed in the genera Matteucia,
Onoclea, and Struthiopteris, but current American usage is here followed. It
grows locally, chiefly on alluvial flats, nearly throughout Pennsylvania, although
the few colonies reported toward the southeast corner appear to represent escapes
from cultivation. Porter knew it from 11 counties, but by the present time the
list has increased to 38.

22 BARTONIA

ONOCLEA

O. sensibilis v. genuina. One of the commonest species of Pennsylvania,
Sensitivefern or Beadfern has been collected in every one of the 67 counties. As
is the case with many dimorphic ferns, it shows occasional intermediates between
fertile and sterile fronds, a state known as f. obtusilobata. This has actually
been collected in 13 counties, but may appear in any colony. Sometimes the
development of such freaks is the result of injury to the plants before the fertile
fronds come up in late summer, but material seen in an undisturbed Rhodo-
dendron swamp in Wayne County showed no evidence of such a source. A
variant of this having the fronds sterile down one side and fertile down the
other, known as f. hemiphyllodes, has been reported here also.

The frond of the Beadfern is cut into oblong lobes with more or less undulate
margins, the projections varying from obtuse to acute. Plants from near Kutz-
town, Berks County, showing extreme development of the latter, have been
named f. acutisegmenta Gruber.

POLYPODIACEAE: BLECHNUM SUBF.
Woopwarplia

W. virginica. Some workers have assigned the Eastern Chainfern to a mono-
typic genus Anchistea, and this usage was followed in the writer’s Guide to
astern Ferns. Because the differences in veining on which this segregation was
based are after all rather slight, reunion with the genus Woodwardia is now
favored. Porter and Poyser knew this fern from only 7 counties, but subsequent
collecting has increased the known number to 19.

LorINSERIA

L. areolata. In this case assignment to a monotypic genus seems justified
by the net-veining and the dimorphism of the fronds. Previous compilers listed
Dwarf Chainfern—as a Woodwardia—for 3 counties, but the present list is:
Adams, Berks, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Monroe, and Pike,
9 in all.

POLYPODIACEAE: ASPLENIUM SUBF.
CYSTOPTERIS

C. bulbifera. Bulblet Bladderfern was listed by Porter—as a Filiz—for 8
counties, and was accidentally omitted from Poyser’s article. Although rather
local, it is now known from 35, scattered throughout the state.

1 Amer. Fern Jour. 30: 46, 1940.

THE FERNS AND LYCOSPHENS OF PENNSYLVANIA 23

Cystopteris fragilis. Brittle Bladderfern, characterized by Christensen? as
“the most widely distributed of all ferns” is separable into a number of
varieties, of which four appear to occur in Pennsylvania:

C. f. v. genuina. The common circumboreal representative of the species
occupies moist sheltered rock crevices. In his Index, Broun® recorded it as
extending south to Pike County, but recent study of herbarium material and
collecting trips have shown it to be rather widespread in the state. It reaches
a southeastern limit at Moselem, Berks County, latitude 40° 30’, but in the
Appalachian Plateau extends south to the state line in Somerset; and the total
county list now stands at 16.

C. f. v. laurentiana.(?) The relative of the next-preceding with glandular
indusia has been recorded heretofore only from the St. Lawrence valley region
and from Bruce peninsula, Ontario. In the Spring of 1941 Professor Gruber of
Fleetwood guided the writer to cliffs of calcareous shale at Moselem, Berks
County, and there a small collection of specimens believed to be v. genuina
was made. When these were subsequently examined under the microscope,
a few fronds were found to have glandular indusia, and so may represent the
present variety instead. Further study of this and others possible occurrences
is in order.

C. f. v. mackayii. This is the representative of the species which corresponds
to Poyser’s characterization, “common throughout Pennsylvania.” It grows
in circumneutral or moderately acid soil in rock crevices, usually well-shaded.
There are 55 county records.

Locally, especially southwestward, colonies occur in which the pinnules are
intermediate between the ovate, stalked, dentate ones of v. genuina and the
obovate, sessile, rounded ones of v. mackayii; while the indusia on one and
the same frond have in part the long frayed tip characteristic of the former
and in part the truncate entire distal margin of the latter. How such inter-
mediates are to be classified has not as yet been decided.

C. f. v. protrusa. Unlike the other varieties, this a plant of slopes and
alluvial flats where the soil is loose and rich in humus. It is well characterized
by its long creeping rootstock, the tip of which extends, during the growing
season, several centimeters beyond the cluster of fronds of the year. Being a
southern plant, it enters Pennsylvania from that side, as is developed chiefly
in the more southern counties, although there is a remarkable disjunct occurrence
near Montoursville, lat. 41° 16’. Thus far it is known to have been collected
in 16 counties. Apparent intermediates between this and v. mackayw have
been found locally, but their significance is not understood.

1 Verdoorn’s Man. Pteridology: 542, 1938.
2 Index N. Amer. Ferns: 56, 1938.

24 BARTONIA

ASPLENIUM

A. trichomanes. Porter listed the cireumboreal Maidenhair Spleenwort from
14 counties, while Poyser termed it “common throughout.” The present list
numbers 50, but lacks many northwestern counties.

A. resiliens. Blackstem Spleenwort, distinguished from the preceding by
its larger size and opposite oblong auriculate pinnae, was long supposed to reach
its northern limit in central Virginia. After extensive search in limestone areas,
it was found successively in northeastern West Virginia, Maryland, and finally
Franklin County, Pennsylvania, latitude 39° 47’, a single colony of a dozen plants.

A. platyneuron. In place of the book-name Ebony Spleenwort the descrip-
tive term Brownstem Spleenwort is here preferred for this, our commonest
species. It differs from the next-preceding in its dimorphism and mostly alter-
nate, elongate pinnae. Porter listed it from only 10 counties, while Poyser
classed it—under the name A. ebeneum—as “ common throughout.” It is un-
known, however, from a number of northwestern counties, the list numbering
58 to date.

In v. typicum the pinna-margins are finely serrulate, but now and then the

teeth become prominent, giving rise to v. incisum (“ serratum ”’) ; this is especially
well developed in Lancaster County, but is known in several others. The
variant in which all the fronds are sterile and have laciniate margins, v. hortonae,
has been found once each in Lancaster and York. These two counties have
also yielded fronds with tiny plants growing from the rachis, f. proliferum.

A. bradleyi. Cliff Spleenwort is often stated in books to grow on limestone,
but this is an error, as it is actually restricted to rocks such as sandstone and
gneiss where the soils have become intensely acid. One of the state’s rarities,
this fern was recorded by Porter only from Lancaster County; Poyser added
York, and Pretz+ Carbon.

A. ruta-muraria v. eryptolepis. When he proposed the setting off of the
American representative as a distinct species, Fernald ? stated that it “is rarely,
if ever, found on brick or stone-walls,” the European plant, as its name implies,
being common in such situations. It was known—on limestone—to Porter in 8,
Poyser in 10, and at present in 22 counties, chiefly southern and eastern. I
have seen it on masonry in Berks, Bucks and Lebanon counties (and in other
states too).

The variant with acutish pinnules, named v. ohionis and heretofore re-
corded only from Ohio, has now been discovered to occur in Pennsylvania
also, specimens being preserved from Bucks, Huntingdon, Lehigh, and North-

1 Amer. Fern Jour. 1: 137, 1911.

? Rhodora 30: 37, 1928.

THE FERNS AND LYCOSPHENS OF PENNSYLVANIA © 25

Asplenium montanum. The attractively cut Mountain Spleenwort is found
in acid-soil situations on rock ledges in our southern and eastern counties, Porter’s
list numbering 8, Poyser’s 11, and the present 20. In York County there occur
forms with unusually slender segments, which deserve some taxonomic recognition.

A. trudelli. This fern, for which the common name Pinnate Spleenwort has
been suggested, was long confused with the Lobed Spleenwort, but was segregated
by the writer’ in 1925, the type locality being Cully, Lancaster County, Penn-
sylvania. While it may have originated as a hybrid between A. montanum and
A. pinnatifidum, it now reproduces itself and may be regarded as having at-
tained species status. Very rare, it is known at one or two stations each in
Chester, Fayette, Lancaster, and York counties.

A. pinnatifidum. Lobed Spleenwort was discovered in Lancaster County by
Muhlenberg; he classed it as a variety of the Walkingfern. Porter knew it from
but 3, Poyser from 5, counties, the present list being: Adams, Berks (northern
limit, latitude 40° 20’), Chester, (Delaware?) , Fayette, Greene, Lancaster, Phila-
delphia, Washington, and York.

(A. fontanum, given to Porter by an amateur, as collected in Pennsylvania,
had presumably been obtained by exchange from Europe.)

Asplenium hybrids. There are four species crosses which have apparently
not developed to the point of being able to reproduce themselves:

A. platyneuron X trichomanes (X A. virginicum Maxon). A specimen found
at Delaware Water Gap, Monroe County, many years ago, is preserved in the
Brown University herbarium.

A. bradleyi X platyneuron. A sheet bearing four plants is in the herbarium
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, having been collected along
the Susquehanna river near McCall’s Ferry. Whether the station was in Lan-
caster or in York County is not certain, but at any rate it has now been
inundated by back-water from a dam.

A. bradleyi X montanum. A single small plant appeared and grew for a
few years in Tucquan glen, Lancaster County. Much better material of this
cross grows on a cliff in Warren County, New Jersey.

A. bradleyi X pinnatifidum. (X A. gravesii Maxon). Several plants of this
were collected in Lancaster and York counties years ago, but none have been
found recently. Its northern range-limit is here.

ASPLENOSORUS

\ A. ebenoides. Walking Spleenwort, a notable bigeneric hybrid (between
the very dissimilar Asplenium platyneuron and Camptosorus rhizophyllus) was
discovered by R. R. Scott in 1864 along the Schuylkill river in Montgomery
county. It was known to Porter in 2, to Poyser in 8, and at present in 13
counties.

1 Amer. Fern Jour. 19: 49, 1925.

26 BARTONIA

CaMPTosorUS

C. rhizophyllus. While as well known the Walkingfern grows most luxuriantly
on limestone, it occurs in Pennsylvania on many other rocks as well, though
usually where the soil has become circumneutral. There are 56 county records.
The very narrow f. angustatus, f. auriculatus with elongate auricles, f. boycei
with dentate margins, and f. intermedius with cuneate base are all known here.

ATHYRIUM

A. pycnocarpum. Known to earlier workers as the “ Narrowleaf Spleenwort,
Asplenium angustifolium ”, this fern is now assigned different genus and species
epithets, and the common name of Gladefern. Porter knew it from 7 Pennsyl-
vania counties, Poyser from 14, and the present list stands at 25, well distributed
over the state.

A. thelypterioides. Here too there have been changes in all the names.
Much commoner than its relative, just discussed, Silvery Gladefern (here sug-
gested as a new common name for it) has been collected in 61 out of our 67
counties. Both the acutish lobed f. acrostichoides and serrate-lobed f. serratum
are occasional.

A. angustum. While all the Lady-ferns were formerly grouped together as
Asplenium or Athyrium filiz-femina, our present view is that two species of this
group are represented in eastern North America. The present one, Northern
Ladyfern, has persistent dark brown stipe-scales whose cells show a narrow
lumina and thick dark walls; the frond normally widest near the middle; indusia
more or less ciliate with the cilia pointed; and spores bright yellow with a
minutely granulate surface. Poyser considered that he had found 7 varieties,
although Butters * recognized only the following 3 in our region:

A. angustum v. typicum. Characterized by having the fronds dimorphic, the
fertile ones coriaceous, with narrow lobes and sori confluent at maturity, th
pinnae not exceeding 12 em. and entire pinnules 12 mm. in length. Known in
20 counties, mostly northern.

A. angustum v. elatius. Similar with the pinnae up to 25 em. and pinnules
to 25 mm. long, the latter pinnatifid. This has been collected in 26 chiefly
northern or mountain counties.

A. angustum v. rubellum. Fertile and sterile fronds much alike, herbaceous,
the lobes relatively broad and the sori remaining discrete; exceedingly variable
in size. In spite of the varietal name, this plant does not always have red
stipes,—nor do the others always have green ones. One of the commonest ferns
of the state, this is represented in herbaria from all but two counties.

1 Rhodora 19: 188, 1917.

peed act

THE FERNS AND LYCOSPHENS OF PENNSYLVANIA 27

Athyrium asplenioides v. typicum. This second eastern segregate from the
older comprehensive species is preferably termed the Southern Ladyfern, for
it ranges chiefly south of Pennsylvania. From its relative it differs in having
deciduous pale-brown stipe-scales with broad pale-walled cells; the frond
normally widest near the base; indusia more or less glandular-ciliate; and
spores dark brown with a wrinkly or reticulate surface. It is known in about
30 counties, chiefly toward the southern and eastern parts of this state.

An especially large variant, known as v. subtripinnatum, has been reported
in Pennsylvania, but does not appear to be typically developed here, being more
of a southern Appalachian plant.

Although the two recognized species of Ladyfern are rather dissimilar, some
Pennsylvania colonies include what appear to be intermediates between them.
In these the distinctive characters above enumerated are more or less shuffled,
so that, for instance, plants having dark stipe-scales and fronds widest near
the middle may nevertheless have glandular-ciliate indusia and brown wrinkly
spores. The significance of such relations requires further investigation.

POLYPODIACEAE: DRYOPTERIS SUBF.
DryYOPTERIS

In recent editions of Gray’s Manual the bulk of this Subfamily is made a
genus and assigned the name Aspidium, in Porter’s book Dryopteris, and in
Poyser’s Nephrodium. Here, following the plan currently favored by the author-
ity C. Christensen+ the name Dryopteris is used, and restricted to the members
with short, thick, scaly rhizome, four or more vascular bundles in the stout
stipe, firm more or less evergreen fronds, and large sori covered by a thick
persistent indusium.

D. intermedia. Though classed in the three works referred to in the pre-
ceding paragraph as a mere variety, the Eastern Woodfern is here regarded
as a distinct species. Its diagnostic characters comprise an erect or oblique
rootstock with the fronds clustered around the tip; scales with more or less dark
brown central stripe; firm and wholly evergreen frond-tissue; oblong abruptly-
acuminate medial pinnae; sharply serrate lobe- ins; short inner lower
pinnules on the basal pinna-pair; and glandular rachis, midveins, and indusia.
It was discovered by Muhlenberg in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; his
manuscript name for it, Aspidium intermedium, was published by Willdenow
in 1810. It grows in humus-rich soil in dry rocky to moist muddy woods
throughout the state, having been collected in all 67 counties.

1 Verdoorn’s Man. Pteridology: 543, 1938.

28 BARTONIA |

Dryopteris spinulosa. The name D. austriaca is regarded by some taxon-
omists as valid for the Toothed Woodfern under present nomenclatorial rules,
but until there is general agreement the more widely known name may well
be retained. This circumboreal plant differs from the next-preceding species
in its oblique to horizontal rootstock bearing the fronds in a short row; light
brown scales; membranous frond-tissue which tends to become pale and to
wither during autumn, only sterile fronds protected by litter remaining ever-
green; deltoid-oblong gradually acuminate medial pinnae; lobe-margins serrate
with rather appressed teeth; elongate lower inner pinnules on the basal pinna-
pair; and complete absence of glands on the rachis and indusia. In Pennsyl-
vania it is common in swamps and on moist wooded slopes, having been
collected in 63 counties.

The intermediates between this and the next-preceding species, the existence
of which has led to questioning their distinctness, are here regarded as hybrids.
These are like D. intermedia in frond-texture and in glandularity, but like
D. spinulosa in the outline of the medial pinnae. The lower inner pinnules on
the lower pinna-pair may be elongate as in D. spinulosa, or short as in
D. intermedia. The name v. fructuosa has been applied to the short-pinnuled
variant, but seems preferably expanded to cover both, which occur throughout
the state. —

A plant with the fronds tripinnate at least below, and having the second-
order pinnules narrow and remote, has been named v. concordiana, One well-
marked colony of it is known near Alpine, York County, but specimens from
several others approach this type of cutting.

D. campyloptera. Mountain Woodfern was classed as D. (or NV.) spinulosa
v. dilatata by Porter and Poyser, although the valid name for it in varietal
status is v. americana. Here, however, its species status is accepted. It is a
cool-climate fern, growing abundantly on the higher Appalachian mountains, and
having spread since the melting of the Wisconsin ice far north into Canada.
The erect rootstock has the large deltoid-oblong fronds clustered around its tip;
the scales have a dark brown central stripe; the frond tissue is delicate and
wholly deciduous during autumn; the frond is 3-pinnate at least below (that
of D. spinulosa being only 2-pinnate) ; the lobe-margins are sharply serrate; the
lower inner pinnules on the basal pinna-pair are very large, occupying as much
space as two pinnules on the upper side of the same pinna, although varying
from short to elongate; and there is also variation in glandularity, with many
glabrous individuals. Most of the records by Porter and Poyser represented
misidentifications, and it is definitely known from but two northern Pennsyl-
vania counties, Bradford and Wayne; cutting and burning of the rocky wood-
lands where it grows effectively exterminates it, and only the occurrence on
Mt. Ararat in the latter county seems still to be in existence.

THE FERNS AND LYCOSPHENS OF PENNSYLVANIA 29

Dryopteris marginalis. Leather Woodfern is one of the commonest in the
state, being able to grow on dry rocky slopes, in open woods, and on hummocks
in swamps alike. Its county record is complete. The f. elegans, with large seg-
ments having lobed margins and the sori “ inland”, and f. traillae, with acutish,
toothed segments are occasional.

x D. slossonae. This obvious hybrid between D. marginalis and D. cristata
is occasional in swamps in company with the second-named parent, having been
collected in 7 counties. Another hybrid, D. intermedia X marginalis, is known
in Fulton, Lancaster, and Wayne; and D. marginalis X spinulosa in Berks,
Monroe and Northampton.

D. goldiana. Giant Woodfern while not common is occasional in humus-rich
woods throughout. Porter knew it from 11 counties, but by now the list is 34.
This hybridizes with other members of the genus; under Nephrodium, Poyser
recorded D. cristata * goldiana and D. goldiana X spinulosa from Delaware
County. In addition, D. goldiana marginalis has been found in Armstrong
and Fayette, while both Delaware and Susquehanna have yielded what seems to
be D. clintoniana X goldiana, more or less similar to the plant termed D. celsa in
Virginia. Further study of all of these hybrids is needed.

D. clintoniana. This name is applied in a comprehensive way to a series of
Broad Swampferns which may prove separable when more fully investigated.
One accompanies D. cristata and differs only in the broader frond-outline and
more acuminate pinnae; this is the so-called D. cristata v. clintoniana, recorded
by Porter from 5 and Poyser from 6 counties. Then there are two sorts of plants
which grow on moist or even rather dry wooded slopes and have massive fronds
with the lowermost pinnae long and pinnate, while the upper ones are decidedly
long-acuminate. In one of these, the rootstock scales tend to be pale brown and
the sori close to the midveins; this is v. genuina, the one on which the species was
based. In the other, the scales tend to be dark and shining, while the sori lie
about midway between the midveins and the lobe-margins; since it is commoner
southward it has been named v. australis. Plants approaching D. cristata have
been seen in herbaria from Berks, Chester, Delaware, Mercer, Montgomery, and
Wayne counties. They grade imperceptibly into v. genuina, for which the county
list is Berks, Bradford, Bucks, Chester, Crawford, Dauphin, Delaware, Hunting-
don, Lancaster, Philadelphia, Pike, Sullivan, Tioga, Wayne and York. Plants
classed as v. australis, and some gradational ones too, are known from Adams,
Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Butler, Dauphin, Lancaster, Mercer, Northampton, and
York counties.

Besides the hybrid with D. goldiana already mentioned, plants representing
D. clintoniana X intermedia have been found in Pike and Wayne.

30 BARTONIA

Dryopteris cristata. Narrow Swampfern is common in marshes, swamps, and
moist woods in all parts of the state, and has been collected in at least 49 counties.
Its entrance into hybrids is noted above.

D. boottw. While apparently arising from ancient hybridization between D.
cristata and D. intermedia, this fern is generally regarded as deserving species
status. Showing the influence of the second-named parent in profuse glandularity,
_ It may well be termed the Viscid Swampfern. Porter recorded it from 8 counties,
and Poyser, under “ Nephrodium cristatum X spinulosum intermedium,” from 12.
The list stands at present at 33 counties.

PoLysTICHUM

P. acrostichoides. Commonest fern in the state, Christmasfern has been col-
lected in every county, in some from as many as 25 stations. It grows in a wide
variety of habitats, though always rather shady and rich in humus. The fol-
lowing named forms have been recognized among Pennsylvania material: f.
crispum, with ruffled pinna-margins; f. gravesii (type locality in Susquehanna
County), with pinna-midribs projecting beyond a truncate apex; f. incisum, with
the margins more or less deeply toothed ; forma ligulatum, narrow, type in Berks;
f. multifidum, with the pinnae pinnatifid to pinnate; and f. recurvatum with
recurved-tubular pinna-tips.

P. braunu. The circumboreal species here termed Eastern Hollyfern occupies
cool ravines and wooded north-facing mountain slopes in three areas: the Ganoga
Glen of Kitchen Creek, in northwestern Luzerne; the tributary ravines of the
east branch of Fishing Creek, north from Jamison City, in Sullivan just above
the Columbia line; and toward both southwestern and northeastern corners of
Wayne County. The southern limit of the species range is reached here, there
being stations in all 3 counties at latitude 41° 19. A single plant of the hybrid
between the two Polystichums has been collected in southwestern Wayne.

‘THELYPTERIS

In Gray’s Manual, several of the species included here were placed under
Aspidium, in Porter under Dryopteris and in Poyser under Nephrodium. Again
in agreement with Christensen, the genus epithet Thelypteris is now adopted for
those with long slender sparsely scaly rhizome, 1 or 2 vascular bundles in the
slender stipe, thin deciduous fronds, and small sori covered with delicate evan-
escent indusia. With them are included two species classed by all three works
cited above under the genus Phegopteris, these possessing the characters just
enumerated, except that the indusia fail to develop at all.

THE FERNS AND LYCOSPHENS OF PENNSYLVANIA 31

Thelypteris palustris v. pubescens. The northeastern representative of the
widespread Marshfern grows in marshes and swamps throughout Pennsylvania,
having been collected from at least 52 counties. Porter and Poyser listed it as
Dryopteris and Nephrodium thelypteris respectively. When he described the
Gulf states relative as v. haleana, Fernald + mentioned “ specimens from... south-
eastern Pennsylvania ” as transitional between the two varieties, but they seem
to be little more than luxuriant shade forms of v. pubescens. Two named forms,
f. frondosa and f. serratipinnula are recorded for Berks County.

T. simulata. Bogfern, a northeast-American endemic, is often confused with
the preceding, but can be readily distinguished by its more yellow green color,
by the elliptic pinnae, simple veins, and spaced sori. It grows only in intensely
acid situations, mostly in hummocks of sphagnum moss. Porter listed it (under
Dryopteris) from 5 counties, but in two— Chester and Crawford —had mis-
identified material, as recognized by Poyser (under Nephrodium). The present
county list comprises: Adams, Berks, Carbon, Centre (western limit, longitude
77° 45’), Franklin, Lackawanna, Lycoming, Monroe, Pike, Schuylkill, Sullivan,
and Wayne, 12 in all.

T. noveboracensis. 'The New York Fern, or Tapering-fern, common and
widespread in more or less moist, acid woodlands in eastern North America,
has been collected in all 67 Pennsylvania counties. Its sweet-scented f. fragrans
has been noted in Berks County.

T. phegopteris. The genus Phegopteris to which this fern was assigned in
earlier works is now believed to be for the most part a minor subdivision of
the genus Thelypteris. The present species is a circumboreal one, and may
well be termed the Northern Beechfern. In Pennsylvania it grows on moist
cliffs and cool rocky slopes, scattered through the mountain regions, and locally
in the lowlands, descending nearly to sea-level in Philadelphia County. The
total county list numbers 35.

T. hexagonoptera. Southern Beechfern was also formerly placed in the genus
Phegopteris. It is common on wooded slopes in the sourthern part of the state,
though rare northward, being represented in herbaria from at least 50 counties.

CURRANIA

C. dryopteris. The nomenclatorial situation in connection with the Oakferns
was discussed in the first part of this paper. The present species, for which
the common name Woodland Oakfern seems appropriate, is a circumboreal plant.
Though rather rare, it occurs in cool rocky woods nearly throughout the state,
having been collected in 35 counties, including Philadelphia, where it approaches
sea-level.

1 Rhodora 31: 34, 1929.

32 BARTONIA

Currama robertiana. In Porter’s list of Pennsylvania Pteridophytes the rare
circumboreal Limestone Oakfern was included, as a Phegopteris, from “ Erm,
Union City, Fenno.” Poyser accepted this record without comment. When the
ferns in Porter’s herbarium were mounted and distributed in the herbarium of
the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Fenno’s specimen came to
light, but it proved to be only the commoner Woodland Oakfern.

Late in 1941, however, an authentic occurrence of the Limestone Oakfern
was discovered; it is situated in Blair County, between Altoona and Hollidays-
burg. This is by far the southernmost station for the species in North America,
latitude 40° 28’, the nearest colony known being in Douglas County, Michigan,
450 miles away! The fern grows here at the base of a steep northwest-facing
wooded slope, above a brook, the underlying rock being limestone which breaks
into small angular blocks, from the crevices of which moisture oozes out, and
by evaporation keeps the roots cool. The colony is a small one, and its exact
location will be disclosed only to botanists who will agree not to vandalize it.

POLYPODIACEAE: POLYPODIUM SUBF.
PoriyPopiuM

P. vulgare v. virginianum. Some taxonomists consider the east-American
Rockcapfern to be an independent species, and it was listed in the Guide to
Eastern Ferns as P. virginianum. The differences between it and the original
P. vulgare are, however, so slight that ours is perhaps best considered a local
variety of a wide-ranging circumboreal species. It grows in crevices and on the
upper surfaces of rocks of all kinds, and occasionally also on the trunks of trees,
often in places too dry and sterile for any other fern to get a foothold. Common
throughout the state, it has been collected in all 67 counties.

The typical form of our Rockcapfern is cut into entire linear-oblong seg-
ments with a rather obtuse tip. Several variants occur locally in the state, the
following having been named under P. virginianum: f. acuminatum with the
segments acutish or acuminate, and undulate-margined; f. brachypteron, a very
narrow variant, the segments lunate; f. deltoidewm, the blade more or less deltoid
and the lower segments auriculate; f. bipinnatifidum, with the segments cut into
obtuse lobes; and f. chondroides, with segment- and frond-tips variously frilled
or crested. Finally there is a monstrosity, termed f. alato-multifidum, founded
on specimens from Carbon County, Pennsylvania; in this the frond tip is crested,
while the segments are acute, and connected by a broad wing. (Poyser also
listed f. marginatum and v. rotundatum from Lancaster County, but these are
the typical and brachypteron forms respectively.)

THE FERNS AND LYCOSPHENS OF PENNSYLVANIA 33

LYCOSPHENS
LYCOPODIACEAE

LycopopruM

L. selago v. typicum. The circumboreal Fir Clubmoss has been found but
once in Pennsylvania, Porter’s record reading “ Monror, Water Gap, at the
summit of the mountain ... Knipe.” The specimen is preserved in the herbarium
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

L. selago v. patens. Cliff Clubmoss, also circumboreal but ranging farther
south than the preceding variety, has likewise only a single known station here.
This, discovered subsequent to Porter and Poyser’s day, is at Raymondkill Falls,
in Pike County.

L. lucidulum v. verum. In contrast to the species just discussed, Shining
Clubmoss is one of the commonest species in the state, growing in swamps, moist
woods, and rocky slopes or rarely shaded crevices of cliffs throughout. There are
57 counties represented in herbaria.

L. annotinum. Three varieties of Bristly Clubmoss occur in Pennsylvania,
but they intergrade freely, and herbaria contain more intermediate than definitely
classifiable specimens. Porter listed the species from 7 and Poyser from 8 moun-
tain counties; to date 25 are known.

The v. typicum with spreading more or less serrate leaves is present through-
out. Usually associated with it, but known in characteristic form with the leaves
entire only in 10 counties, occurs v. acrifolium. These are both occupants of
cool rocky woods at moderate to high altitudes. The smaller relative with short
entire appressed leaves, v. pungens, is known to grow in boggy places in Monroe
and perhaps other counties.

L. clavatum. Running Clubmoss is well known to occur throughout the state,
though rare southeastward. Growing chiefly in dry to moist sterile woods, it
reaches its greatest abundance in the cut-over lands of the Pocono Plateau.
There are 50 county records. Its fertile branches usually fork toward the top
and bear 2 or 3 cones (strobili) of sporangia. Sometimes there is only a single
cone, but this can hardly be classed as the v. megastachyon, because the same
individual plant may bear both single and multiple cones on different branches.

L. obscurum v. genuinum. Flatbranch Groundpine was first collected near
Philadelphia by John Bartram and sent to Europe for naming. It grows in moist
to dry acid woods throughout, having been collected in 54 counties. The char-
acteristic flattening of the leafy branches, due to the marked shortening of the
upper and lower ranks of leaves, can usually be readily seen when a plant is
viewed from the side; but occasional individuals grade into the following variety.

34 BARTONIA

Lycopodium obscurum v. dendroideum. This variety differs from the preced-
ing in having its leaves about equal in length on all sides of the branches, and so
is termed the Roundbranch Groundpine. While found at times in much the same
situations as its relative, it more frequently migrates out into sunny bogs or rock
crevices, and then becomes more compact in aspect and bears more numerous
cones. Less common than the other variety, this has 43 county records.

L. tristachyum. In typical development the circumboreal Slender Ground-
cedar has a deep-seated rootstock, glaucous foliage, cord-like branchlets which
show constrictions representing cessation of growth during winter and new
growth of the same axis the following spring, and elongate cones in groups of
3 or 4. Variants with shallower rootstock, and others with bright green foliage

known, representing transitions toward the two following species. It grows
in decidedly sterile, acid woods, and though present nearly throughout the state,
is common only locally in the Pocono region. Porter knew it from but 2 and
Poyser from 4 counties, but it has subsequently been collected more extensively
and is now known from 29.

L. complanatum. The records of this species given by Porter and Poyser
actually represent the next-following one. Recently it has been recognized,
however, that Northern Groundcedar extends as far south as Pennsylvania. It
is characterized by having a shallowly buried rootstock, bright green foliage,
rather irregularly developed ribbon-like branchlets with seasonal growth-con-
strictions, and short single or paired cones. Specimens are preserved from both
Monroe and Wayne counties, the former representing the southeasternmost sta-
tion of the species, latitude 41° 13’.

L. flabelliforme. Some authors consider Southern Groundcedar only a sub-
species or variety of the Northern, but they are here kept apart. The present one
has a superficial rootstock, bright green foliage, upright stems symmetrically
divided into fans of ribbon-like branchlets which show no growth-constrictions
(or rarely a very few), and elongate cones in groups of 3 or 4. Commonest of the
group, this plant grows in woodland litter throughout the state, there being
specimens preserved from every county but Mercer.

L. inundatum v. typicum. The circumboreal Dwarf Bogclubmoss was known
to Porter from but 6 and Poyser 7 counties. Actually it grows in sandy or
gravelly openings in sphagnum bogs and acid spring runs in many parts of the
state, the county list now standing at 22.

L. inundatum v. bigelovii. The east-American Tall Bogclubmoss was re-
corded from Delaware County by Porter, but questioned by Poyser. We now
know it from Bucks, Carbon, Clearfield, Delaware, Erie, Lackawanna, Lancaster,
Monroe, and Philadelphia, or 9 counties.

THE FERNS AND LYCOSPHENS OF PENNSYLVANIA 35

Lycopodium adpressum. Southern Bogelubmoss, often regarded as a variety
of the next-preceding species but here kept distinct, is characterized by the
strongly appressed sporophyls, yielding a decidedly slender cone. It was not
known to Porter, but was included by Poyser, under the name L. chapmani, from
Bucks and probably Delaware county. It is now definitely recognized in Bucks,
Delaware, Lancaster (inland limit), and Philadelphia.

(L. alopecuroides. Though accredited to Pennsylvania by both Porter and
Poyser, there is considerable doubt whether this southern Coastal Plain species
actually enters the state. All its supposed specimens represent robust forms of
L. inundatum bigelovit.)

SELAGINELLACEAE
SELAGINELLA

S. rupestris. Rock Spikemoss was recorded by Porter from 7 and by Poyser
from 8 counties. It is now known to grow on dry slopes of granite, sandstone,
and other rocks yielding moderately acid soils, throughout the southeastern half
of the state, in at least 20.

S. apoda. Meadow Spikemoss was discovered in Pennsylvania by Bartram.
It grows in wet muddy situations, along brooks and in sunny openings in grass-
land or thickets, throughout the state. Though often overlooked by collectors
of vascular plants because of its resemblance to a moss it has reached herbaria
from 30 counties.

ISOETACEAE |
ISOETES

I. engelmanni. Appalachian Quillwort, the commonest species in the state,
grows in shallow ponds, wet thickets, sluggish streams and even on river shores
where protected by coarser plants from strong currents. There are records for
33 counties, chiefly southeastern. Porter recognized beside the typical variety
(or subspecies) a slender one called gracilis, from two, and a coarse vigorous one
termed valida, from three counties; Lancaster was the type locality of the latter.
Still another was described by A. A. Eaton in 1905 and included by Poyser: v.
fontana, the type colony being in a spring along the railroad near McCalls Ferry,
Lancaster County.

I. echinospora v. braunit. The circumboreal Prickly-spored Quillwort is rep-
resented in America by a variety which is often classed as a species. Previous
compilers listed it from only 5 counties, but it is now known from 12 chiefly
northeastern ones. A vigorous variant, variously classed as a subspecies, variety
or forma robusta was reported by Porter from Bucks County, but the record
is doubtful.

36 BARTONIA

Isoetes riparia. Riverbank Quillwort was originally collected by Nuttall
along the Delaware river near Philadelphia. Its typical variety is known only
from this river and its tributaries, in Bucks, Delaware, Lehigh, Philadelphia,
Pike, and Wayne counties. A closely related plant termed by some workers I.
riparia v. canadensis, and by others J. dodgei, has been collected in ponds in
Franklin, Lackawanna, Pike, Sullivan, and Wayne. Reports of other species,
such as I. lacustris and I. saccharata, are believed to represent erroneous
identifications.

EQUISETACEAE
EQuISETUM

E. prealtum. American Scouringrush was classed by Porter as EF. hyemale,
by Poyser as E. hiemale ssp. affine and ssp. robustum. It grows on alluvial
banks and calcareous-sandy slopes in the southeastern parts of the state, becom-
ing rare northwestward. The present list stands at 30 counties.

E. laevigatum. Smooth Scouringrush was reported by Porter from Northamp-
ton County, but questioned by Poyser, and the specimens from there actually
prove to have been misidentified. It is now well represented in herbaria, how-
ever, from Presque Isle, Erie County.

E. variegatum. The little Variegated Scouringrush was collected in Erie
County many years ago, but. has not been recently found in the state.

E. fluviatile. Water Horsetail is well known in swamps and ponds, chiefly in
the northern part of the state. It is represented in herbaria (in part as the un-
branched f. limosum) from 36 counties.

(Reports of EZ. litorale from various counties, including a variety elatius re-
corded by Eaton from Lancaster, appear to refer to mere depauperate forms of
E. fluviatile.)

(E. palustre. Specimens from Easton, Northampton County were identified
as the American Marsh Horsetail by the late J. H. Schaffner, but only aberrant
E. fluviatile appears to be represented.)

E. sylvaticum v. multiramosum. Sylvan Horsetail occurs scattered through-
out the state in cool moist woods and swamps. There are 37 county records.

(Reports of Z. scirpoides in the state are wholly unauthenticated.)

(EZ. pratense. Porter and Poyser listed Meadow Horsetail for Clearfield
County, but the specimens so labelled prove to be EZ. arvense.)

E. arvense. Field Horsetail is common throughout the state in moist thickets
and muddy banks, also invading artificially dumped soil, cinders, etc. It has
been collected in every county but Clarion and Mifflin. It appears in numerous
forms, but most of these are scarcely worthy of separate naming. The striking
variant with a cone borne at the tip of an apparently normal sterile shoot, f.
campestre, has been collected in Allegheny County.

THE FERNS AND LYCOSPHENS OF PENNSYLVANIA 37

Discussion and Summary

the nomenclatural taxonomic portion of this paper one new form is
described (p. 12) and new names proposed for infra-specific entities in 6 cases
(pp. 12, 18, 14, 16). Five changes in status (pp. 12, 13, 14, 15) as well as 5 new
combinations (pp. 18, 19, 20), including some where a previous usage was not vali-
dated, were made. The most noteworthy are: Botrychium obliquum f. confusum
for the intermediate between that species and B. dissectum; Dryopteris slossonae
for the rather common hybrid of D. cristata and D. marginalis; and the placing
of the two Oakferns in the relatively recent genus Currania, as C. dryopteris
and C. robertiana.

In the geographic treatment a total of 81 species, 48 varieties, 36 forms, and
13 hybrids are recognized in Pennsylvania, a considerable increase over the
earlier lists. The species new to the state (some included in earlier lists in a
different status or interpretation), comprise: Botrychium multifidum, Pellaea
glabella, Asplenium resiliens, A. trudelli, Athyrium angustum, A. asplenioides,
Dryopteris intermedia, D. campyloptera, D. clintoniana, Currania robertiana,
and Lycopodium complanatum.

Noteworthy additions to the state’s list of varieties are: Botrychium multi-
fidum v. typicum, B. obliquum v. oneidense, B. simplex v. laxifolium, Ophio-
glossum vulgatum v. pycnostichum, Cystopteris fragilis v. genuina, C. fragilis
v. laurentiana, C. fragilis v. protrusa, Asplenium platyneuron v. hortonae,
A. rutamuraria v. ohionis, Athyrium angustum v. typicum, A. angustum v. elatius,
Dryopteris spinulosa v. concordiana, D. clintoniana v. australis, Lycopodium
selago v. patens, and L. annotinum v. pungens.

Important forms new to the state are: Botrychium obliquum f. confusum,
Osmunda cinnamomea f. cornucopiaefolia, O. cinnamomea f. glandulosa, Onoclea
sensibilis f. acutisegmenta, and Equisetum arvense f. campestre.

Deletions from the list of ferns attributed to Pennsylvania by various com-
pilers, resulting from review of the evidence and recognition of their unsatis-
factory character are: Osmunda cinnamomea f. crenulata (a juvenile freak) ;
Asplenium fontanum (identification correct but source dubious); Athyrium
filiz-femina (material now assigned to two other species) ; Lycopodium alopec-
uroides) reidentified as a var. of another species) ; Isoetes lacustris (a mere
guess as to identity) ; Equisetum litorale and E. palustre (reinterpreted as forms
of E. fluviatile) ; E. scirpoides (no authenticating specimens or records found) ;
and E. pratense (material proves to have been misidentified) .

Botanical Collectors of the Philadelphia Local Area *
Francis W. PENNELL

As you all know, the Philadelphia local flora is understood by the Philadelphia
Botantical Club as being that of the area covered by the Club’s Local Herbarium
at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, an area comprising all
southern New Jersey, Pennsylvania southeast of the Blue Ridge and east of
the Susquehanna River, the northern county of Delaware, and the northeastern-
most of Maryland. In noting the persons who have collected the plants of this
territory one is impressed both by the number of them and the historical con-
tinuity of their labors. No other part of the New World can show such a record.
In my recent account of eastern Scrophulariaceae,? for which I cited only one
specimen to a county and gave precedence to such numbered collections as Bayard
Long’s and my own, I find that there are given from this area records of more
than 100 different individuals. And the succession of collectors within our local
area stretches without break from John Bartram in the early eighteenth century
to the botanists assembled here to-night.

Yet Philadelphia did not have the earliest botanical collectors in our country.
Before Bartram was born John Banister was sending dried plants from Virginia
to England, and so were William Vernon and Dr. David Krieg from Maryland.
That was in the latter years of the seventeenth century, about the time that
Philadelphia was founded. It was John Clayton of Virginia, fourteen years
older than John Bartram, whose collections were reported on in the “ Flora
Virginica ” of Gronovius, and, because that work was the main source of
Linnaeus’ knowledge of our eastern flora, Clayton’s plants must ever stand as
the original specimens or types of most of our familiar native species. Indeed,
with such predecessors it seems surprising that John Bartram has been so widely
hailed as the “ Father of American Botany ”.

Nor, furthermore, has the study of systematic botany reached its highest
American distinction in our area. Philadelphia was dominant in the late eight-
teenth and early nineteenth centuries, but after Nuttall’s return to England in
1841 never again was there a large output of comprehensive work here. For
a century leadership has been alternately at New York or Boston, with Torrey
at New York, then Gray at Cambridge, then Britton at New York, then Fernald

1 Prepared for the commemoration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Philadelphia
Botanical Club, December 19, 1941. _ For invaluable assistance I am indebted to Dr. John
H. Barnhart of the New York Botanical Garden, and to my colleague, Mr. Bayard Long.

?The Scrophulariaceae of Eastern Temperate North America, Monog. Acad. Nat. Sci.
Phila. 1: 1-650. 1935.
38

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA AREA 39

at Cambridge; among these Asa Gray was undoubtedly the greatest taxonomic
botanist that our country has produced. Yet, though not commencing so early
as the botanical interest south of us, nor reaching so commanding a position as
that north of us, for two centuries now within the Philadelphia area there has
been a steady succession of field botanists, persons interested in the identities
and the local distributions of plants.

Ours must be a remarkably rich terrain to support such study. It is. The
combination of inland and coastal plain, such peculiar areas as the serpentine
barrens, everywhere the presence of ungrazed woodland that has persisted from
the original forest, tempt one constantly afield. That the area has not lost its
lure is proven by the career of our present curator of the Local Herbarium. Mr.
Long still collects with the ardor of thirty years ago, and he can provide any
inquirer with a goodly list of problems still demanding field-inquiry.

Yet such potentialities exist elsewhere over North America, and many a
western state, with vastly more exciting terrain, has had few if any local
botanists. Settlement there is new, while here it is old. But even an old center,
fully comparable in background, may lack such a history as we possess. Balti-
more, and its vicinity, even though collecting commenced so early in Maryland,
has developed very few local botanists. Perhaps that is mere chance, but, how-
ever an absence may be explained, one wonders if the presence of such interest
iin the Philadelphia territory may be in some degree due to certain cultural
strains. With us the Quaker and the German groups, both of them here from
the days of Penn, have contributed a surprisingly large proportion of our
collectors. To the former stock pertain the Bartrams, Marshall, Collins,
Darlington, Baldwin, Conrad, T. P. James, Michener, Edward Tatnall, George
Martin, Canby, the Smiths (George, Charles E., and Benjamin H.), Horatio
C. Wood, and J. Bernard Brinton, the founder of our Club; to the latter Muhlen-
berg, Schweinitz, Pursh, Wolle, Porter, Herbst, Rau, and Harshberger. (How-
ever, independent of these we have the Bartons, Rafinesque, Nuttall, Durand,
Pickering, Carson, Redfield, Ellis, and others.) But more important than such
cultural strains in accounting for Philadelphia’s botanical prestige must really
be the broad intellectural leadership that belonged naturally to the metropolis
of the colonies and the early capital of the nation.

In the days of the elder Bartram Philadelphia was colonial. John’s oppor-
tunity to travel came from the desire in England for curious and horticulturally
satisfactory garden plants. From 1735 to 1765 he was repeatedly traveling, at
first in Pennsylvania, but eventually from Lake Ontario to Florida. Both live
plants and dried specimens went to England.* I suppose that some of John
Bartram’s plants now at the British Museum in London are the earliest botanical

3 His son, William Bartram, author of the delightful “Travels”, spent the years imme-
diately tesa the Revolution in a scientific c journey Etec the southern colonies from
North Carolina to —_ and Louisiana, and he gathered therefrom specimens that likewise
went to England; but he seems to have collected very little. at home, although a —
gotten by him a ct ua bentioe Jokes farm is among the B. S. Barton plants at the Academy

40 BARTONIA

specimens ever made from our local area, unless it be that a few others there
that were collected by John Clayton “ when I went up Delaware”* be yet
earlier.© (Bartonia 12, Suppl. 7-19, 1931. Harshberger, Botanists of Philadel-
phia 46-49, 1899.) °

In the middle years of John Bartram’s life came Pehr Kalm, sent from Sweden
largely through Linnaeus’ interest, to obtain information and specimens of
plants from eastern North America. From September, 1748, till early June,
1749, he was within our area, at points from Philadelphia and Wilmington to
Raccoon Creek and Repaupo in southern New Jersey. Later, he went to Quebec
and across central New York to Niagara Falls, with the result that, on his plants
reaching Linnaeus apparently in advance of his records of travel, the master
assumed that they might all be attributed to Canada, which at that time included
the whole valley of the St. Lawrence River. Hence it is that “ canadensis ”
became applied to so many plants of our territory, even to Linaria canadensis
which Kalm’s diary shows that he really gathered on Raccoon Creek in southern
New Jersey. I was at first hesitant as to whether John Bartram had commenced
making an herbarium so early as Kalm’s visit, but fortunately Kalm himself,
under date of September 29th, 1748, gives an account of “ Mr. Bartram’s Her-
barium”. (H. 77.)

Humphry Marshall, John Bartram’s younger cousin, like him formed a
botanical garden, some surviving trees of which may still be seen at Marshallton
in Chester County, Pennsylvania. He made it an arboretum, and his special
interest in trees led to his publishing in 1785 the first considerable botanical
work in the United States, his “Arbustum* Americanum”. Whether he made
herbarium specimens I do not know, but I suspect that, after the manner of his
cousin, such were prepared and possibly sent to England. Nor do we know
that any were made by his nephew Moses Marshall. (H. 77-85.)

By this time the Pennsylvania-German group had also become active,
Muhlenberg’s collecting beginning about the time of the Revolution. At the
Moravian community Samuel Kramsch appears to have been the pioneer, and
there has survived his manuscript “ Flora Nazarethena spontanea collecta in
annis 1787 et 1788”, to which Christian Denke added a supplement in 1797.
Nazareth Hall was a boy’s school, and there Lewis David von Schweinitz was a
pupil from 1787 to 1797, leaving as a youth of seventeen. One sees clearly to

4See Monog. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1: 417. 1935.
5 Dr. Harshberger’s “ Botanists of Philadelphia and their Work”, a mine of information

ur history, and from which much of my information is sanieeds lists before
John Bartram, James enn’s secretary for Pennsylv ‘a ne
first rimental workers in our science, and Dr. Christopher Witt, who may well have
included native plants also in his en. Neither own "he made

specimens, nor are any such known from the previous Swedes and Dutch o

* These sources of information will = cited below as “B” and oH” auaieus An
asterisk denotes an accompanying

seiEga POEM ap or howd ignorne) this appears on the title-page as

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA AREA 41

what influence he owed his lifelong devotion to botany. But before passing to
the mature work of Muhlenberg and Schweinitz we should consider several
visitors from Europe.

From 1780 to 1840 may be called the classical period of Philadelphia botany.
For six decades the outstanding botanical studies of this country were either
made in our territory, or the botanists achieving them at least visited Phila-
delphia or kept in touch with botanists or other intellectuals here; especially
was this contact with the American Philosophical Society, which had such
significant influence on the cultural life of the young nation. André Michaux,
sent out in 1785 by the French government, remained in this country until 1796;
in the course of travels that extended from Florida to Lake Mistassini in Quebec
and to the prairies of Illinois he repeatedly visited Philadelphia, in 1793 spend-
ing several months here.* We may be sure that he did not refrain from collect-
ing while in our section. With such wide acquaintance with American plants
it is indeed fitting that there resulted from his journeys, though not until after
his death in 1802, the first comprehensive flora of temperate North America, his
“Flora Boreali-Americana ” published at Paris in 1803. Another Frenchman,
Baron Palisot de Beauvois, who was resident in Philadelphia from 1791 to 1798,
also collected widely over the eastern United States (“ from New York to Ohio
south to Georgia’), but he was less fortunate, and lost all his specimens by
shipwreck during his return to France.®

With Andre Michaux throughout his wanderings in North America was his
son, Francois Andre Michaux, who, born in 1770, was then a young man. The
son was especially interested in woody vegetation, and after his father’s death
returned to this country for further investigation of our trees and shrubs. He
tells of his travels in the introduction to his “ Histoire des Arbres Forestiers de
l’Amerique septentrionale”, the three volumes of which with their beautiful
colored plates appeared in Paris from 1810 to 1813. Later this work was trans-
lated and reissued in Philadelphia from 1817 to 1819 as “ The North American
Sylva”. His travels show that for him Philadelphia was an important base,
and so interested did he become in the American Philosophical Society in this
city that he not only sent to it his father’s diary but he bequeathed it what has
ever since been its most valuable fund for obtaining botanical works. The
younger Michaux died in France in 1855.

By 1803, the year of Michaux’s “ Flora”, Muhlenberg was fifty years of age,
and we can picture him in his Lutheran parsonage at Lancaster as sparing every

8 Journal * Andre Michaux, 1787-1796. Ed. C. S. Sargent. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. 26,
No. 129: 1-145. 1888.
® Palisot me Beauvois as an overlooked American Botanist, by E. D. Merrill. Proc.
. Philos. Soc. 76: 899-920. 1936.

42 BARTONIA

possible moment for his botanical studies. Rev. Henry Muhlenberg *° assembled,
by his own and others’ collecting, the first large herbarium that has survived in
this country.‘ His own botanizing was nearly wholly in Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania. For the first time extended and detailed attention was given to
our grasses and sedges, and it is fortunate that this part of his work has received
adequate publication. As his herbarium grew, manuscript book after book was
filled with projected works, but few of these have ever had their minute German
script transformed into printed text. At the American Philosophical Society there
are 23 such manuscript books. But what would be the most valuable to us, a
more finished “ Flora of Lancaster County ”, was sold by Muhlenberg’s son, and—
alas for us—later passed to Professor Gray, so that it is now at Harvard Univer-
sity far from its native county. His contemporaries expected much of Muhlenberg,
and after the appearance of Michaux’s Flora he evidently attempted to get his
notes into order. Ultimately, in 1813, there did appear a work sufficiently com-
prehensive in scope, but actually little more than a catalogue with tabulated
statements of structure and occurrence, his “ Catalogus Plantarum Americae Sep-
tentrionalis”’. Besides flowering plants it included ferns, mosses, lichens, algae,
and fungi. In the preface to this Catalogue is a list of the persons from whom he
had obtained specimens, those from our area being Baldwin, Barton, Collins,
Denke, Dr. Frederick Kampman, Matthias Kinn, Dr. James Mensa: Pursh,
Rafinesque, and Rev. Jacob Van Vleck.1? Muhlenberg’s herbarium, including
without signs of recognition the specimens of these contributors, passed after his
death in 1815 to the American Philosophical Society by which it has been de-
posited at the Academy of Natural Sciences. It needs a thorough study.
(* H. 92-97.)

Seven years younger than Muhlenberg was Dr. Benjamin Smith Barton. In
many ways the two men were in contrast, although in some ways their careers
ran strangely parallel courses. Barton was also associated with Lancaster, and
with a clerical household, his father having been the Episcopal clergyman there.
He likewise assembled an herbarium, which was quickened into fresh activity by
the publication of Michaux’s “ Flora”. He also dreamed of a “Flora” of his
own; this production never resulted for him in anything paralleling Muhlenberg’s
“ Catalogue ” although another carried it on to a far greater achievement. Barton
too died in 1815, and his herbarium also passed to the American Philosophical
Society; finally both herbaria are now together deposited at the Academy of

10 Fully, Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Muhlenberg.

11 Clayton’s own herbarium, presumably duplicating what had been sent to nage ig
in Ho! , was, soon after his death in 1773, destro ved hg! a fire that consumed the
house of New Kent County, Virginia. (See A. B. Masse in Claytonia 1: 1, 1 tacwnes
WwW s herbarium, made in South Carolina between 1760 and 1789 passed. to London, and

these Kampman, Kinn, and ib Vleck will be considered in relation to Pie mie 198
Dr. na (1771-1846) was a prominent Philadelphia physician, active in the aff: of the
American Philosophical Society.

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA AREA 43

Natural Sciences. The composition of Barton’s herbarium is more evident than
that of Muhlenberg’s, while the two together may be taken as indicative of
botanical interests about 1800.

Benjamin Smith Barton was for many years professor of natural history in
the University of Pennsylvania, holding the first American chair of that subject.
In 1803, the year of Michaux’s “Flora,” he brought out in Philadelphia his
“ Blements of Botany ”, the first text-book of our science in this country. As to
his herbarium, he collected somewhat himself but received more from his pupils
and associates, the contributions of each of whom he carefully indicated. The
specimens are from many parts of the then United States, those from our Local
Area being, beside Professor Barton’s own, John Adlum’s and Mathias Barton’s
from Lancaster, Christian F. Denke’s from Northampton County, Pennsylvania,
Dr. Gregg’s from Cape May County, New Jersey, and Frederick Pursh’s from
various places near Philadelphia on either side of the river. It was on Pursh that
Barton was depending for the fulfillment of his “ Flora”, and it is chiefly as the
patron of Pursh and Nuttall that he is to be remembered in North American
taxonomic botany."* (B. 9: 17-34. H. 108-113.)

Far more intimately than Michaux, Pursh is to be associated with Philadel-
phia. As a young immigrant German he was the gardener at William Hamilton’s
estate, the “ Woodlands ”,’* where on the hill and the slopes down to the Schuylkill
that gentleman had extensive beds of native and foreign plants, constituting one
of the choicest gardens of its time. There Pursh was found by Professor Barton
who employed him upon the projected “Flora”, sending him in 1806 on a
pedestrian journey through the mountains of Virginia and in 1807 to western New
York and southern Vermont. The specimens from those trips survive in the
Barton Herbarium, and along with them local plants collected at Blockley,
“ Skuilkill”, “ Woodlands”, Bucks County and in “Jersey”. After leaving
Philadelphia in 1808 Pursh reached England in 1811 and there with the patronage
of Aylmer Bourke Lambert eventually produced under his own name at London
in 1814 what was at last the outcome of Barton’s dream, his “ Flora Americae
Septentrionalis”. More carefully than Michaux he tells what herbaria he has
consulted, and with the same thoroughness that led him on his labels to give the
locality of each plant he even supplies information as to whether he has seen a
species living or only dried. Pursh later settled in Canada, where he died in
1820. (H. 113-117.)

13 ‘= relation to Pursh see Bartonia 9: 17-34, and for sketches of the
ee te es as lc. 35-42, 1926, these ogre being by Dr. J. H.

tains; unf thing more of Dr. ;
lector at Cape May.) For Barton’s relation to Nuttall see Bartonia 18: . The
last reference also recounts the recent “ finding of the Barton Papers”, by V. M. De eld.
My latest paper on “ Benjamin Smith Barton as Naturalist ”, read to the American Philo-
sophical Society Feb. 13, 1942, is to appear in its

14. Now Woodland Cemetery in West Philadelphia.

44 BARTONIA

But the very year after Pursh’s departure in 1808 Barton was encouraging
another young immigrant, and it is likely that he hoped to find a real successor
to Pursh in the keen English printer, Thomas Nuttall. From 1809 to 1811 Nut-
tall travelled on Barton’s account. We can not follow now the adventures of
this enthusiast; suffice it to say that until 1841 he was repeatedly resident. in
Philadelphia, and from his base at the Academy of Natural Sciences (which was
founded in 1812) went on collecting expeditions that led up the Missouri River,
to the Arkansas Territory, to Florida, and eventually across by the Oregon Trail
to the Pacific Ocean. Our local plants were not neglected, as is evident on look-
ing into his “ Genera of North American Plants ”, published here in Philadelphia
in 1818.15 Some, especially those occurring in the tidewater of the Delaware
River, received special consideration in the Journal of the Academy of Natural
Sciences.1® Nuttall’s “ Genera ”’ was one of the keenest works of its time, being
actually a critical supplement, both as regarding genera and species, to Pursh’s
“Flora”. It was only at the Philadelphia Academy that Nuttall seemed able
to flourish botanically. Although he was for nearly ten years at Harvard Uni-
versity he published no botanical work during that period, whereas on a few
weeks’ visit to Philadelphia early in 1834 he promptly prepared three papers for
the Academy’s Journal.'? After his return to England in 1841 he all but disap-
peared from productive botanical work, only to blossom forth with all his old
time vigor on a visit to Philadelphia over the winter of 1847-48, when he described
the new species in a large collection of California plants then newly received.
While most of Nuttall’s earlier collections seem to be in the herbarium of our
Academy, we have a smaller series of his later plants; and his own herbarium,
taken with him to England, passed after his death in 1859 to the British Museum.
(* B. 18: 1-51, 1936; 19: 50-53, 1938. * H. 151-159.)

The founding of the Academy of Natural Sciences in 1812 is one of the im-
portant landmarks in the scientific life of Philadelphia. It represented the second
stage in the associating together of the intellectually minded of our community. -
The first stage had been the establishment of the American Philosophical Society
in the middle of the eighteenth century, a club that embraced all fields of intel-
lectual interest. But in the latter years of the eighteenth and the early nine-
teenth centuries came a division of the field into such groups as the College of

ered in New Jersey. a3 an unpublished letter from Collins to Rafinesque, dated Nov. 19,
1817 from oe, ollins says of this man: “His nam 5 i Reeve’ wo ca bin De
Steuve. He is from Bremen and has settled here about 18 1 mchthe. [he] has a laboratory
vile tres kee oe . is fond of plants and for the time has made from
this neighborhood a handsome collection of the em.”

161: 111-123, 1817.

17 The probable explanation is that there were then few poe tens ene ee
Harvard, relative to those at the the Academy in Philadelphia.

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA AREA 45

Physicians, for the cultivation of medical interests; the Franklin Institute for
what we have come to call the exact sciences of physics and chemistry; and the
Academy of Natural Sciences for botany, zoology, and geology. The Academy,
though at first it was but a small club with a single room for its meetings and
possessions, could better care for collections and attend to their study. As the
Academy gained prestige in its field the study of the natural sciences came in-
creasingly under its care, rather than that of the American Philosophical So-
ciety—a process harmonious enough, for the membership was to a good degree
overlapping. The Academy, as well as the Society, played an important role in
the later portion of our Classical Period, although neither organization proved
sufficient to prevent the ensuing decline in botanical production. (Such a decline
was largely peculiar to botany, as the zoological sciences kept their high standing
at the Academy during the middle nineteenth century.) But to return to the
early decades of the century.

Closer still to Benjamin Smith Barton must have stood his nephew, Dr. Wil-
liam P. C. Barton. He shared his uncle’s interests both in botany and medicine,
and succeeded him in his professorship at the University of Pennsylvania.
Chronologically he was quite contemporary with Thomas Nuttall, being born in
the same year 1786, publishing his main work likewise in 1818, and finally dying
in 1856 only three years before Nuttall. The main work of the younger Barton
was his “Compendium Florae Philadelphicae ”, which bore the explanatory
further title: “ Containing a Description of the Indigenous and Naturalized Plants
found within a Circuit of Ten Miles around Philadelphia”. It was the first local
flora of the Philadelphia district, and such was its merit that we have ap-
propriately named for its author the modern journal of the Philadelphia Botanical
Club “ Bartonia”. In the younger Barton’s two-volumed work, the small size,
durability, and lightness of which readily enables one to carry it afield, are given
descriptions of each species with notes on its occurrence. I suppose that all
Barton’s collecting ground is now built over, but it is interesting to turn the pages
of the “ Compendium ” and realize the choice collecting spots that then existed
on both sides of the river. In connection with certain species various other
collectors are mentioned. Most frequent are acknowledgments to Collins and
Nuttall, but there are also such to Theophilus Beesley of Salem, New Jersey,
Dr. Stuve of New Jersey, and Drs. Eberle and Muhlenberg of Lancaster, Penn-
sylvania. His specimens show that he also obtained much from Dr. Cleaver
(“Clever”). A mystery surrounds the present whereabouts of the bulk of the
younger Barton’s herbarium. Plants of a few families are in the Academy’s
herbarium, and these bear a special label in Redfield’s handwriting, thus showing
that they were prepared between 1876 and 1895. Although much keeps ap-
pearing from boxes that have long been stored away, it hardly seems possible
that any collection of the size of this can be in our possession unidentified.
(H. 159-163.)

46 BARTONIA

In following the Barton association on to Nuttall and the younger Barton
we have departed from a strict chronological sequence, for the latter were not
born until 1786, whereas five others whom we should consider were born in the
short interval from 1779 to 1784. But such an inversion of chronology is only
apparent, for the work of these older men was contemporary with or reached its
main flowering after Nuttall’s “Genera” and the younger Barton’s “ Com-
pendium ”.

In 1779 were born William Baldwin and Solomon W. Conrad. Both collected
much and published little, but that little of such quality that we wish it had been
more. Had Dr. Baldwin but lived more than the forty years that were his, we
should in all likelihood have had more critical studies like the two on southern
grasses and sedges that appeared in his last year of life. A native of Chester
County, Pennsylvania, he resided some years at Wilmington, Delaware, and
there made considerable study of the local plants. Later he collected extensively
on the southern border of the United States, along the St. Mary’s River between
Georgia and Florida. Baldwin we know personally through the letters that
Darlington has preserved for us in the “ Reliquiae Baldwinianae”. He and
Darlington were both from Chester County and of similar Quaker households,
had studied together under Professor Benjamin Smith Barton, and were both
the combination of physician and botanist so characteristic of the time. He
died in 1819 in Missouri, while on Long’s Expedition to the Rocky mountains.
Baldwin’s specimens are now at the Academy of Natural Sciences, but, before
reaching this haven, they had the misfortune to fall into Schweinitz’s hands.
What that meant we shall see anon. (H. 119-125.)

Solomon W. Conrad also assembled an herbarium, which so far as I am aware
came wholly from our local territory. It survives at the Academy, with original
labels that gave only the name and information of locality, but to which the
careful conservator John H. Redfield, who in the latter part of the last century
saw to the mounting of the old collections, has often added Conrad’s name.
Conrad lived at Burlington, and his specimens were mostly gathered in Burling-
ton and Mercer counties, New Jersey. He published a few botanical papers, and
in the Academy’s Journal described a new species each of Juncus and Coral-
lorhiza. In 1829, when fifty years old, Conrad was made Professor of Botany
at the University of Pennsylvania, but his incumbency was short as he died in
1831. (H. 125-126.)

With Schweinitz, born in 1780, we return again to the Moravian community
at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. We have spoken of his being a student under
Kramsch and associated with Denke. Both those men went later to Salem,

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA AREA 47

North Carolina,?* the southern Moravian headquarters, and thither, after a period
of study followed by administrative work in Germany, went Rev. Lewis David
von Schweinitz also. It was in North Carolina that he assembled much of his
enormous herbarium, which included all groups of both flowering and flowerless
plants. Having studied under one of the leading students of Fungi in Europe,
it was natural that in Carolina Schweinitz gave special attention to these little-
known plants. After only nine years at Salem he came again to Bethlehem,
and spent there his remaining thirteen years, from 1821 to 1834. In 1831 he
published his greatest work, “Synopsis Fungorum in America Boreali degentium”,
which has remained the foundation for American mycology. He also prepared a
“ Synopsis Plantarum Americanarum ”, treating of flowering plants and ferns, but
it has remained in manuscript. After his death in 1834 his herbarium passed
to the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, and the accounts say that
it was then larger than the Academy’s own series of plants. (B. 16: 1-8. * H.
127-132.)

It is amazing to realize what botanical work Schweinitz added to a busy ad-
ministrative career. This becomes yet more remarkable when one discovers from
his manuscripts, also bequeathed to the Academy, what a passion he had for
making catalogues. Three or more times did he write out complete ledger-book
records of all his specimens, fully classified scientifically, and the largest and last
of these is preceded by a list of more than 100 “ Contributores ”. Besides this, in
an address-book there is a special list of “ Botanical Correspondents”. As
Schweinitz had the reprehensible (and I trust unique) habit of discarding all
original labels, and as his geographical data are usually reduced to a statement
of the country or such expressions as “ Bethl” for those gathered on trips during
his residence at Bethlehem, any accessory information is welcomed. These lists
of contributors show the cosmopolitan composition of Schweinitz’ vast herbarium,
but among the many names selection must be confined to those of persons collect-
ing in our Local Area. There are: Daniel Steinhauer and Dr. Griffith of Phila-
delphia; Mr. Detwiller (“ Dettwyler ”), with plants from Pennsylvania; James
Read (“ Reed ”), with plants from “ China & Pensyl & Jersey ”; Eugene Frueauff
with plants from “ Siles & Nazareth ”- Dr. Freedly of Philadelphia; Dr. Darling-
ton of “Chester”, evidently the county; Jacob Van Vleck, with plants from
“ Bethl & Carol”; Dr. Muhlenberg of Lancaster; Zaccheus Collins, for plants
from various parts of the continent (“ Americanae ”); Dr. Kampman, for plants
from “ Jersey ”; Samuel Kramsch, for plants from “ Carol & Pensyl”; Matthias
(““ Mathew ”) Kinn, deceased (“ beatus ”), and Solomon Conrad, of Philadelphia;
Charles ?® Wister (“ Wistar”) of Germantown (“ Germanton ”), Philadelphia;

18 Rev. Samuel G. Kramsch (1756-1824), Schweinitz’ early teacher, — oe Sale,
a. Christi : cai :
igi grec ta years’ pL ncnaasty tape at oo oT cies Osten: Pe supplied
Schweinitz with plants from “ Canada & aga sy aged

" = ear of crs ipsam Vasoson ical Society

cian an , a8 it so appears on the list of
“Botanical Correspondents” and has been written over from this on
tributores ”.

that of the “ Con-

48 BARTONIA

Dr. Huebener (“ Hiibner”) of Nazareth; and Charles Kluge of “ Salem & Naz.”
Moravian centers on this list are Bethlehem and Nazareth in Pennsylvania, and
Salem in North Carolina. Also mentioned are Dr. Baldwin, C. F. Denke, Thomas
Nuttall, Dr. Charles Pickering, and Rafinesque, but for plants from outside our
territory; some had already left this section, while others had hardly arrived.*°

Some of these collectors will appear later, while others must be briefly con-
sidered now. Daniel Steinhauer, a fellow Moravian, living from 1785 to 1852,
taught in our area at Philadelphia, Lancaster, Nazareth, and Bethlehem. (B.
16: 34.) Rev. Eugene A. Frueauff, Schweinitz’ nephew and his assistant at
Bethlehem, later assembled an herbarium that has passed to the Moravian College
at Bethlehem; he lived from 1806 to 1879. (T. 16: 283.) Rev. Jacob Van Vleck,
another fellow Moravian, living from 1751 to 1831, collected plants at both the
Salem and Bethlehem headquarters of the sect. (T. 16: 300.) Dr. Frederick
Kampman, perhaps also a Moravian, is one about whom we need information;
his collections being in New Jersey may indicate that he was not of that fellow-
ship. Matthias Kinn was a picturesque German immigrant, who traveled ex-
tensively, even to Florida,*! and who shipped seeds and plants from Philadelphia
to Europe. (B. 9: 38. H. 184.) (Van Vleck, Kampman, and Kinn we have
already met among those to whom Muhlenberg felt indebted.) Charles J. Wister,
living from 1782 to 1865, was the father of William Wynne Wister. (H. 144.)
Dr. Huebener and Charles Kluge were evidently both Moravians, perhaps both
teachers at Nazareth Hall. Dr. Barnhart suggests that the former was Abraham
Lewis Huebener, 1806-1870, long a physician at Bethlehem. Among the list of
“ Botanical Correspondents ” appears also Correa da Serra, the Portuguese min-
ister to this country whose time was divided between Philadelphia and the new
city of Washington; at the former he had substituted for Dr. B. 8. Barton in
giving botanical lectures at the University of Pennsylvania, and he was a real
patron to Nuttall. As he was omitted from the list of “‘ Contributores ” I suspect
that he made few if any specimens. (B. 16: 23.)

In 1782 was born William Darlington, the preeminent botanist of Chester
County, Pennsylvania. As we have seen, he and William Baldwin had studied
together at the University of Pennsylvania, taking the lectures of Professor
Benjamin Smith Barton. Darlington became physician, representative to the

national legislature, and for the latter half of his life banker, botanist, and his-
-torian. Throughout its existence, from 1826 to 1850, he was President of the
Chester County Cabinet of Natural Science. As historian he edited the letters
and other memoranda of his friend Dr. Baldwin, and then went farther back to
perform the same service for John Bartram and Humphry Marshall. The

at ee sketches of many of these collectors have been presented by Dr. J. H.
Barnhart in Mem. Torrey Bot. Club 16: 290-300, 1921 (abbreviated “T” below), and in
Bartonia 16: 19-36, 1935. Other papers concerning Schwei itz are in that issue of Bartonia.

21 Rafinesque, New Fl. N. Amer. 4: 10, 70, 1838.

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA AREA 49

“ Reliquiae Baldwinianae ” was published in 1843 and the “ Memorials of John
Bartram and Humphry Marshall” in 1849, both so late that one might well look
back reminiscently to the great botanical days of Philadelphia’s past. But his
botanical work was taken up earlier, although his first publication in this field
waited until his forty-fourth birthday. As botanist Dr. Darlington confined his
studies to the flora of his county, producing in 1826 his “ Florula Cestrica ”, telling
of the plants around West Chester, then in 1837 enlarging his project so as to
include in the “ Flora Cestrica ” those of the whole county. In the former work
descriptions are abbreviated, and only one important acknowledgment is made
for field help within the county, that to Dr. William Baldwin. In the latter
descriptions are as ample as in any flora, critical comments of keen interest are
freely inserted, and there are acknowledgments of field assistance to as many
as 22 persons. As their observations are dated, we can see that they commence
with 1827, thus testifying to the stimulus given by the appearance of the
“Florula”’. Usually Darlington’s entries are to assign credit for the first dis-
covery of species within the county. (* B. 14: 1-13. * H. 134-143.)

To David Townsend there are over 80 acknowledgments, and they show him
active in every part of the county from 1828 on. Born in 1787, he was only
five years younger than Darlington, and he was associated with him in the West
Chester bank. The Academy has some of his specimens, all bearing a form-label
giving no locality but simply his own address as West Chester, although his many
- specimens in Darlington’s herbarium and the records quoted by Darlington are
‘always precise as to place. He died in 1858. (H. 163-164.) Next is Joshua
Hoopes with 40 acknowledgments. He was but a year younger. His activity
commenced in 1827, and many of his specimens were gathered near his boarding
school at Downingtown. Later he taught school in West Chester. He survived
until 1874. (H. 164-167.) Third is Joseph Rinehart with 22 acknowledgments.
His activity only commenced in 1836, the year that Darlington was preparing
his text, but his field was a remote and prolific one, the hitherto unexplored coun-
try around Pughtown on the Schuylkill River at the northern end of the county.
George W. Hall follows with 14 acknowledgments. He was active from 1829 in
the eastern part of the county, Goshen, Willistown, Paoli, ete. Those with
acknowledgments between 3 and 9 are: Joseph Jacobs, whose collections at
Uwchlan, Pikeland, ete., may have been earlier than this time; John (recently
deceased) and William Jackson, of London Grove; Miss Abigail Kimber of
Kimberton (H. 167.); John Marshall, who collected at Black Rock on the
Schuylkill River; Ezra Michener, of London Grove and West Grove, and Samuel
Peirce of East Marlborough. Mentioned are also Thomas Seal (1785-1875) of
Unionville, whose collections are partly at the Academy in Philadelphia and at
the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh;* and James Trimble of Cecil County,
Maryland, just over the state line from Nottingham in Chester County.

22 M Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1: 619. 1935. For a character portrayal see sketch
by . Seidel Canby in the Reader’s Digest for March, 1941, pages 85-87.

50 BARTONIA

William Darlington published in 1853 yet another edition of the “ Flora
Cestrica ”, calling it the third. The work was simplified by omission of such
critical discussions as those of 1837, and the dicta of Gray’s Manual, then re-
cently published, were accepted as authoritative. Also acknowledgments to col-
lectors were discontinued. An added feature was the inclusion of Mosses and
Hepaticae, contributed by Dr. Thomas P. James, and of Lichens by Ezra
Michener, both of whom will be considered. Darlington died in 1863, and his
herbarium, including also what he had received from various contributors, passed
to the Chester County Academy, which is now the State Teachers’ College at
West Chester. (The herbarium has recently been installed in satisfactory metal
cases.) Darlington distributed specimens widely, and there is a good representa-
tion of his Chester County collections in the Local Herbarium of the Academy
of Natural Sciences.

In 1785 was born Constantine Samuel Rafinesque. A career more utterly in
contrast to that of Darlington could hardly be imagined. Versatile, enthusiastic,
an incurable wanderer, he appears upon our scene as an immigrant from Italy.
In America Philadelphia was repeatedly his home. Hither he came as a youth
of nineteen, being ostensibly here from 1802 to 1805 but spending much of his
time wandering after scientific material. Then he returned to Europe to spend
ten years in Sicily, but in 1815 came to the United States for the remainder of
his life. He visited this city again, and in 1818 set forth from Philadelphia
on his memorable journey to Kentucky. After teaching from 1819 to 1826 at
Transylvania University at Lexington in that state, he returned to spend the last
fourteen years of his life in our city. His was indeed a unique career. But be-
fore telling of it in relation to our local flora, let us consider that.of a man who
became surprisingly involved with him. (H. 144-148, an account that needs
much revising.)

We have repeatedly had references to Zaccheus Collins. Each of the Phila-
delphia botanists had expressed their indebtedness to him, and especially does
this appear in the younger Barton’s “ Compendium Florae Philadelphicae ae
work that was appropriately dedicated to Collins. Because of the Rafinesque
association I have deferred consideration of Collins far beyond his due position,
for he was born in 1764, two years earlier than Benjamin Smith Barton. To
botanist after botanist he had given freely of his discriminating knowledge of
our local plants. Rafinesque repeatedly urged him to publish the many new
species in his herbarium—indeed, he even offered to do so himself if Collins would
only let him. A greater temperamental contrast than that between the ultra-
cautious Collins and the ultra-rash Rafinesque could hardly be imagined.”

23 In fact, Collins was far too cautious about his identifications. In a letter of March 22,
1821 — informed Schweinitz that Nuttall had given his Arkansas a of Crypto-
s to } 7 7 :

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA AREA 51

Collins was evidently forbearing and gracious to the foreigner, so it was into his
ear that Rafinesque poured accounts of his successes and his shifting interests
during the years in Kentucky. Unasked he sent Collins some specimens, which
the latter refused to purchase. Twice Rafinesque, “ broke” financially, appealed
to Collins, obtaining money on loan and also good advice which he did not take.
At last, after Rafinesque had settled finally in Philadelphia, Collins’ health failed
and after a lingering illness he died in 1831. Then, to the surprise of his
executor, came an itemized bill from Rafinesque for all that he had ever sent
Collins, deducting Collins’ kindly loans (for which the executor held Rafinesque’s
signed acknowledgments) as having been advance payments. Rafinesque took
the matter to the courts, and so vigorously pressed his claim that at last the
executor, to end the matter and doubtless quite unaware of its scientific seis
gave Rafinesque Collins’ entire herbarium.** (B. 16: 23.)

Through his earlier and middle years Rafinesque was constantly afield, fe
he must have acquired a remarkable knowledge of our plants living. Doubtless
it was throughout marred by an over-sanguine belief that everything that looked
different would surely prove to be distinct. Yet he often showed keen insight,
and built his judgments independently. His early papers were submitted to the
scientific magazines of the time, but their sketchy nature and the improbably
high proportion of novelties reported led to these avenues of publication becoming
closed to him. Then commenced his own struggling ventures in scientific
journalism, restricted by his poverty or expanded by his periods of financial
success. His “ Medical Flora of North America” appeared in 1830, and his
greatest work, the “ New Flora of America”, from 1836 to 1838. In the intro-
duction to the latter is a geographical outline of our flora, which contains an
enumeration of twenty localities that he has “ discovered or first well explored ”.
Among these the following are in our local area: “ 1. The neighborhood of Quaker
Bridge and Cedar Bridge in the centre of the Pinelands of New Jersey. 2. The
neighborhood of Mullica Hill in New Jersey. 3. The sea Islands of New Jersey.
12. The serpentine rocks of Chester and Maryland....” A list of collectors in-
cludes hardly a new name from our territory, while almost the only local collector
referred to in the text is Dr. Cleaver, already mentioned in connection with Nut-
tall. Rafinesque’s last work, the “ Autikon Botanikon”, with five parts that
contain a haphazard sequence of descriptions of new species, was issued in 1840.
By September of that year he had run through his financial resources, and died
in our city in utter poverty.

Elsewhere I am telling the dramatic story of Rafinesque’s life,*° but now we
are merely concerned with his herbarium, and what has become of it. It is known

24 The whole story has only recently come to light with the presentation to the Academy
of Natural Sciences of the letters from Rafinesque to Collins, as well as other matter from
the executor. These we ri es by members of the Rawle family, a Parton member of which

id been an arbitrator in
25 Address delivered at eeuaavioastia College, Lexington, Kentucky, at the centenary Cele-
bration of Rafinesque’s death, October 30, 1940. Its publication is expected.

52 BARTONIA

that shortly before Rafinesque’s death Elias Durand bought it. The latter says:
“Tt is also about that time I purchased the large herbarium of Rafinesque. I
did not care much for his own plants. I knew that his specimens were miserable,
but he had come to the possession of Mr. Collins’ herbarium... .” Then he
added: “ Mr. Collins’ collections were to me a most valuable acquisition ”.?°
Evidently no care was given to conserving the types of Rafinesque’s many species,
but Durand’s effort was to salvage what he could of Collins’ precious herbarium.
Rafinesque’s later works received only scorn from his contemporaries, and it was
then supposed that his proposed new species could be simply ignored, but sub-
sequently, with the coming of precise and impersonal rules of nomenclature, it
is realized that every scrap should have been saved that could help to interpret
his work. His whole herbarium could have been easily preserved at this
Academy, but no one then saw the desirability of such a course. What was saved
of it and also what further became of Collins’ herbarium we shall see, when we
come to consider the career of Elias Durand.

Another European, who paid but a brief visit to our territory, was John Goldie.
Born in 1793 in Scotland, he came to eastern Canada in 1817 and at Montreal
met Frederick Pursh. Later in the year he visited the New Jersey Pine Barrens,
and there collected the original specimen of Agrostis compressa, described by
Torrey in 1824. Returning home in 1818, he revisited America in 1819-22, and
finally settled in Ontario in 1844. That his collections figure so little in our
taxonomy was due to no lack of zeal, but to a series of accidents that destroyed
them. He died in 1886. His name is perpetuated in the fern, Dryopteris
goldiana.?™

Three names yet remain for mention before we pass beyond the Classical
Period of Philadelphia botany. One is that of Dr. R. Eglesfield Griffith, who in
1847 was the author of an imposing book on “ Medical Botany”. He was born
in 1798. From 1829 to 1836 he was one of the three curators of the American
Philosophical Society. Inspection of handwriting leads to his being identified
as the collector of six boxes of specimens deposited by the Society at our
Academy; in these the plants, all from our local territory, are mounted upon
small sheets of brown paper. More interesting still, the same hand appears
throughout the whole Muhlenberg Herbarium, proving that it was Griffith who
brought it into its present order. This may have been at some cost of original
data, although Baldwin who saw Muhlenberg’s herbarium earlier, assures us that
there was never much information with his specimens. Griffith did this about

26 Bartonia 17: 42, 1936.

26a Two other Scottish botanists visited Philadelphia about this time, David Douglas in
August, 1823 and Thomas Drummond in May, 1831. Douglas tells of his visit in his Journal
(pp. 7-9, ed. Hort. Soc., London, 1914), and Drummond in a letter, published in the Journal
of Botany 1: 53, 1834, that accompanied a parcel of specimens from this vicinity. Both
Douglas and Drummond were famous botanical explorers of western North America, and
- the latter of Texas as well.

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA AREA 53

1830, since that date appears on the reverse side of one of the Muhlenberg sheets
which the organizer had first purposed using for his own herbarium. He resigned
his curatorship at the Philosophical Society in 1836, as he was about to move
to Baltimore. He died in 1850.

The second name is that of James Read. Among the contributors to the
Schweinitz herbarium he is mentioned as giving plants from the Local Area and
from China. Later he presented the Academy specimens gathered in 1837 in the
West Indies. Finally, he was mentioned by Durand * as having died by 1857,
and as being one whose herbarium, presented afterward to the Academy, was a
source from which Durand obtained specimens.

The last name is that of Dr. Charles Pickering. For over ten years, from
1827 to 1838, this young man, for he was born as late as 1805, took a keen interest
in the Academy of Natural Sciences. Darlington most gratefully mentions his
assistance in problems of identification toward the “ Flora Cestrica” of 1837.
He had earlier collected in New England,?* but the young physician turned
keenly to the study of our flora around Philadelphia. But from this he was
drawn in 1838 to become one of the naturalists on Wilkes’ Exploring Expedition,
and later settled in Massachusetts where he pursued his wide interest in plants
in relation to man, developing his great work on “ The Chronological History of
Plants”. Although he lived until 1878, and was often, in after years an honored
guest at the Academy’s meetings, Pickering’s work on our local flora pertains to
the period that closed in 1841. (H. 190-193.)

I set that year for the closing of our Classical Period because it was then that
Nuttall left Philadelphia to spend the remainder of his days as an English
gentleman. Rafinesque had died the year before. Pickering had set out three
years earlier on his scientific voyage, which was not to bring him back to Phila-
delphia. There was no one left of the old calibre excepting Darlington, but his
future work would lack the spirit of what had preceded. Perhaps new leaders
would have arisen, had not the remarkable ability that characterized the work of
John Torrey in New York and especially of his pupil Asa Gray at Cambridge led
to the acceptance of their opinions as possessing an assured finality. So far as
the study of flowering plants is concerned the Classical Period of Philadelphia
botany closed abruptly while Torrey and Gray’s “ Flora of North America wn,
which Nuttall was a contributor, was in process of publication. Our Philadelphia
botanical collectors remain numerous and active, but they look elsewhere for the
solution of their taxonomic problems, for the future they are followers. In some
new fields however we shall find flashes of the old spirit of original investigation.

Dr. John Torrey himself calls for mention among the botanical collectors of
our area because of his teaching at Princeton College from about 1830 to 1855.

27 Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 225, 1857. Bartonia 17: 43, 1936.

i about hi home at Salem, Massachusetts. Consultants of the Acad-
y ciker-eoleckioen ee datingaias between two places written habitually simply as
“ Salem ”; that in Schweinitz’ hand is Salem, N. C., but in Pickering’s is Salem, Mass.

54 BARTONIA

Not only then but on an earlier trip into the Pine Barrens of southern New Jersey
he collected many specimens within our territory. “A Flora of the Northern and
Middle Sections of the United States’, of which the only volume was published
in 1824, includes many records from our area. But his main association was with
New York state and city, of the former publishing an elaborate flora in 1843 and
at the latter preparing his long series of reports on flowering plants of the western
United States. He was born in 1796 and died in 1873; his herbarium passed to
Columbia College and is now at the New York Botanical Garden.

But as the Philadelphia leader of these botanists of a later time should be
mentioned Elias Durand. In 1841 he was forty-seven years of age. He had
arrived in this country from France in 1816 and settled as a pharmacist in Phila-
delphia in 1825. He knew the botanists of that and the succeeding decades.
From those times he was building up a large herbarium, and we have already
seen how he acquired Rafinesque’s and Collins’ plants. It was not until 1852
that he could retire from business and devote his remaining life to botany. That
was eleven years after Nuttall’s departure, and he found the Academy’s collec-
tions in neglect. To Durand it seemed that the final word upon our species was
being said at Harvard, so why attempt to refurbish all these old bundles of dried
plants, unmounted as they were then?—better select out a good representative
or so of each kind, as that was all that would ever be required for the comparisons
to be made at such a secondary herbarium as ours. That this was genuinely
Durand’s attitude is shown by his formation of such an “ Herbarium Boreali
Americanum ” to be the Academy’s working series for temperate North America,
a four years’ task completed in 1858, and also by this note about the plants
of Nuttall that he gave Gray in 1866: “ I thought these original species and genera
were owing to the herbarium of Dr. Gray, which was to be the standard herbarium
of the North Amer. plants.”

As to his own herbarium, which on this line of reasoning contained much
more than the Academy would ever need, Durand formed a special plan. He
would give it to the National Museum of his native country. So, in 1868, after
filling out from it whatever was needed for the North American Herbarium of
our Academy, he carried most of his rich collection to Paris, and there saw it
installed in the Museum d’Histoire Naturelle as the Herbier Durand. The re-
mainder followed after his death in 1873. So for nearly all of Durand’s own
plants, for those that he could salvage of Collins’ herbarium, and for what he
chose to save of Rafinesque’s herbarium, one must go to Paris, France. With the
passage of time it is only the last that we greatly care to see, and in a recent
number of BarrontA Mrs. Chase and I report our luck in seeking there for
Rafinesque’s types. She found that Durand had saved none of Rafinesque’s
grasses, while my relative success with Scrophulariaceae was only eight out of

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA AREA 55

sixty species.2® At our Academy Durand bridged the long interval between Nut-
tall, the explorer, and Redfield, the conservator. (B. 17: 33-45. * H. 174-178.)

Also born in 1794 but pertaining to this later period was Ezra Michener.
He has already been mentioned as a contributor of specimens toward Darling-
ton’s “ Flora Cestrica ” of 1837. To the third edition of 1853 he contributed text
also, offering an account of the Lichens of the county. Duplicates of these were
given to Darlington, and so are still at West Chester. He assembled a large
herbarium of Fungi and Lichens, and in 1857 gave the Academy of Natural
Sciences about 1000 specimens of these. Perhaps this’was in exchange for speci-
mens from the Schweinitz Herbarium, although the latter may have been due
Michener for his task of selecting from that herbarium and mounting in ready
reference form a series containing a representative of each species therein. The
work on this was done at his home at New Garden, Chester County, from 1855
to 1857. After Michener’s death in 1887, his collections passed to his son, Ell-
wood Michener, also scientifically interested, who eventually placed them at the
Bayard Taylor Memorial Library at Kennett Square, Chester County. In 1917
the Fungi were purchased by the United States Department of Agriculture, with
the result that there is now in Washington, D. C., a duplicate set of most of the
Schweinitz’ species.*° Michener’s collections of flowering plants and ferns, after
being many years at Kennett Square, have recently been given to the Academy
of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. (H. 178-180.)

Likewise assisting Darlington in the 1853 edition of the “ Flora Cestrica ” was
Dr. Thomas P. James. Born in 1803, most of his long life was spent in Phila-
delphia, where he was a wholesale druggist. His botanical interest lay in the
study of the Bryophyta, mosses and hepaties. Excepting for his contribution on
these plants to Darlington’s “Flora”, nearly all his important botanical work
came late in life, after his retirement from business. Then it was that he and
Leo Lesquereux worked together on their “Manual of the Mosses of North
America ”, a work that was not published until 1884, two years after J ames’
death at seventy-nine years of age. His herbarium is now preserved at the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. (H. 186-187.)

Collectors greatly outnumber authors in this later period. Such was Henry
Detwiller, born in 1795 in Switzerland and an immigrant in 1817; already men-
tioned among Schweinitz’ “ Contributores ” before 1830, he was for many years
a physician at Hellertown in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, and his large
herbarium assembled there has reached the Academy of Natural Sciences since
his death in 1887. (B. 16: 24.) So was Samuel Freedly, born in 1799, also men-

29 See articles in Bartonia 17: 33-45, 1936. I have just discovered that Durand gave
much of his own and some of Rafinesque’s foreign material to William Darlington, and this

i thaee, Pennsylvania. Doubtless, he argued
that such European material would be superfluous at Paris.

30See Shear & Stevens’ “ The Botanical Work of Ezra Michener ”, in Bull. Torrey Bot.
Club 44: 547-558, 1917. :

56 BARTONIA

tioned by Schweinitz, also a physician and long a resident of this city, whose large
herbarium of some 10,000 specimens was destroyed by fire about five years before
his death in 1885. Occasional specimens of his collecting have survived in other
herbaria of the time, the fullest series that I have seen being in Darlington’s
herbarium at West Chester. (B. 16: 25.) So was Dr. Gavin Watson, born in
1795 in Scotland, whose herbarium as mentioned by Durand *! came to the
Academy after his death in 1858; since he is not mentioned by the botanists of
the Classical Period, I suspect that he may have come to our city after the 1830s.
Durand speaks of the duplicates that he obtained from Watson’s herbarium.
(H. 246.) Such a list of collectors continues on and on; we must follow its
course, and can hardly do better than to follow chronologically. Harshberger’s
work will be our guide, but there will be some names to add to his record.

Because our area extends farther from Philadelphia than did Harshberger’s,
our next name is such an addition, Peter D. Knieskern, born in 1798 near Albany,
N. Y., resided from 1841 until his death in 1871 in eastern New Jersey. From
1841 to 1847 he lived at Manchester, Ocean Co.; from 1847 to 1843 at Squam,
and from 1853 on at Shark River, both in Monmouth County. In 1857 he
published a Catalogue of Plants ... of Monmouth and Ocean [counties], New
Jersey.

Dr. George Smith, born in 1804, a physician, published in 1862 a “ History
of Delaware County ”, Pennsylvania. In it is given a list of Delaware County
plants, actually collected by the author. He was one of the group that in 1833
founded the Delaware County Institute of Science at Media, and it is fitting that
his herbarium is preserved there. He died in 1882. (H. 188-189.)

William Wynne Wister, born in 1807, assembled a large herbarium of the
plants around Philadelphia. He lived in Germantown, and many of his specimens
are from “ Wister’s Woods”. His collection passed to the Academy of Natural
Sciences after his death in 1898. (H. 196-197.)

Dr. Joseph Carson, born in 1808, a physician, assisted in curatorial work at
the Academy of Natural Sciences from 1835 for some years; he became professor
at the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and later in the Medical School of the
University of Pennsylvania. His “ Illustrations in Medical Botany,” five num-
bers of colored plates with accompanying text, were issued in this city in 1847.
Dr. Carson’s herbarium, mostly from our local territory, is at the Academy of
Natural Sciences. He died in 1876. (H. 199-208.)

Presumably about this time should be entered Samuel Ashmead, who made
extensive collections of marine Algae, and whose gifts of these to the Academy
from 1852 on were followed after his death in 1864 by his whole herbarium of
these plants. Some of these were gathered along our New Jersey coast. He
published several papers on Marine Algae in the Academy’s Proceedings between
1852 and 1863.

C. G. Ehrenberg, a German student of Algae, who traveled extensively over
eastern North America, included records on his collections from the Philadelphia

31 Bartonia 17: 43, 1936.

EUPHRASIA IN PENNSYLVANIA 57

territory in his Papers on American Diatomaceae that were issued in Germany
from 1843 to 1854.

Aubrey H. Smith, born in 1815, was a Philadelphia lawyer, who botanized
both in our local area and on trips to the western states. His own herbarium,
containing many local specimens, was given to the University of Pennsylvania,
but his collections are also numerous in the Academy’s Local Herbarium. He
was one of the first to be intrigued by the search for foreign plants that have
reached our port on ballast. He died in 1891. (H. 210-211.)

Oliver R. Willis, born in 1815 on Long Island, evidently lived for some years
in New Jersey, and in 1874 published a “ Catalogue of Plants growing without
Cultivation in the State of New Jersey ”, a second edition following three years
later. The “Catalogue” gives a simple statement of each species’ occurrence
but without mention of collectors. An unexpected feature of the work is a
“ Botanical Directory, for North America and the West Indies”, which includes
for our territory most of those mentioned in our account, with certain others
whose work may be more briefly recorded in a footnote at this point.** By 1874
he was living at White Plains, New York, where he died in 1902. Miss Mary A.
Day, in her record of New England herbaria, reports that Willis’ New Jersey
plants are at Bates College, Lewiston, Maine.**

(To be continued)

Euphrasia in Pennsylvania

On August 20, 1940, while driving up the highway from East Stroudsburg
toward Hawley, I noticed in barren gravelly places along the road-shoulders and
in adjacent fields extensive colonies of an unfamiliar plant. It proved to be
Euphrasia condensata Jordan, a native of Europe, which was known to have
become established in America locally, but had heretofore not been found south
of the Adirondack region of New York state. The present locality, at which it
is well established, lies just north of Notch Village, about 7 miles northwest of

Porters Lake.
Epcar T. WHERRY

; ose specime: cadem: an Dat

: Be. Willi eee, of Kook ea the collections, a in Britton’s “ Cata-

logue of f New Jersey Plants”, are presumably at Rutgers University, New Brunswick; Rev.

Samuel Lockwood, ca of Freehold, F Adnesnseth County, whose collections are similarly cited;

of Vineland, whose collections are at the Brooklyn Botanie Garden.

(Mary Treat of Vineland, also mentioned, was a pro rolifie writer about — apc a know
of no specimens collected by her. (H. 298-302.)) From our area in Pennsy

Robert [G.] Bechdolt, of Bethlehem (1848- H. 346-348.), Miss Rachel 1 a Botey, pp

81, H. 188.), all with specimens in the Academy's Local Herbarium;
of. Easton on (1813-97, H. 209.), whose collections passed { to Prof. Porter, pot of Beets Col-
lege in that city.

ae 3: 69, 1901.

Program of Meetings during 1939

Date Subject Speaker Attendance
Jan. 26....Studies on the Coastal Flora of the Cape
May Peninsula Miss Flora Fender 19
Feb. 23....Two Banter Seasons at Mountain Lake,
irginia John M. Fogg, Jr. 23
Mar. 23....New Finds of 1938 .Edgar T. Wherry 32

Apr. 20....Bicentenary of William Bartram’s Birth
eis berating Mid Delaware Valley Or-
William g Severn, s Anniversary Edward E. Wildman
William Bartram as a Zoologist
A Bartramian Pilgrimage in Georgia ....Francis Harper
— Bartram’s Contributions to Bot-

Francis W. Pennell 150

May 25.. Noe ‘o Nain—1936 . Walter M. Benner
North to the Arctic Circle—1937 .......... E. Perot Walker 30
Sept. 28....Reports by Members on Summer Work.............cccecceceeceees 17

Oct. 26....Natural Color Photographs of Pine Barren
lants John Gill 59

Nov. 16.. igo’ ie and Gooseberries of Pennsyl-
John M. Fogg, Jr.

a ern ty of the Herbaria of the P
delphia Botanical Club ot ee 'B. Long & F. W. Pennell 21
Dec. 21....Field Studies of 1939 Edgar T. Wherry 27

Program of Meetings during 1940

Date Subject Speaker Attendance
Jan. 25....Collecting Plants in Northern Mexico ..... neg W. Pennell 32
Feb. 15....Ramblings in New Mexico a: mm 22
Mar. 28....Kettle Moraine of Southeastern Wisconsin. “Richatd W. Pohl 17
Apr. 25....Travels at Home Howard K. Henry &

Robert L. Schaefer, dt. 20
May 23....Canada’s Eastern Arctic Roland Holroyd 20
Sept. 26....Reports by Members on Summer Work 13
Oct. ‘4... Redaclroiing across the Continent ....... Richard W. Pohl 24
Nov. 21....New Light on Rafinesque Francis W. Pennell 22
Dec. 19....The Phloxes of Twenty States Edgar T. Wherry 25

LIST OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS 59

Program of Meetings during 1941

Date Subject Speaker Attendance
Jan. 23....Botanical Gleanings along the Bartram
Trail Francis Harper 18
Feb. 27....Recent Studies in the Pennsylvania Flora ..John M. Fogg, Jr. 27
Mar. 27....Plant Killers of the Stock Ranges ......... Walter Steckbeck 10
Apr. 26....Flora of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. ..Paul R. Wagner 12
May 23....A Recent Visit to Jamaica and Central
i M. A. Chrysler 20
Sept. 25....Reports by Members on Summer Work.......--++s+eeeesseeerereee 22
Oct. 23....Beyond the Great Divide: A Phytogeog-
rapher in Paradise Louis C. Wheeler 22
Nov. 19....Wild Flowers at Gladwy: Mrs. J. Norman Henry 33
Dec. 19... _— Anniversary of Philadelphia Holanies! Club
miniscences by Morris E. Leeds, Lee wden, and Hugh E. roel
Grestinigs from Torrey Botanical Club, brought by John H. Barnhart
Botanical Collectors of the "Philadelphia Area, by Francis W. Pennell
Camera Studies of Pennsylvania Plants, by Edgar T. Wherry 60
List of Officers and Members, 1939-1941
Joun M. Foae, Jr., President
Harry W. Trupvetu, Vice President
Louts E. Hann, Secretary, 1939-40
Ricuarp W. Pout, Secretary, 1941
Lee SowbDEN, Treasurer
Bayarp Lone, Curator
Francis W. PENNELL, Editor of BARTONIA
ACTIVE MEMBERS
(as of February 1, 1942)
Elected
J. W. Apams, 32 Pleasant St., Germantown, nnrite THEs PEt 1925
“Mrs. H. C. Barnes, 230 Park rg Swarthmore, Pa. 1942
Epwin B. Barwin: Bushkill, Pa. .... 1906
J. Russet Bester, 135 E. Phil Elena St., Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. ...-.....-.--- 1919
Dr. Warter M. Benner, 5636 Loretta Ave., Frankford, Philadelphia, Pa. 1912
Jasper T. BENTLEY, 7334 Rural Lane, Mt. Airy, Philadelphia, Pa. . . 1933

Cart E. Buss, 76 N. Grove St., East Aurora, bho fee 1924

60 BARTONIA

Cart Boyer, Wagner Institute, 17th St. & Montgomery Ave., Philadelphia, Pa. ...... 1926
Miss Eruet Brusaker, “ The Fairfax ”, 43rd & Locust Sts., Philadelphia, Pa. ........... 1939
Mitton CAMPBELL, 4401 Pine St., Philadelphia, Pa. ........... cece e cence eee e eee w neces 1928
Lioyp G. Carr, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. ......... 1942
Miss Marre Curzas, 233 Winona Ave., Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. ............. 1941
Pror. M. A. Curysier, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N. J. 0.0.2... cece e cece eeeee 1931
F. Van Buren Connett, 443 Berkley Road, Haverford, Pa. 1924
Parmer DePus, 4209 Longshore St., Tacony, Philadelphia, Pa. ... 1939
Rosert R. Dreissacu, 301 Helen St., Midland, Mich. 1922
Leonarp J. DurersmirH, 511 Walnut St., Columbia, Pa. 1931
Miss Exizapetu C. Earre, 4209 Chester Ave., Philadelphia, Pa. .. 1935
Howarp W. Erxinton, 6514 Germantown Ave., Philadelphia, Pa. 1931
Mrs. Harotp Evans, “ Awbury ”, E. Washington Lane, Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. .. 1931
RicuHarp Brossom Farxey, “ Sarobia ”, Eddington, Pa. .- 1931
Dr. Joun M. Foaa, Jr., Dept. of Tatewy. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 4 . 1921
FarrMan R. Furness, Media, Pa. 1935
JoHNn Gu, Haddon Farms, Haddonfield, N. J. ... 1939
Mrs. Howarp L. Goprrey, 7413 Germantown Ave., Philadelphia, Pa. .........+++-e0+++: 1935
Lovis E. Hann, 8061 Fairview St., Holmesburg, Philadelphia, Pa. .............++-20+++ 1936
ArtrHuur M. Henry, 416 New Post Office, Atlanta, Ga. ..........ec cece cece eee eeeeeeees 1927
Howarp K. Henry, 1464 Grayton St., Penn Wynne, Pa. 1932
Mrs. J. Norman Henry, Gladwyne, Pa. ..........ccscceccccceseserccscccrenecssscsees 1932
Miss JosEPHINE DE NorMAN Henry, Gladwyne, Pa. vse» 1988
Miss L. K. Herrine, 444 Queen Lane, Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. . 1942
F. F. Huser, Pennsburg, Pa. co aan
Les P. Hynes, Haddonfield, N. J. ...... 1939
Mrs. Arnotp S. Hyatt (Travis), Andover, Conn 1938
Miss Nancy E. James, 4043 Baltimore Ave., Philadelphia, Pa. 1942
Cuartes F. Jenxins, Kitchens Lane, Mt. Airy, Philadelphia, Pa. 1934
Miss Crara Kast, 2004 Spring Garden St., Philadelphia, Pa. ..- 1932
Miss Nataure B. Krmper, 538 E. Locust Ave., Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. .......... 1928
Rev. Wru1aM U. Kistrer, 118 Main St., Pennsburg, Pa. ........ 1911
Pror. W. A. Kinz, Ursinus College, Collegeville, Pa. . 1911
Cuartes E. Knorr, 7161 a Road, Philadelphia, Pa. 1931
Ray Kerner, Hershey, P: 1939
Mrs. Ina K. LaneMan, nik Delancy St., Philadelphia, Pa. 1937
Dr. Henry A. Lagssre, 5900 Market St., Philadelphia, Pa. 1894
Morais E. Lzeps, 1025 Westview St., Mt. Airy, Philadelphia, Pa. . Founder
Dr. Harry A. Lroyp, 200 N. 35th St., Philadelphia, Pa. 1931
Bayarp Lone, 250 Ashbourne Road, Elkins Park, Pa. 4 1906
Ernest H. Lupwie, 7904 Buist Ave., Philadelphia, Pa. 1938
ApotPH Miitrer, Box 66, Norristown, Pa 1920
Mrs. Georcs B. Orr, “ Orchard Way ”, Berwyn, Pa 1935
Miss OstHetmer, Jenkintown, Pa. 1933

Evizasnetu G.
Dr. Samuet C. Parmer, 612 Ogden Ave., Swarthmore, Pa. 1929

LIST OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS 61

Dr. Ruts Patrick, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa. ........ 1937
Dr. Francis W. PENNELL, Moylan, Pa. .-. 1910
Harotp W. Prerz, 123 S. 17th St., Allentown, Pa. 1909
Ricuarp W. Pout, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. ...... 1940
Rosert L. ScHaerrer, JR., 32 N. 8th St., Allentown, Pa. 1938
Dr. J. R. ScuramoM, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. .... 1937
Miss Hexen B. Surtver, 2004 Spring Garden St., Philadelphia, Pa. .-» 1935
Henry Skinner, Morris Arboretum, Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia, Pa. .... -.. 1942
Lx Sowven, 3823 Oak Road, Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. .. 1901
Dr. Watrer Sreckseck, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa... 1925
Huan E. Stone, 431 Berkley Road, Haverford, Pa. ...... .. 1892
J. Fuercuer Srreer, 1120 Locust St., Philadelphia, Pa. .. ppg: |
Dr. Rosert R. Tarnatt, 1100 W. Tenth St., Wilmington, Del. 1928
Arruur H. Tuomas, Haverford, Pa. . 1928

Horace E. THompson, 5016 Schuyler St., "Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. 1920
Wa. M. Tompson, Jr., Leroy Court Apartments #403, 1700 S. 60th St., Philadelphia, Pa. 1936
Harry W. TRUDELL, Wheatsheaf Lane & Coral St., ee Pb. ik oe skits 1915

Dr. Paut R. Wacner, Ursinus College, Collegeville, Pa, ss ... 1935
E. Peror Watker, 511 Lynmere Road, Bryn Mawr, Pa. 1939
Mrs. Marcuertte L. Warnke, 142 S. Logan Ave., ‘Audubon, N. J. ..- 1935
Rosert F. Wets#, 325 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, Pa. 1909
Dr. L. C. Wueeter, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. .... 1942
Dr. Epcar T. Wuerry, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa... 1925
Dr. Epwarp E. Witpman, 4331 Osage =e Nwarieos Pa. 1931
Hans Wrrxens, 241 S. 11th St., peng 1928
Wruuam H. Wire, Riegelsville, Pa., R. D 1898
Miss Mary F. Waicut, 538 Locust Ave. Getmantown, Philadelphia, P: 1928

Carrott E. Woon, Jr., Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa... 1942

HONORARY MEMBERS

Samus N. Baxter, Morris & Abbotsford Sts., Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. .....-.-- 1918
Dr. Joseru 8S. Ixticx, State College of Forestry, rs smth 1. Men fe 1925
Epwarp Pennock, 243 Harvey St., Philadelphia, P: Wiaadee

CORRESPONDING MEMBERS

Dr. Jonw H. Barnuart, New York Botanical Garden, New York, N. Y. 1936
Orway H. Brown, Cape May, N. J., RB FY. D. #1 _... 1908
Srewart H. BurnuaM, Cornell University, Ithaca 1911
Pror. M. L. Fernatp, Gray Herbarium, Harvard Sareuks Cambridge, Mass. ......... 1929
Dr. A. ArrHur Hetter, Chico, CA. eee nts ie
Dr. Harorp Sr. Jonn, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, T. H. _ 1927
Dr. Wirt1am Ranporpx T. sors Rigi . Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. ...........- 1921
Dr. Campsett E. WATERS, " Waikington, D 1904

Dr. Heser W. YOUNGEKEN, Massachusetts a of Pharmacy, Boston, Mass. .....-... 1918

Index to Species

(New names in bold-face type; synonymis in italic type.

Also includes

new varietal names.)

Adiantum pedatum, 20
Amarantus blitoides, 4; blitum, 2, 4; cau-

lividus, 4; palmeri, 3, 4; pumilus, 2, 3, 4;
retroflexus, 4; spinosus, 3; torreyi, 3, 4;
tricolor, 2; viridis, 3, 4
Aspidium intermedium, 27
Asplenium bradleyi, 24; ebenoides, 1; fon-
tanum, 25, 37; gravesii, 25; montanum, 25;
pinnatifidum, 25; platyneuron, 1, 14, 24;
p. hortonae, 14, 24, 37; resiliens, 24, 37 ; ruta-
ieamatke lepis, 15, 24; r. ohionis, 15,
4, 37; trichomanes, 24; trudelli, 25, 37;
virginicum,

Asplenosorus ebenoides, 1, 25
Athyrium angustum, 26, 37; asplenioides, 14,
, 37; a. subtripi : ; filix-
femina, 37; pycnocarpon, 26; thelypter-
ioides, 26
Azalea arborescens, 5;
phylla, 5

furbishii, 5; prino-

Bartramia bracteata, 7
Bignonia bracteata, 7
Botrychium dissectum, 17, 37; lanceolatum,
13, 17; matricariaefolium, 17; multifidum,
12, 16, 37; obliquum, 12, 13, 16-17, 37; o.,
. confusum, 12, 17, 37; simplex, 13, 17-18,
37; vitataieucea, 13, 18

Camptosorus rhizophyllus, 1, 25, 26

Cheilanthes lanosa, 21

Cryptogramma stelleri, 20

Currania dryopteris, 15, 31, 37; robertiana,
15, 32, 37

62

Cystopteris bulbifera, 22; fragilis, 23, 37

Dennstaedtia punctilobula, 20

Dryopteris boottii, 1, 30; campyloptera, 28,
37; celsa, 1, 29; clintoniana, 1, 29, :
cristata, 1, 29, 30, 37; goldiana, 1, 2, 29;
intermedia, 1, 27, 29, 37; leedsii, 2; mar-
ginalis, 1, 2, 29, 37; slossonae, 15, 29, 37;
spinulosa, 28, 29, 37

Equisetum arvense, 36, 37; fluviatile, 36;
hyemale, 36; laevigatum, 36; litorale, 36,
37; palustre, 36, 37; pratense, 36, 3.
prealtum, 36; scirpoides, 36, 37; sylvati-
cum, 36; variegatum, 36

Euphrasia condensata, 57

Franklinia alatamaha, 6, 7

Isoetes dodgei, 36; echinospora, 35; engel-
manni, 35; lacustris, 36, 37; riparia, 36;
saccharata, 36

Lorinseria areolata, 22
Lycopodium adpressum, 35; alopecuroides,
, 373; annotinum, 33, 37; clavatum, 33;

complanatum, 34, 37; flabelliforme, 34;
inundatum, 34, 35; lucidulum, 33; ob-
scurum, 16, 33-34; selago, 16, 33, 37;
tristachyum, 34

Lygodium palmatum, 19

Magnolia pyramidata, 7, 8
Marsilea quadrifolia, 19

INDEX TO SPECIES 63

Onoclea sensibilis, 22, 37

Ophioglossum vulgatum, 13, 18, 37

Osmunda cinnamomea, 18-19, 37; clayton-
iana, 18; regalis, 18

Pellaea atropurpurea, 20; glabella, 21, 37;
gracili.

Pinckneya bracteata, 7; pubens, 6

Batasiaen dryopteris, “ty robertianum, 15;
virginianum, 32; vulgar

Se aaecs Se ind 30; braunii, 30

Pteretis nodulosa, 21

Pteridium aquilinum, 14, 20

Rhododendron roseum, 5

Selaginella apoda, 35; rupestris, 35

Thelypteris hexagonoptera, 31; novebora-
censis, 31; ‘SR 31; phegopteris, 31;

simulata,

Woodsia ilvensis, 21; obtusa, 21
Woodwardia virginica, 22

Index to Persons Considered

Adium, John, 43; Ashmead, Samuel, 56

Baldwin, William, 39, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49;
-44; Barton, Mathias, 43;

39-40, 48; Bartram, William, 6-8, 39, 58;
Beauvois, Palisot de, 41; Bechdolt, R. G.,
57; Beesley, Theophilus, 45; Bodley, R. L.,
57; Boice, C. A., 57; Bridges, Robert, 57;
Brinton, J. B., 39; Brown, R. W., 57

Canby, W. M., 39; Carson, Joseph, 56;
Clayton, John, 38, 40, 42; Cleaver, Isaac,
44, 45, 51; Collins, Zaccheus, 39, 42, 44, 45,
47, 50-51, 52, 54; Conrad, S. W., 39, 46, 47;
Correa da Serra, 48

Darlington, William, 39, 44, 47, 48-50, 55;
D. h, James, 57; Denke, Christian, 40,
42, 43, 47, 48; Detwiller, Henry, 47, 55;
Douglas, David, 52; Drummond, Thomas,
52; Durand, Elias, 52, 54-55

Eberle, Dr., 45; Ehrenberg, C. G., 56

Freedly, Samuel, 47, 55; Frueauff, E. A., 47,
48

Goldie, John, 52; Green, Traill, 57; Gregg,
Dr., 43; Griffith, R. E., 44, 47, 52

Hall, G. W., 49; Hamilton, William, 43;
Harshberger, J. W., 39, 40; Herbst, Wil-
liam, 39; Hoopes, Joshua, 49; Huebener,
A. L., 48

Jackson, John, 49; Jackson, William, 49;
Jacobs, Joseph, 49; James, T. P., 39, 50, 35
Kalm, Pehr, 40; Kampman, Frederick, 42,
47, 48; Kilvington, Robert, 57; Kimber,

Abigail, 49; Kinn, Matthias, 42, 47, 48;
Kluge, Charles, 48; Knieskern, P. D., 56;
Kramsch, Samuel, 40, 47

Lockwood, Samuel, 57; Logan, James, 40

Marshall, Humphry, 39, 40, 48; Marshall,
John, 49; Marshall, Moses, 40; Martin,
George, 39; Mease, James, 42; Michaux,
Andre, 41; Michaux, F. A., 41; Michener,
Ezra, 39, 49, 50, 55; Muhlenberg, G. H. E.,
39, 41-42, 45, 47, 52

Nuttall, Thomas, 44, 45, 48, 53

Palisot de Beauvois, 41; Peirce, Samuel, 49;
Pickering, Charles, 48, 53; Porter, T. C.,
39; Pursh, Frederick, 39, 42, 43, 52

Rafinesque, C. S., 42, 48, 50-52, 54, 55; Rau,
E. A., 39; Read, James, 47, 53; Rinehart,
Joseph, 49

Scarborough, George, 57; Schumann,
Walther, 8-10; Schweinitz, L. D. v., 39, 40,
46-48 ; Seal, Thomas, 49; Smith, A. H., 57;
Smith, B. H., 39; Smith, C. E., 39; Smith,
George, 39, 56; Preece Daniel, 47, 48;
Steuve, W., 44, 4!

Tatnall, Edward, 39; Torrey, John, 53;
Townsend, David, 49; Treat, Mary, 57;
Trimble, James, 49

Van Vleck, Jacob, 42, 47, 48
Watson, Gavin, 56; Willis, O. R., 57;

Wister, C. J., 47, 48; Wister, W. W., 56;
Witt, Christopher, 40; Wolle, Francis, 39;
W f

1942-1943

BARTONIA

PROCEEDINGS OF THE
PHILADELPHIA BoTaNnicaL CLUB a

Variation in Phlox floridana...... Epoar T. Wuerry 1 ee .
Additions to the Flora of Bucks County, Pennsylvania—II1... Wauren M. Benner 3 = i os
Euphorbia serpyllifolia and Aegilops cylindrica in Pennsylvania a A te a
_ Room B. Gonos es

The “ Darlington Herbarium” at West Chester.
otenieal Cllacer af the Plladelphin Local Ares (Concha pe ace: a
pe BE See See Francis W. ‘Pennent 10

especially of eastern Pennsylvania, New a

Base

aes
Dish heen

ae f pies
uta : cy
rea ee <
: ay

BartToniA No. 22 PLATE 1

Habit of plant, &* 4.

Corollas, natural size.

Phlox floridana bella Wherry, in cultivation at Gladwyne, Pa.

BARTONIA

PROCEEDINGS OF THE PHILADELPHIA BOTANICAL
CLUB

No. 22 PHILADELPHIA, PA. 1942-1943

Variation in Phlox floridana
Epaar T. WHERRY

When the writer first summarized the features of the Florida Phlox * it was
known to have been collected in 13 counties of Florida and one each of Alabama
and Georgia. Subsequent trips led to the addition * of 2 Florida, 4 Alabama, and
7 Georgia counties. In the first-cited article no noteworthy variation was re-
corded; in the second, the existence of pallid color-forms was recognized.

Recently Mrs. J. Norman Henry has found in Okaloosa County, Florida, a
variant of sufficient interest to justify an additional note. For the purpose of
comparison, the original representative of the species * may be designated Phlox

dana typica, nomen novum.* Data from a photograph of the type obtained
from the Kew herbarium and from collections of similar material from many parts
of the range, indicate the following features to characterize it:

Stems 40 to 80 em. long with (12) 15 to 25 nodes; maximum leaf-length 45 to
90 mm. (shown about middle of series of nodes) ; corolla-color bright to dull
phlox-purple, with rarely a few pallid mutants among deep-colored plants.

The new entity differs in averaging lower, with fewer nodes, shorter leaves,
and paler corolla-color. If plants exhibiting such features occurred only individ-
ually in the midst of extensive aggregations of average ones, they would deserve
assignment to the category of form. In this case, however, according to informa-
tion furnished by Mrs. Henry, a colony nearly an acre in extent was made up
wholly of plants with the features noted, showing enough variation to indicate that
reproduction from seed was occurring, but no tendency to revert to the typical

1 Bartonia No. 12: 48, 1931.

2 Bartonia No. 16: 41, 1935.

3 Bentham in DC Prodr. 9: 304, 1845.

4A simple trinomial signifies a major subdivi

vision of a species; man:
mists term this a subspecies, although others, allergic to this term,
variety. :

y progressive taxono-
will prefer to call it a

2 BARTONIA

aspect of the species. Moreover, this colony occurred at the southwestern ex-
tremity of the species-range, so assignment to a major species division seems
desirable. Because of the beauty of the plant, it may bear the following name:

Phlox floridana bella, ssp. nova.

Stems between 20 and 40 cm. long with 10 to 15 nodes; maximum leaf-length
35 to 45 (-52) mm.; corolla-color lilac to pink; otherwise essentially as in the
typical subspecies.

Caules 20 ad 40 cm. longi, nodis 10 ad 15; folia longitudine maxima 35-45
(rarius 52) mm.; corolla lilacina ad rosea; caetera ut in subspecie typica.

Type in Sscatiasiaeh Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, collected
by Mary G. Henry # 1630, June 26, 1939, on sand hills near shore of Boggy
Bayou in the town of Valparaiso, Okaloosa County, Florida, latitude 30° 30}’,
longitude 86° 29’. Locality subsequently largely destroyed for military purposes.

A clone with especially large and attractively colored corollas was selected by
Mrs. Henry for experiment as to its horticultural possibilities in the middle states,
and roots were transplanted into acid sandy soil at Gladwyne, Penna. It has
grown well, and proved to be entirely hardy, even during spells of below zero
temperature. Its blooming season is unexpectedly long, extending from June to
August, and even into October in favorable seasons. Photographs taken there
by the writer in July, 1941, (reproduced in plate 1) bring out the aspect of
the plant. In cultivation, the stems tend to become somewhat decumbent, yielding
low broad clumps; the leaves are dark green and glossy. It can readily be propa-
gated by stem- or root-cuttings. The soil should be dry, sterile, and acid, and
north of latitude 40° winter protection by a thin covering of litter may prove
desirable. This new Phlox gives every indication of being a valuable addition to
the none too large group of late-summer blooming rock-garden subjects.

Quercus incana Bartram
Francis HARPER

The lack hitherto of an adequate index to William Bartram’s Travels (1791)
has evidently militated against the recognition of all the available plant names
that it contains. One of his overlooked species is “ Q[uercus] incana, foliis
ovalibus integerrimis subtus incanis” (p. 378). Brief as this diagnosis as, it
applies rather unmistakably to the upland willow oak, currently known as
cinerea Michx. (Flora Boreali-Americana 2: 197, 1803). Consequently Bar-
tram’s name must replace Michaux’s. The type locality is Warren County,
Georgia (probably on or near the Fall Line sand-hills).

Elsewhere in the Travels (p. 403) Bartram applies the same name to pre-
sumably the same species in Escambia or an adjacent county, Alabama.

Quercus incana Bartram preoccupies Q. incana Roxburgh (Hortus Benga-
lensis: 104, 1814), which was proposed for an Indian oak.

Additions to the Flora of Bucks County, Pennsylvania—IIl
Water M. BENNER

After the publication of the Flora of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, in 1932,
two lists of new records appeared in Bartonia 15: 32-34, 1933 and 20: 25-26,
1940. Since their publication six additional species and varieties have been
collected or segregated from earlier material. The following annotated list
brings up to date all the new county records:

PANICUM TSUGETORUM Nash.

Dry, rocky, open, roadside bank ca. 0.5 mile southeast of Mechanicsville, May 31,
1942, Bayard Long 58305.

This species is widely distributed over the eastern United States. It occurs
frequently in New Jersey on the Coastal Plain but in the local range in Penn-
sylvania it has been collected only in the Blue Mountains near Little Gap,
north of Danielsville, Northampton County, by Bayard Long, and near Bake-
oven Knob, in Lehigh County, by Harold W. Pretz.

Poa paustris L.
Monroe, July, 1885, J. A. and H. F. Ruth.

This specimen was recently determined by Mr. Bayard Long. It verifies
the published record in Keller and Brown’s Handbook of the Flora of Phila-
delphia and Vicinity 51, 1905.

This in an infrequent grass of moist, open places and has been rarely col-

lected in our local area.
3

4 BARTONIA

CAREX MESOCHOREA Mackenzie
Border of dry field, just northwest of Mechanicsville, May 31, 1942, Bayard Long

The above species is based on material which was formerly confused with
C. Muhlenbergii Schkr., or with C. cephalophora Muhl. It has the general
aspect of the latter and the perigynia and scales of the former species. (Bull.
Torrey Club 33: 441, 1906 and 37: 246, 1910).

This species in the Philadelphia local area occurs in disturbed habitats or
closely associated with the works of man and is doubtfully indigenous in Penn-
sylvania.

Juncus EFrrusus L., var. Pytant (Leharpe) Fernald & Weigand.
Monroe, July, 1885, J. A. and H. F. Ruth.
This rush was detected recently by Mr. Bayard Long while working over
some of the Ruth collections.
This plant is more northern in its distribution than var. solutus Fernald and
Wiegand, the form commonly found in Bucks County. It was previously known
in our local range only from Northampton, Lehigh, Berks and Chester counties.

CuscuTa CAMPEsTRIS Yuncker.
Pleasant Valley, August 15, 1921, Walter M. Benner 1662. Swale, near Delaware
River, southeast of Eddington, September 24, 1932, Bayard Long 38540.

Yuncker, in his study of the genus Cuscuta realized that the C. arvensis of
Gray’s Man., ed. VII. 672, was based on two different species. These are C.
pentagona Engelm. and C. campestris Yuncker (See Mem. Torrey Bot. Club
18, no. 2: 137. 1932). In my Flora of Bucks County, Pennsylvania four sta-
tions were listed for C. pentagona, the species with the calyx-lobes broadly over-
lapping at the sinuses. Recently, Yuncker has made a critical examination of
our material and determined the two specimens cited above as C. campestris.
Both species are widespread but this is more common westward.

PLANTAGO INDICA L.
Stony shores of Delaware River, about 100 yards south of the Pennsylvania-New
Jersey bridge at Point Pleasant, Au: ugust 6, 1939, scarce, Louis E. Hand.
This is P. arenaria W. and K. of Britton and Brown, Illus. Fl. Ed. II, 3:
249, 1913. It is an adventive from Europe and occurs chiefly in waste ground
and along railroads.

Euphorbia serpyllifolia and Aegilops cylindrica in Pennsylvania
CarroL_L E. Woop, Jr.

On September 18, 1941, a species of Euphorbia belonging to the subgenus
Chamaesyce was collected from weedy ground along the Cowanesque River at
Westfield, Tioga County, in north-central Pennsylvania. The plant proves to
be Euphorbia serpyllifolia Pers. var. genuina Boiss. which L. C. Wheeler in his
recent monograph? of the group does not record from the East. In western
and central North America, the plant ranges from southern British Columbia
and Alberta, south to Mexico, east to western Texas, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the Keweenaw Peninsula of Michigan,’ this last
station being presumably the easternmost heretofore recorded. The Pennsyl-
vania occurrence some 500 miles farther east brings the plant deep into the
Gray’s Manual range, but here seems to represent an introduction of the species,
a conclusion suggested both by the disturbed nature of the habitat and by the
associated plants, among which were such weedy species as Polygonum orientale,
Amaranthus retroflerus, Brassica nigra, Melilotus alba, Nepeta Cataria, Leonu-
rus Cardiaca, Solanum Dulcamara, Veronica arvensis, Dipsacus sylvestris, Galin-
soga ciliata (Raf.) Blake, and Erechtites hieracifolia. Euphorbia serpyllifolia
should be added, therefore, to the lengthening list of western plants adventive
in eastern North America.

The Jointed Goatgrass, Aegilops cylindrica Host., a native of Europe, is said
by Hitchcock * to be a weed in wheatfields and waste places in Missouri, Kan-
sas, Oklahoma, Colorado and New Mexico. A specimen from Long Island,
New York (H. K. Svenson, June 19, 1935) is in the herbarium of the Academy
of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, but the species has apparently been un-
known both in the Philadelphia area and in Pennsylvania. However, on June
5, 1942, Mr. W. Herbert Wagner, Jr. and I found a large colony of the grass
growing on a weedy embankment in a lumber-yard at Sixty-third and Market
Streets, in Upper Darby, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, just beyond the
Philadelphia City Limits. The plants were in good condition when collected
and seemed to be well established, suggesting that the species will probably
persist in this area. Material of this adventive has been placed in the herbaria
of the University of Pennsylvania and the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia as Wagner and Wood 1977. Euphorbia serpyllifolia is represented
in the former herbarium by Wood 1614.

Boranicat LasoraTory, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

1 Wheeler, Menger = te ere in the U. S. exclusive of southern Florida.
Rhodora 43: ea 168-265

2 Joe. cit., p.
3 Hitchcock, Ee of the Grasses of the United States, 245. 1935.

The “ Darlington Herbarium ” at West Chester

Rosert B. GorDdoN

late as 1857.)

The following are among the outstanding treasures that have long lain
neglected in the Darlington Herbarium: Agardh’s series of over 300 specimens
of Algae; Cosson & Germain’s series of 600 specimens from France and Switzer-
land; Curtis’ series of over 500 specimens from North Carolina; Rafinesque’s
series, including various new species of the Autikon Botanikon; Reichenbach’s
many specimens from Germany; and Tenore’s series, including some isotypes,
from Italy. Historically, rather than scientifically, interesting are the series
of over 600 specimens from Dr. Freedley, since his own large herbarium was
later destroyed by fire; and the series of over 400 specimens, unfortunately
—_— data of locality and still unidentified, made by Jacob Wolle in J amaica.
—EpIrTor.

In the Twelfth Report of the Chester County Cabinet of Natural Science

(March 19, 1842) it is stated that the Herbarium contained “ about 7000
plants”. During the preceding year it had been greatly increased through the

1See also “Dr. William Darlington, Physician and Botanist”, by Dr. William T. Sharp-
less in Bartonia 14: 1-13, 1982.

6

THE “ DARLINGTON HERBARIUM ” AT WEST CHESTER 7

arrival of 1500 specimens from Elias Durand, 600 specimens from Cosson and
Germain, and more than 300 specimens from J. G. Agardh of Lund, Sweden.

Mr. Eric Pennell, one of my students, deserves the credit for thorough ex-
amination of the “ Catalogue of the Botanical Specimens contained in the Her-
barium of the Chester County Cabinet of Natural Science prepared by Wm.
Darlington, M.D., Third Edition. Commenced Dec., 1842. Finished Feb. 22,
1843. West Chester, Pa.” Apparently Dr. Darlington did not list all collee-
tions, but only the different species represented, so that the catalogue contains
about 3500 entries, according to figures obtained by Eric Pennell. From the
Annual Reports of the C.C.C.N.S. from 1830 to 1843 and the herbarium cata-
logue of 1843, it is possible to make a fair estimate of the contributions made
to the Darlington Herbarium which is now located at the West Chester State
Teachers College.

ESTIMATED CoLLECTORS Dates LOCALITIES AND NOTES
SPECIMENS
327 + Agardh, J. G. (Lund, Sweden) 1840-44 (Algae)
84 *Baldwin, Wm. (Florida) (through Durand)
100 Boott, Dr. F. (England)
257. ~—=C@zBrace, John P. (Litchfield, Conn.) England and France
57 *Bridges, Dr. R. (Philadelphia) Ferns from Royal Gardens of Berlin
few Bromfield, Dr. 1848 Isle of Wigh
58 Buckley, S. B. Mts. of ———— and
39 Carr, John B.? 1826 Bartram’s Garden
few Coates, Josiah Chester County, Pa.
few Conrad, C. W.3 1833
600 E. Cosson & E. Germain 1839 France ; Switzerland

517. ~—‘ Curtis, Moses A. (Wilmington, N.C.)

few Darlington, BS.B4 (U.S. Navy) 1837 Brazil
few Darlington, J. Lacy 4 1857 Pa.; Ohio
1090 Darlington, Wm. Chester County, Pa
94 DeCandolle, Prof. Avignon, France
several Derrick, A. Hamilto: D. C. and Georgia
25 Dobbin(s), Robert ra (Baltimore)
1023. *Durand, Elias5 Mediterranean Region
46 Elliott, Stephen South Carolina
73 Engelmann, George Texas
668 *Freedley, Dr. (Philadelphia) 1830 Moravia; Hungary; Germany
few Gates, Dr. (Hezekiah) (thru Dr. Alot - Florida
Torrey)

* For accounts of those starred, consult index in Bartonia 21: 64, 1942.
2Then owner of Bartram’s Garden.

3 Surely plants of S. W. Conrad ; see Bartonia 21: 46, 1942.

4Sons of Dr. William

5 The formation and fate of the Duran Durand Herbarium was articles in
Bartonia 17: 33-45, 1936. Durand had taken what he wished dof Rates's totodae =
nase arg had gotten gag ie Papacy Pear ge = it oman some plants that

ched Darlington had already passed through se

8 BARTONIA

EstTIMATED COLLECTORS Dates LocaLITIES AND NOTES
SPECIMENS
50 Gibbons, Dr. H. California
few ray,
few Gummere, Samuel (Burlington) 1826 Philadelphia and vicinity
21 *Hall, George W. 1832 Chester County
994 Hooker, Prof. W. J. (Glasgow) Over 400 specimens from British Isles
40 *Hoopes, Joshua 1848-52 vicinity of West Chester
60 Jackson, Halliday (West Chester)® 1859 New Jersey
few *Jackson, John
20 *Jackson, Wm. from a garden in West Chester
few *Knieskern, P. D. New Jersey
) Lapham, I. A. (Milwaukee) Wisconsin Terr.
12 Lea, Thomas G. (Cincinnati) Ohio; Indiana
56 Martins, Dr. Chas. F. (Paris) France; Egypt
33 Martins et Beauvais, MM. (1841) Switzerland
several McMinn, John (1842) Clinton Co., Pa.
several *Michener, (Dr.) Ezra (New Garden) Chester Co., Pa., and Delaware State
134 Morris, Miss E. C. (Germantown) Alabama (Illinois specimens from
few *Nuttall (Thomas) (through E. Atanas
Durand)
few Pennock, Dr. C. W. 1854 Chester Co., Pa.
33 *Pickering, Dr. Chas. Massachusetts
44 Porter, Jacob (Massachusetts) New England
*Peirce, Samuel 1833 Cult.

15
50-60 *Rafinesque, C. S.'(through E. Du-
rand) (includes 20-30 genuine
“illustrations” of the rare AUTI-
KON BoraNIKON)
24 *Read, James Georgia and Florida

Europe; few from America

numerous a Geo. (through E. Europe
ckerman)
92 Riddell, J. L., MD. Louisiana; Ohio
154 *Schweinitz, Rev. Lewis D. v. Specimens from Dr. Hering, obtained
(Bethlehem, Pa.) from Weigelt in Surinam
537. ~—=‘Short, Dr. C. W. Kentucky; Ohio
several Smith, Mrs. Ann E. Georgia
25 Steinhauer, Rev. H. D. 1839 Florida (?)
few *Tatnall, Edward 1842 Delaware
several Tenore, Prof. (through E. Durand) Europe
several Thomas, John R. 1829-31 Chester Co., Pa.
500 *Townsend, David Chester County
several Townsend, Washington Chester County
*Torrey, John U.S. A. (general)
203 Tuckerman, Edward, Jr. New age nag plants)

405 Wolle, Jacob (Bethlehem, Pa.)

6 See account in following article.

THE ‘“ DARLINGTON HERBARIUM ” AT WEST CHESTER Q

There are numerous other contributors whose names are less well known or
whose contributions were only occasional. Mr. Eric Pennell may be able to
furnish additional names from his study of the herbarium catalogue prepared
by Dr. Darlington in 1843. Additions have evidently been entered since 1843,
even as late as 1857, but the main body of the herbarium must have been com-
pleted by 1843. The herbaria of Darlington and Townsend have since been
combined into THe DarLIncTton HERBARIUM.

Inspection of this Herbarium does yield the names of over fifty more collec-
tors. Only a few of these need be mentioned below. From the early days comes
Dr. Muller, who lived at Economy along the Ohio River below Pittsburgh and
had furnished specimens to Rev. Henry Muhlenberg. From the middle years
that were zealously devoted to Chester County come local collectors like Joseph
Reinhart, probably erroneously spelled “ Rinehart” in the Flora Cestrica, and
Albert Townsend. From other parts of the country are plants of such well
known collectors as Berlandier, Bigelow, Fendler, Fremont, Gambel, Geyer,
Leavenworth, Lindheimer, and T. C. Porter, of the last from his collections in
Georgia in 1846. These were evidently received indirectly. From the third
quarter of the century, either late in Darlington’s life or after his death, come
plants of such collectors as Canby, Commons, Everhart, and Ravenel.

It is timely that this record be published now, just 100 years from the date
when the herbarium of Dr. Darlington could properly have been regarded as
finished (1842-43).

Botanical Collectors of the Philadelphia Local Area (Concluded)™
Francis W, PENNELL

A renewal of interest in systematic botany in the Philadelphia area dates
from the work of a group of men born between 1815 and 1830. Charles E.
Smith first gave close attention to the careful collecting of the local flora. Rev.
Francis Wolle, Christian Febiger, Dr. George Martin, Job B. Ellis, and Ben-
jamin M. Everhart developed specialized fields in the study of Algae, Diatoms,
and Fungi. At the Academy of Natural Sciences John H. Redfield transformed
its neglected botanical collections into an efficient herbarium. Of him I would
speak first.

Like Aubrey H. Smith and Oliver R. Willis, already mentioned, Redfield
was born in 1815. He came from Connecticut to this city in 1861. Although
he had been publishing scholarly papers upon mollusks, on joining the Academy
here he gave his attention wholly and zealously to botany. When the institu-
tion moved to its present location in 1876 he was appointed Conservator of its
newly found Botanical Section. This word admirably expresses the nature of
the service that he rendered the Academy during the nineteen years of life still
remaining to him. He found its specimens unmounted and tied up in various
bundles; with painstaking care he overhauled the whole, seeing that every record
possible was preserved, and that the specimens were uniformly mounted on
standard sheets of white herbarium paper. From what Gray had called a
“ dust-bin ” there emerged a modern herbarium. Beyond this Redfield gave his
funds liberally to supply the Academy with sets of the important exsic-
ecatae of the time. As a collector he gathered plants in various parts of the
United States, and with Edward L. Rand he collaborated on a Flora of Mount
Desert Island, Maine. Harshberger credits 38 botanical papers to him. But it
is as the great conservator that Redfield is to be cherished in memory, and his
last act was in keeping with this character. Realizing the need for the indefinite
continuance of the purchasing of desirable material, he willed that his own col-
lection be sold so as to provide the Academy with a fund for the acquirement
of botanical specimens. On his death in 1895 his herbarium thus passed to the
newly founded Missouri Botanical Garden at St. Louis. (*H. 211-219. =

of assistance were then

sede Barnhart wad Mr. eee Long, and now t Sooke further state my

i care ging feces colleague, Dr. Ruth Patrick, for information concerning students of —
phyta. She Age =a that the German phycologist, C. H. Ehrenberg, was never in t.

(as stated on page 56) buf had obtained eee olisekions. of our Algae from New England i aed

adr bee nor are we sure that he had an rom the Iphia a I

indebted to another nin sco Dr. Walter M. et Senate, for information wanes several col-

35 ‘As explained i in footnote 6, ag! subjoined references = the following abbreviations
and symbol: “B” to Bartonia; “H” to Harshberger’s “ Botanists of Philadelphia and their
Work”; while an asterisk denotes an seecatmavion portrait.

10

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA LOCAL AREA ll

By the founding of the Botanical Section, one of a group of such sections
established at the Academy of Natural Sciences in 1876, another step was taken
toward the specialization of scientific work here. The simple club of 1812, with
its single room for meetings and collections, had grown to a large institution,
caring for vast collections, and with interests so diverse that it seemed desir-
able for those devoted to each science to meet separately. Fortunately, the old
Academy meetings still continued, but, along with them and concerned with the
fostering of each science, arose these sections. A parallel development at the
University of Pennsylvania had in these years led from the old professorship of
natural history to definite chairs for botany, zoology, and geology. Just as had
been the case with the founding of the Academy over sixty years earlier, the
establishment of the Botanical Section led to a quickened interest in botany at
the Academy and in Philadelphia.

To resume our chronological record, Isaac Burk, born in 1816, made a con-
siderable local herbarium, that is said to have included some specimens salvaged
from the sale of Rafinesque’s effects in 1840, being doubtless ones of Rafinesque’s
own not wanted by Durand. Burk’s herbarium was given to the University of
Pennsylvania in 1880. He died in 1893. (H. 220-221.)

Rev. Francis Wolle, born in 1817, was for many years principal of the
Moravian Seminary at Bethlehem, Pa. He was a leading authority on fresh-
water Algae, publishing at Bethlehem three works dealing with these over the
whole United States. After his death in 1895 his extensive collections passed
to the University of Pennsylvania. A recent evaluation by Francis Drouet of
Wolle as a phycologist on ———— in the Field Museum’s Botanical Series,
20: 17-23, 1939. (*H. 22 )

Christian Febiger, pa in 1817 and long a resident of Wilmington, Delaware,
assembled a large herbarium of Diatoms that is now at the Academy of Natural
Sciences. He sent many specimens to Europe, and a number of species were
named in his honor. A list of Diatoms by him was appended to Edward Tat-
nall’s ‘Catalogue of the Phaenogamous and Filicoid Plants of Newcastle County,
Delaware”. He died in 1892. (H. 407.)

Halliday Jackson, born in 1817, for many years a teacher in Delaware and
Chester counties, Pennsylvania, collected plants locally. After his death in 1887
these passed to Swarthmore a and have since been deposited at the
Academy of Natural Sciences. (H. 223-224.)

Edward Tatnall, born in 1818, lived. at Wilmington, and in 1860 published
a catalogue of the plants of Newcastle County, Delaware. He died in 1898.
His herbarium, historic for that county, was given by his daughter to Colorado
College, at Colorado Springs, Colorado. A few specimens from it are at the
Society of Natural History of Delaware in Wilmington. (H. 225-226.)

Benjamin M. Everhart, born in 1818, and long resident at West Chester,
Pennsylvania, was closely associated in mycological work with Job B. Ellis,
their main work together being a study of the “North American Pyreno-

12 BARTONIA

mycetes ” published in 1892. Apparently all his collections went to Ellis. He
died in 1904. (H. 227.)

Charles E. Smith, born in 1820, engineer and executive, was an active sup-
porter of the Botanical Section of the Academy of Natural Sciences from its
organization in 1876 till his death in 1900. His many collections from our local
area are in the Academy’s Local Herbarium. Often they are accompanied with
pertinent notes of especial interest. (H. 227-229.)

Charles F. Parker, born in 1820, is said by Meehan ** to have lived as a boy
in the same house with Rafinesque. By business a book-binder, he resided from
1853 until his death in 1883 in Camden, and took for his botanical field southern
New Jersey. He was for many years a member of the Academy of Natural
Sciences, and some of his collections are at that institution, although his large
herbarium, rich in plants of southern New Jersey, is at Princeton University.*”
(H. 229-231.)

Rev. Thomas C. Porter, born in 1822 in Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania,
was both clergyman and professor of natural science. In the latter capacity he
was at Marshall College, Mercersburg, from 1840 to 1853; at Franklin and
Marshall College, Lancaster, from 1853 to 1866; and finally at Lafayette Col-
lege, Easton, from 1866 until his death in 1901. Around each of these centers
he collected assiduously. He also visited the Central Rocky Mountain states,
and, from his own specimens as well as his identifications of government collec-
tions submitted to him, published in 1874 in collaboration with John M. Coulter
a “Synopsis of the Flora of Colorado.” His interest in the plants of Pennsyl-
vania was to have resulted in a Flora of the state, but the project, left unful-
filled at his death, was carried out in abbreviated form by his nephew, John K.
Small. Porter’s large herbarium, rich in collections from all parts of temperate
North America and Mexico, was deposited by Lafayette College in 1914 at the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. (*H. 236-243.)

Mrs. Amelia F. Eby, born in 1823, collected extensively in Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania. Her herbarium, presumably after her death in 1908, passed to
the Missouri Botanical Garden at St. Louis. It is likely that yet earlier collec-
tions, made by the Pennsylvania-German element in Lancaster, Berks, and
Lebanon counties, had gone to Dr. George Engelmann, and so eventually to the
Missouri Botanical Garden.

Dr. Joseph Leidy, born in 1823, professor of anatomy and biology in the
University of Pennsylvania, and long America’s leading paleontologist, made an
herbarium which passed to the University after his death in 1891.

36 Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 35: 260-265, 1883. This also tells of Parker’s encounter in
the swamps of Cape May County with Coe F. Austin, the keen student of Hepaticae, who
— so long in Bergen Coun —_— in northern New Jersey. Austin made various eollectitix trips

central and soudkes New

87 See W. Stone in Rep. ae J. State Mus. 1910: 28, 1911.

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA LOCAL AREA 13

Somewhere among the collectors of this time should be mentioned Joseph R.
Rhoads, who made a considerable herbarium of plants around Philadelphia that
is now at the Academy of Natural Sciences. His specimens are dated about 1860.

Thomas Meehan, born in 1826 in England, came to the United States in
1848. He became a prominent horticulturalist, and, as a member of the Com-
mon Councils of Philadelphia, did much to increase its park system. Even
before the organization of the Botanical Section of the Academy he was con-
cerned for the welfare of its herbarium, and from that event was an active
supporter of Mr. Redfield’s work. While very few local specimens of his are at
the Academy, he did assemble a considerable herbarium of such plants, which
passed after his death in 1901 to the Germantown Botanical Society, and then,
after its dissolution, to the School of Horticulture at Ambler, Pennsylvania.
(*H. 249-256.)

Dr. George Martin, born in 1827, was a physician of Delaware and Chester
counties, Pennsylvania, whose botanical interest turned to the study of Fungi.
Of these he assembled through his own collecting and by acquisition from other
mycologists of the country a large herbarium which is now at the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. His publications, though of high quality,
were few. He died in 1886. (*H. 247-248.)

One of the great names in American mycology is that of Job B. Ellis. Born
in 1829 in New York State, it was in 1865, just after the Civil War, that he
settled in Newfield in southern New Jersey, which became his home through
a long and active botanical life. In 1878 he began issuing his extended series
of “North American Fungi”, exsiccatae that have become widely distributed;
and of which 36 centuries were eventually issued. His work received needed
financial aid from the association with B. M. Everhart, and we have already
mentioned their joint authorship of “The North American Pyrenomycetes ”,
published in 1892. Many other mycologists have contributed specimens to the
series of “ North American Fungi”, among whom Commons forms a third from
our Local Area. Ellis’ vast herbarium of Fungi, of which Harshberger gives a
detailed summary that was copied from Ellis’ description in 1892, was bought
by the New York Botanical Garden in 1896. Sets of the North American Fungi
are at the Academy of Natural Sciences and the University of Pennsylvania.
Ellis died in 1905. (*H. 259-272.)

Born in the same year 1829 was another local mycologist, Albert Commons.
He lived in New Castle County, and brought together the most ample botanical
collections ever assembled from Delaware. His herbarium contained specimens
of all groups, flowering plants, ferns, mosses and hepatics, lichens, and fungi,
Dr. Harshberger reporting the number of the last as 1300 species. Commons
died in 1919, and his nephews have presented his herbarium to the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. (H. 272-273.)

Next follows another Delaware botanist, William M. Canby, in many ways
a contrast to Commons. Born in 1831 and leading an active business life in

14 BARTONIA

Wilmington, he also collected extensively in Delaware. But his interest was
confined to flowering plants and ferns, though geographically it ranged over
much of the southern and western United States. Furthermore, Canby did con-
siderable taxonomic work on western species and was on the Northern Trans-
continental Survey of 1893. His first herbarium, comprising 30,000 specimens
accumulated by exchange from many parts of the Earth, was purchased in 1892
by the New York College of Pharmacy. A later herbarium of some 20,000
specimens passed after his death in 1904 to the Society of Natural History of
Delaware, and so is preserved in Wilmington. (*H. 278-283.)

Josiah Hoopes, born in 1832, lived all his life at West Chester, Pennsylvania,
where he established a nursery in which conifers were an especial interest. His
herbarium, consisting of plants gathered by him in the vicinity of this town
and mostly lacking data of locality, is at the State Teachers’ College at West
Chester. He died in 1904. (H. 285-291.)

Benjamin Heritage, born in 1833, lived all his life at Mickleton, New Jersey.
He was a member of the Philadelphia Botanical Club from its founding until
his death in 1912. His herbarium, largely representative of Gloucester County,
New Jersey, was bequeathed to the George School, at Newtown, Bucks County,
Pennsylvania, but many of his collections are also in the Academy’s Local Her-
barium. (B. 5: 12-13. H. 291.)

Dr. William Herbst, born in 1833, was for many years physician at Trexler-
town, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. His special interest in Fungi led to his
work on the “ Fungal Flora of the Lehigh Valley”. After his death in 1906,
his collections of Fungi and Lichens have passed to the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia. (*H. 291-293.)

The prime mover in founding the Philadelphia Botanical Club, Dr. J. Ber-
nard Brinton, was born in Chester County, Pennsylvania, in 1835. He was a
physician and manufacturer. As a botanical collector he worked energetically
over the territory accessible to Philadelphia, and it was his custom to conduct
“weekly tramps” of a small group of select associates in this study. From
this nucleus was organized in December, 1891, the Philadelphia Botanical Club.**
His death occurred just three years later, and his herbarium was sold to the
University of Pennsylvania. (H. 294-298.)

The action of Dr. Brinton and his associates in founding the Philadelphia
Botanical Club carried a step farther division of the sciences into specialized
fields. Since the Botanical Section of the Academy of Natural Sciences in its
zeal for upbuilding the herbarium covered the whole world, it seemed desirable
to have a special club for those particularly interested in the Local Flora.
Through meetings and field-trips, through the formation of the special club’s
herbarium, in 1908 through the commencement of the journal Bartonia, this
interest has been actively developed over the past fifty years.

88 See Stewardson Brown’s “A Brief History of the Philadelphia Botanical Club”, in
Bartonia 1: 2-4, 1909.

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA LOCAL AREA 15

Other more specialized Clubs have followed, some under the aegis of the
University and some of the Academy. The Botanical Society of Pennsylvania,
founded at the University in 1897, has had a large amateur as well as scientific
personnel, and from its membership many collections have come to the Univer-
sity’s herbarium. The Leidy Microscopical Club, successor in 1924 to the Acad-
emy’s Microscopical Department, has fostered the study of diatoms, rotifers,
and many other minute forms of both plant and animal life. The Cryptogam
Society of Philadelphia, with headquarters at the University, was most active
in the first decades of this century, and through it came to that institution many
collections including those of mosses and lichens gathered in our area by George
B. Kaiser, A. F. K. Krout, Carlotta H. Browne, Josephine D. Lowe, and Vir-
ginia Wismer, and of Algae by Almira R. Murphy. Other clubs may have
existed, but were shorter-lived. This last stage of evolution into specialized
clubs for various fields of botanical interest has been paralleled in the teaching
at the University of Pennsylvania by special instruction by specially qualified
instructors in the different branches of botany. It has been a long progress
from the single professorship of natural history in 1789 to to-day’s elaborate
staffs for the teaching of botany, zoology, and geology. But we must return to
the chronological enumeration of individual botanical collectors.

Dr. Abram P. Garber, born in 1838, was a physician who made some collec-
tions in Lancaster and Northampton counties, Pennsylvania, but who is better
known for his collections in Florida. He died in 1881. While his specimens
exist in various herbaria, including that of the Academy of Natural Sciences,
his own herbarium, as I am informed by Dr. H. K. Groff, is preserved at
Franklin and Marshall College at Lancaster. (H. 302-303.)

Dr. Isaac S. Moyer, born in 1838, was a physician at Quakertown, who made
extensive collections of the plants of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, and in 1876
published a Catalogue of the plants of that county. He died in 1898, and his
herbarium has remained at the Bucks County Historical Society at Doylestown.

Professor Austin C. Apgar, born in 1838, was long a teacher of botany at
Trenton, New Jersey. He was the author of “Trees of the Northern United
States”, published in 1892. After his death in 1908, his herbarium passed to
the New Jersey State Museum at Trenton. (H. 304.)

Dr. Joseph T. Rothrock, born in 1839, was a surgeon and botanist, who was
on the staffs of several far western exploring expeditions, even visiting remote
Alaska. He prepared the botanical report of the Wheeler Expedition of 1873
to 1875 to the southwestern United States. Beginning with 1877 he was Pro-
fessor of Botany at the University of Pennsylvania. In our territory his collec-
tions were mostly made near Philadelphia, and especially in Chester County,
Pennsylvania. His own herbarium was purchased by the Field Museum of
Natural History in Chicago. Dr. Rothrock’s later interest turned strongly to
forestry, and for many years he was State Forester of Pennsylvania. He died
in 1922. (*H. 305-313.)

16 BARTONIA

Dr. Horatio C. Wood, born in 1841, was a member of the medical faculty
of the University of Pennsylvania, whose botanical interest lay in the study
of fresh-water Algae. In 1869 he published a “ Prodromus of a Study of North
American Fresh-water Algae”. Since his death in 1919, his herbarium, if it
ever existed, has disappeared, a recent vigorous search failing to locate any
portion of it.

Benjamin H. Smith, born in 1841, was a son of Dr. George Smith already
mentioned as a collector of the plants of Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Al-
though Benjamin traveled extensively in the western United States and lived in
Colorado from 1880 to 1887, from his return to Philadelphia in the latter year
until his death in 1918 the flora of Delaware County claimed his main attention.
His herbarium has come to the Academy of Natural Sciences, and with it some
manuscript pages toward a prospective Flora of that county. He was also a
keen collaborator of Dr. Charles 8. Sargent of the Arnold Arboretum in the
field study of Crataegus, and a full set of Smith’s collections of this genus are
in the Academy’s herbarium. (H. 413.)

Uselma C. Smith, born in 1841, succeeded Dr. Brinton as the second Presi-
dent of the Philadelphia Botanical Club. He died in 1902, and his collections
are in the Academy’s Local Herbarium. (H. 319.)

Charles D. Lippincott, born in 1841, was, like Benjamin Heritage with whom
he was closely associated, a lifelong resident of Gloucester County, New Jersey,
and a collector of its flora. Living so recently as 1926, many of our members
will recall his devoted attendance at the Club’s meetings. His herbarium was
presented in 1924 to our Academy. (B. 10: 53.) .

Isaac C. Martindale, born in 1842 at Byberry in Philadelphia, lived most
of his life in Camden, New Jersey, where he held a banking position. He
accumulated a large herbarium of flowering and flowerless plants, both by his
own collecting in our local area and by exchange and purchase; and this her-
barium passed, after his death in 1893, to the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy.
It includes from our territory, beside his own collections, many specimens gath-
ered by Charles F. Parker. Martindale is especially remembered as a collec-
tor of Algae. (H. 322-327.)

Lewis Woolman, born in 1842, became an active student of Diatoms, as a
result of his efforts to interpret the stratification found in deep well-borings,
especially along the coast of southern New Jersey. Using various groups of
plant and animal life, but especially Diatoms, he worked out the successional
geologic sequence. He joined the Academy of Natural Sciences in 1884, and
died in 1903.

A. F. K. Krout, born in 1843, taught school in various eastern counties of
Pennsylvania. For several years he was in Lehigh County, and his specimens
therefrom in the Academy’s Local Herbarium are recognizable by their unusually
large labels. From 1892 until his death in 1914 he resided in Philadelphia, and
during these later years turned especially to the study of Mosses. His collec-
tions of these are at the University of Pennsylvania. (H. 328-330.)

>

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA LOCAL AREA 17

Joel J. Carter, born in 1843, lived most of his life at New Texas, Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania. Keenly interested in plants, he formed a large her-
barium from the southern portion of that county. After his death in 1912, this
passed to the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. In the next year,
1913, there appeared under the joint authorship of J. K. Small and J. J. Carter
“The Flora of Lancaster County ”. Beside this collaboration, Mr. Carter had
also accompanied Dr. Small on several collecting trips to Florida. (B. 5: 11.)

Dr. Clayton D. Fretz, born in 1844, was a physician in Bucks County, Penn-
sylvania. There he had “read medicine” to Dr. I. 8. Moyer, already men-
tioned, assisted him in obtaining data for his plant catalogue of 1876, and, in-
deed, fully inherited his interest in the plants of the county. Later, as a result
of his own years of collecting, Dr. Fretz issued in 1905 a fuller “ Catalogue of
the Flora of Bucks County ”. He died in 1926, and his herbarium passed to
the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. (B. 10: 54-55. H. 340-342.)

Dr. George Rex, born presumably in 1845, was a physician of Philadelphia.
Keenly interested in microscopic study, he became a leading American authority
on the Myxomycetes. However, if the bibliography of 11 titles given by Harsh-
berger be complete, he published relatively little. He died in 1895, and his
herbarium is preserved at the Academy of Natural Sciences. H. 342-344.)

Rev. John P. Otis, born in 1846, successively filled charges in Delaware and
adjoining Maryland, making at each locality considerable collections of plants.
Two of these places were within our local area: Marshallton, New Castle County,
Delaware; and Northeast, Cecil County, Maryland. He died in 1934, and his
herbarium has been given to the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

Another student of Myxomycetes was Hugo Bilgram. Born in 1847 in Ger-
many, he reached this country in 1869, and in this city became assistant to
Joseph Zentmayer, the microscope maker. As a result of fifty years’ study he
assembled a large and admirably indexed herbarium of Myxomycetes, which
on his death in 1932 passed to his friend T. Chalkley Palmer and so to the
Academy of Natural Sciences. (B. 14: 55-57.)

William Trimble, born in 1847, a nephew of Dr. George Martin, was for
many years a farmer at Concordville in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. His
herbarium, mostly from that section, was presented in 1928 to the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. He died in 1932. His older brother, Dr.
Samuel Trimble (1843-1919), long a physician at Lima in the same county, and
a younger brother, Dr. Henry Trimble (1853-1895), were both keen field botan-
ists, but neither seem to have collected specimens. (B. 14: 53-54. H. 363-366.)

William Clark Stevenson, born in 1848, was a Philadelphia business man
who made a collection of more than 5,000 specimens of Fungi from Philadelphia,
Delaware, and Chester Counties, Pennsylvania. He was a friend and associate
of Job B. Ellis. He died in 1919, and his herbarium was sold. (H. 346.)

Eugene A. Rau, born in 1848, was a pharmacist at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
He made a considerable herbarium, giving special attention to Bryophytes,

18 BARTONIA

Lichens, and Fungi. His most extensive publications treated of the first, among
these being a “Catalogue of North American Musci”, in 1880. In 1928 he
presented his herbarium of cryptogamic specimens to the New York Botanical
Garden, but his books and some collections of flowering plants came to the
Academy of Natural Sciences after his death in 1932. A few years earlier he
had given the Academy a series of Schweinitz’ books that had come to him, a
fellow-Moravian, from the botanist’s son. (B. 15: 55-56. H. 352.)

Rev. John E. Peters, born in 1849 at Newark, and both a theological and
biological alumnus of Princeton University, after 1876 officiated at Cedarville
(1877-79), Mays Landing (1886-89), Pleasantville (1889-90), Elwood (1891-
92), and Camden (1893-95), all in the southern part of New Jersey. He was
a keen collector of plants, gathering both flowering and flowerless ones, and
forming especially large series of Algae and Lichens. After his death at Cam-
den in 1926, his herbarium has come to the Academy of Natural Sciences.

Charles Henry Kain was a teacher in Camden and Philadelphia. He was
a collector and student of Diatoms, publishing papers on fossil and recent kinds,
including a report for the New Jersey Geological Survey. He cooperated on
papers with E. A. Schultze in 1887 and 1889. He died in 1913, and some of his
specimens passed to Dr. Albert Mann of the United States National Museum.
(H. 350-352.)

Thomas J. Oberlin, born in 1850, collected from 1876 to 1889 in Berks
County, Pennsylvania, at which time he spelled his name “ Oberly ”. In 1931
he gave his herbarium to the Reading Public Museum,” and duplicates have
since been given to the Academy’s Local Herbarium. He died in 1936. (B.
19: 55-56.)

Dr. John W. Eckfeldt, born in 1851, a physician of Philadelphia, was a keen
collector and student of Lichens. From 1886 to 1895 he published a succession
of papers descriptive of new species or reporting on collections made by scien-
tific expeditions to various parts of North America. Failing eyesight led him
to discontinue the study, and in 1898 he presented his large herbarium of lichens
to the Academy of Natural Sciences. Until some months before his death in
1933 he was a frequent attender of the Philadelphia Botanical Club. (*B.36:
57-59. *H. 356-358.)

Frank Lamson-Scribner, born in 1851 in Massachusetts, was on the faculty
of Girard College in this city from 1877 to 1885, after which came his years
of agrostological work in the Department of Agriculture at Washington, D. C.
While in Philadelphia he was a collector and student of the local grasses, and
also published on these plants from various parts of North America. His col-

Mr. Wilkens, in telling of Oberlin, mentions his association with Dr. Daniel B. D.
‘ibuted a list s in 1886

and whose herbarium is also at the Reading Museum.
specimens . Wi iladelphia, Pa. and Pemberton, N. J., some of
which have also been recently presented to the Academy’s Local Herbarium. Her specimens,
that are cited in Britton’s “ Piclciinasy Catalogue ”, are presumably at Rutgers University.

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA LOCAL AREA 19

lections are in the Grass Herbarium of the United States Department of Agri-
culture. He died in 1938. (H. 358-363.)

Harold Wingate, born in 1852, was a student of Myxomycetes, and published
various papers about them in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia. He died in 1926, and his herbarium is at the Acad-
emy. (H. 363.)

Henry Dautun, born in 1853, was a collector of flowering plants and ferns
in the vicinity of New York, whose excursions extended south to Monmouth
County, New Jersey. He died in 1913, and his herbarium is at the Brooklyn
Botanic Garden.

Jacob H. Grove, born in 1853, resided many years at New Egypt, near the
junction of Burlington, Monmouth, and Ocean counties, New Jersey. He made
a considerable herbarium of the plants of that section, which was of much assist-
ance to Witmer Stone’s “ Flora of Southern New Jersey ”, and is now in the
Local Herbarium of the Academy of Natural Sciences. He died in 1929. (B.
11: 50.)

Dr. Hugh B. Meredith, born in 1853 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, was
a hospital superintendent on the upper Susquehanna, but from 1920 till his
death in 1929 he lived in this city and was an active member of the Philadelphia
Botanical Club. He became a zealous collector, and contributed many speci-
mens of unusual beauty to the Academy’s Local and General Herbaria. (B.
11: 56.)

Henry A. Lang, born in 1854, was a musician, who found much pleasure in
botanizing. He contributed collections to the Academy’s Local Herbarium, and
made a special series of specimens from the Wissahickon Valley in Philadelphia.
He died in 1930, and his herbarium passed to the Academy of Natural Sciences.
(B. 12: 54-55.)

Dr. John M. Macfarlane, born in 1855 in Scotland, came in 1891 to the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania, where he was many years in charge of the Botanical
Garden. Here his research has been largely devoted to insectivorous plants, for
which he has made repeated journeys to the Southeastern States. Locally, he
has established the Botanical Society of Pennsylvania, and, often in association
with its members, has made collections for the herbarium of the University.
He has the honor of being the oldest living collector on our record. (H. 367-372.)

Charles S. Boyer, born in 1856, a teacher and school supervisor in Philadel-
phia, was a devoted student of Diatoms and author of a “Synopsis of North
American Diatomaceae ”, published by the Academy of Natural Sciences in
1927. He was ably assisted by a group of workers at the Academy, including
Frank J. Keeley, John A. Shulze, and T. Chalkley Palmer. Boyer died in 1928,
and his vast collection of diatoms is now at the Academy of Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia. (H. 372-374.)

Charles S» Williamson, born in 1857, was long Profesor of Drawing at Girard
College in Philadelphia. He was a zealous collector of plants, and made many

20 BARTONIA

botanical excursions to various parts of the United States and Canada. From
1897 until his death in 1914 he was a member of the Philadelphia Botanical
Club. His herbarium was given to the Academy of Natural Sciences. (*B. 7:
1-4. H. 374.)

Hiram L. Fisher, born in 1858, has been long a resident of Hunterdon County,
New Jersey, and his collections, now at the Academy of Natural Sciences, form
our chief representation therefrom.

Joseph Crawford, born in 1858, was a pharmacist in Philadelphia. He was
one of the original founders of the Philadelphia Botanical Club, and from 1898
to 1909 served as its president. His collections, made in our local area and on
trips to Georgia and Florida, were given to the Academy of Natural Sciences.
He died in 1936. (*B. 19: 54-55. H. 376-377.)

Dr. Nathaniel Lord Britton, born in 1859 on Staten Island, had a distin-
guished botanical career. His earliest considerable work was “A Preliminary
Catalogue of the Flora of New Jersey”, issued in 1881 and with an enlarged
edition in 1890. The specimens on which this was based are with the New
Jersey Geological Survey, at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Dr. Britton was subsequently the main author of Britton and Brown’s “ Illus-
trated Flora of the Northern United States and Canada”, and the founder of
the New York Botanical Garden, in the museum of which are his later collec-
tions. He died in 1934.

Charles Francis Saunders, born in 1859, became in 1893 a member of the
Philadelphia Botanical Club, and contributed many collections to the Academy’s
herbarium from the local territory and from the mountains of Pennsylvania.
On moving to California about 1904, he became an enthusiastic student of the
western flora as well. A charming writer, he published various books on western
plants, but his “ Useful Wild Plants of the United States and Canada”, issued
in 1920, pertains to our eastern flora as well. It was my pleasure to meet him
at Pasadena in southern California in 1940, about a year before his death.

George M. Beringer, born in 1860, was for many years a pharmacist in Cam-
den, New Jersey. He was one of the founders of the Philadelphia Botanical
Club, and served as its third president. He contributed specimens from adja-
cent New Jersey to the Academy’s Local Herbarium. He died in 1928. (B.
10: 56. *H. 377-378.)

T. Chalkley Palmer, born in 1860, for nearly forty years President of the
Delaware County Institute of Science and from 1927 to 1928 President of the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, had a broad interest in plants
of Delaware and Chester Counties, but was most keenly conversant with micro-
scopic forms of vegetation. He assembled a large herbarium of Diatoms and
other Algae, publishing upon the former and especially on the Algal genus
Trachelomonas; also he made collections and published comprehensive studies
of the Pteridophyte genus, Isoetes. After his death in 1935, his collections of all

Pa

groups of plants passed to his son, Walter Palmer, who has pursued his father’s

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA LOCAL AREA 21

interests both in the Delaware County Institute and the Leidy Microscopical
Club of the Academy of Natural Sciences. (*B. 16: 59-61. H. 378-379.)

Samuel S. Van Pelt, born in 1863, holds a unique position in the regard of
the members of the Philadelphia Botanical Club. For ten years, from 1903 to
1913, he was Curator of the Club’s Herbarium (the Local Herbarium of the
Academy of Natural Sciences for which the Club is sponsor). To this task he
brought an enthusiast’s devotion, resulting in trip after trip afield, while he
showed an artist’s skill in the collecting of specimens and in their presentation
on the mounted sheet. Van Pelt himself mounted not only his own collections
but also all other specimens that came to the Club’s Herbarium. The remark-
able standard then set has held through the years, and is the basis of our pride
in the quality of the material in this herbarium. At each Christmas meeting
thirty years ago the wall would be hung with the species new to the Club’s
territory that had been collected during the year, and it was always a remark-
able record of exploration. In the first two numbers of Bartonia, Van Pelt has
told of trips to Northampton County, Pennsylvania, in 1908 and 1909. After
1920 he retired from botany, and his death occurred in 1935. (*B. 17: 1-3.)

Calvin L. Gruber, born in 1864, has lived all his life in Berks County, Penn-
sylvania. For more than fifty years he taught in its schools, being forty-five
years on the faculty of the State Teachers College at Kutztown. To this insti-
tution he gave most of his botanical collections in 1934, but some of his ferns
were given to the American Fern Society and his specimens of Crataegus to the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Concerning both these groups
he has published studies, and he is the discoverer of several new species of haw-
thorns. He is now keenly pursuing his interest in ferns, collecting and preparing
further reports upon them.

John A. and Harvey F. Ruth, two brothers who lived at Riegelsville, pre-
pared a catalogue of the “ Plants of Northern Bucks County ”, based upon col-
lections made from 1883 to 1885. William H. Witte, a present botanist living
at Riegelsville, says that “from 1886 to 1890, Harvey and I collected the hills
and valleys in Durham and NockamixonTwps. together”. He “never saw
John ”, but tells me that Harvey was born in 1866 and died in 1904. The her-
barium of the Ruth brothers is now at the Academy of Natural Sciences.

Dr. Ida A. Keller, born in 1866 in Germany, was long a teacher in the
Philadelphia High School for Girls. She was a member of the Philadelphia
Botanical Club from 1892, and contributed many local specimens to the Club’s
Herbarium at the Academy of Natural Sciences. In collaboration with Steward-
son Brown she published in 1905 a “ Handbook of the Philadelphia Flora”,
being a compilation of the records of various collectors in the Club’s territory.
She died in 1932. (B. 14: 59-60. H. 380-382.)

Witmer Stone, born in 1866, another founder of the Philadelphia Botanical
Club in 1891, is often thought of as the last of the school of “all-round” natural-

22 BARTONIA

ists. After his college days at the University of Pennsylvania, his life was
nearly wholly associated with the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.
There for many years he was Curator of Birds, but his published studies ranged
from birds to mammals and plants, in the last field issuing in 1903 an account
of the violets around Philadelphia and in 1911 his “Plants of Southern New
Jersey ”.4° He built up a large herbarium from both New Jersey and Penn-
sylvania, and from this many specimens were given the Academy’s Local Her-
barium, although his herbarium itself passed to the University of Pennsylvania.
In later years official duties and poor health took their toll, but the last summers
of his life passed at Cape May were filled with observation of birds and the
collecting of insects. He died in 1939. (B. 20: 33-37.)

Rodney H. True, born in 1866 in Wisconsin, in 1920 succeeded Dr. Macfar-
lane as Professor of Botany in the University of Pennsylvania. Although his
special interest lay in plant physiology, he collected locally and in Maine, giving
considerable attention to Carex. He died in 1940.

Arthur Heller, born in 1867 in Montour County, Pennsylvania, was a
student at Franklin and Marshall College at Lancaster along with John K.
Small. Together they collected in Lancaster and adjoining counties, these ex-
cursions beginning the field-work of both botanists. Heller soon disappeared
from our territory, becoming one of the most wide-ranging and active of Amer-
ican collectors, working first in the southern Appalachians, then in Texas, and
for most of his life in the western United States. For many years he has lived
in California, and it was my pleasure to spend a day with him at Chico in 1940.
His publications mostly deal with western plants. His early collections are at
the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. (H. 382-388.)

Stewardson Brown, born in 1867, was first Conservator (1895) of the Botan-
ical Department, and later Curator of Plants (1900), at the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia. He was one of the founders of the Philadelphia Botan-
ical Club in 1891, and for its first seven years (1908-1914) editor of its journal
“ Bartonia”. His many local collections are in the Academy’s Local Herbar-
ium. As Kos been mentioned, he was associated with Dr. Ida A. Keller as author
of the “Handbook of the Flora of Philadelphia and Vicinity ”, issued in 1905.
Beyond our area Brown made several collecting expeditions to ‘eosion’ America,
but of more significance are those with Mrs. Charles Schaeffer to Alberta and

mary the main collectors in this territory with the ‘present location of their specimens.
These ptton ss the ‘additional names of Elias Diffenbaugh and C. A. Gross (“C. 8. Gross ise
The former, born in caster County, Pa., was a printer in Philadelphia who collected much
in New Jersey in the 1860’s, but who aed to tp Tiinels where ae ee: in 1870. His specimens
are at the Academy of Natural Sciences. (H. 353, as “ Diffenbach”.) C. A. Gross lived at
Landisville, Atlantic County, N. J., and his he rbarium is at the Rew Jersey State Museum at
Trenton. An early New Jersey collector, additional to those mentioned by Stone, is Dr.

Bischoff, whose specimens, made at Long Beach as early as 1848, are in the yp thas 2 her-

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA LOCAL AREA 23

British Columbia that resulted in 1907 in their “Alpine Flora of the Canadian
Rocky Mountains”. At the Academy he suggested the transfer of all specimens
from our Local Area to the Philadelphia Botanical Club’s Herbarium, thus
making that actually the Academy’s Local Herbarium. He died in 1921. (*B.
8: 1-6.)

With this second reference thereto, it may be well to tell of Keller and
Brown’s “ Handbook of the Flora of Philadelphia and Vicinity”. This work,
which was published by the Philadelphia Botanical Club, gives for each species,
not supposedly general in its occurrence with us, citations of records, classifying
these under counties and giving for each an abbreviation telling who was re-
porting it. Some of these contributors gave unsupported records of observations,
but others kept specimens as vouchers, most of which are in the Academy’s
Local Herbarium. As the 37 contributors are supposedly those most active in
such distributional interest then, it is well to enumerate them now. Addresses
were given, so it becomes possible to group them slightly: from Philadelphia (so
equally accessible to Pennsylvania and New Jersey), Stewardson Brown, Joseph
Crawford, Thomas 8. Githens, John W. Harshberger, Albrecht Jahn, Edwin C.
Jellett, Ida A. Keller, A. F. K. Krout, Morris and Arthur Leeds, Alexander
MacElwee, Philip Marot, Thomas Meehan, George Redles, C. F. Saunders,
Charles Schaeffer, Benjamin H. Smith, Uselma C. Smith, Witmer Stone, E. L.
Tenbrook, Samuel S. Van Pelt, Cora S. Ware, Newlin Williams, and Charles S.
Williamson; elsewhere from Pennsylvania, Joel J. Carter, C. D. Fretz, William
Herbst, Aldrich Pennock, Ferris W. Price, and Samuel and William Trimble;
from New Jersey, Millie Abbott, Benjamin Heritage, Charles Lippincott, and
Joseph Stokes; and from Delaware, Edward Tatnall.*t Most of these are else-
where considered. Of the others Albrecht Jahn, who died in 1905, is well repre-
sented by specimens in the Academy’s Local Herbarium, and he was the artist
of the excellent likeness of Dr. Brinton accompanying the first issue of Bar-
tonia; Dr. Thomas S. Githens, a research physician with the Mulford Labora-
tories at Glenolden, Pa., presented his herbarium before 1911 to the Academy
of Natural Sciences; Edwin C. Jellett wrote a “Flora of Germantown” and
some specimens of his survive at the School of Horticulture; George Redles,
who died in 1937, was an active member of our Club and of the Germantown
Horticultural Society, and there are specimens of his in the Academy’s Local
Herbarium (B. 19: 59.) Dr. Joseph Stokes, whose herbarium is mentioned in
Dr. Stone’s “Plants of Southern New Jersey ”, is a physician still living at
Moorestown, New Jersey, and who is now presenting his herbarium to the
Academy; and Newlin Williams made a considerable herbarium from Bucks
County, Pennsylvania, that is now at George School, at Newtown in that county;
whether Millie Abbott, Philip Marot, Aldrich Pennock, Ferris W. Price and
Cora S. Ware made actual specimens I do not know.

41 Evidently referring to his published Catalogue of 1860.

24 BARTONIA

Dr. John W. Harshberger, born in 1869, was long associated with the botan-
ical department of the University of Pennsylvania. His botanical collections,
including many from our Local Area, are in the University’s herbarium. His
interests ranged widely, and his most characteristic work lay in the special field
of ecology. Several such papers concern our local flora, in New Jersey treating
of the plants of the coast and of the Pine Barrens, and in Pennsylvania giving
a general phytogeographic sketch of our territory and in some detail an account
of the plant formations of the Nockamixon Rocks. Vastly wider in scope was
his comprehensive “ Phytogeographic Survey of North America”, published in
1911 in Germany, in which our local territory received incidental consideration.
But the work which the present writer believes will be most permanent is his
book on “ The Botanists of Philadelphia and their Work”, published in 1899,
which has already been alluded to as a mine of originally obtained information.
Dr. Harshberger died in 1929. (B. 11: 51-55. H. 391-399.)

Dr. Calvin Henry Kauffman, born at Lebanon in 1869, was from 1904 until
his death in 1931 on the botanical staff of the University of Michigan. He was
one of the leading American students of Fungi. His collections of these included
specimens from the inland counties of our area in Pennsylvania.

Alexander MacElwee, born in 1869, immigrated from Scotland in 1883, and

much of his subsequent life was spent in horticultural work near Philadelphia.
He joined the Philadelphia Botanical Club in 1892. At intervals he held cura-
torial posts in charge of the Martindale Herbarium at the Philadelphia College
of Pharmacy, and then of the later disbanded herbarium of the Commercial
Museum. He amassed a large herbarium of his own, which he sold to the
Academy of Natural Sciences in 1905. In later years, while too busy to assemble
another herbarium, his botanical interest led to his being President of the Phila-
delphia Botanical Club from 1918 until his death in 1923. (*B. 9: 1-6. H.
399-401.)
Dr. John K. Small, born in 1869, passed his early life in Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania, and we have already told of his early excursions with A. A. Heller
when both were students at Franklin and Marshall College. Through his mature
years Dr. Small was on the staff of the New York Botanical Garden, and was
the leading authority on the plants of the southeastern United States, of which
he published his “ Flora” in 1903 and his “ Manual” in 1933. One of his early
tasks was arranging for the press his uncle Thomas C. Porter’s notes on the
“Flora of Pennsylvania”, which appeared in 1903; and later he returned to
his early interest in Lancaster County, when in association with Joel J. Carter
he produced a “ Flora of Lancaster County ”, published at Lancaster in 1913.
Dr. Small’s early herbarium, containing many of his Lancaster County records,
was sold to the Field Museum of Natural History, but his later collections are
all at the New York Botanical Garden. He died in 1938.

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA LOCAL AREA 25

Dr. Robert R. Tatnall, born in 1870, long a professor of physics at univer-
sities in Illinois and New York, returned in 1919 to Wilmington, Delaware,
where he has become curator of the herbarium of the Society of Natural His-
tory of Delaware. In 1928 he joined the Philadelphia Botanical Club, of which
he was secretary from 1932 to 1939. Building upon his uncle Edward Tatnall’s
list of the plants of Newcastle County of 1860, he has enlarged the project and
is collecting specimens toward a record of the plants of the entire peninsula of
Delmarva.

Arthur N. Leeds, born in 1870, was, with his older brother Morris E. Leeds,”
among the founders of the Philadelphia Botanical Club in 1891. For nearly
fifty years he served as the Club’s Treasurer. After his retirement in 1928 from
an active business life he became curator of the Academy’s collections of Pteri-
dophyta, the ferns and fern-allies; these he put into good reference-order and
increased by many collections. His own field-trips extended widely over the
eastern United States, and among his specimens were many from our local area.
His death in 1939 was the most severe of our Club’s recent losses. (*20: 30-32.
H. 402.) ;

Dr. Charles H. LaWall, born in 1871, was long Dean of the Philadelphia
College of Pharmacy, and after his death in 1937 his large herbarium passed to
that institution. In it were many local plants, especially from southern New
Jersey. In later years he lived near Atlantic City, and contributed plants of
that section to the Academy’s Local Herbarium.

Hugh E. Stone, born in 1871, long a resident of Coatesville and recently of
Haverford, has been especially interested in the flora of Chester County, Penn-
sylvania. For his cousin Witmer Stone’s “Plants of Southern New Jersey” he
prepared sketches depicting many species, and a more comprehensive series of
drawings is now being made illustrating the plants of Chester County. In Bar-
tonia for 1929 he presented “‘ A Centennial View of the Chester County Flora”,
comparing what is known to-day with what Darlington knew a century ago;
he is now engaged on a more detailed account of the county’s flora. To the
Academy’s Local Herbarium he has contributed many specimens from Chester
County as well as other parts of our Local Area.

George W. Bassett, born in 1871, was long a nurseryman at Hammonton,
southern New Jersey. Both he and his elder brother, Frank L., collected plants,
and specimens of both from southern New Jersey are in the Academy’s Local
Herbarium. Frank L. Bassett died in 1897, but George lived longer and became
botanically better known. He was a member of the Philadelphia Botanical
Club, and contributed to Bartonia in 1911 and 1912 sketches of travel and col-
lecting in the Pine Barrens. From 1922 to 1928 he was an assistant in the
Academy’s Local Herbarium. He died in 1932. (B. 14: 58.)

42 Of the original group Morris E. Leeds remains after a half-century the only surviving

active member. Edward Pennock, founder, was long out of the Club’s membership, and is
now an honorary, rather than active, member.

26 BARTONIA

William H. Witte, born in 1873, lived many years in Camden, N. J., but since
1937 has resided in Springfield Twp., Bucks Co., Pa. He has collected especially
in southern New Jersey, at stations in the Pine Barrens and with Witmer Stone
and O. H. Brown on Cape May. By collection and exchange he has built up an
herbarium of 10 to 12,000 sheets, that is eventually to pass to Rutgers University.

Dr. Henry S. Conard, born in 1874, was student and instructor of botany at
the University of Pennsylvania, where he prepared his revision of Nymphaea
and also collected some local plants, though few of his specimens are in the
University’s Herbarium. Since 1906 he has been professor of botany at Grin-
nell College, Iowa, and of recent years has given his attention largely to mosses.

Dr. Harlan H. York, born in 1875 in Indiana, has since 1930 been giving
instruction in plant pathology at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the
author of many papers, and has assembled a large private herbarium of Fungi.

Dr. Ernest M. Gress, born in 1876, was for many years State Botanist of
Pennsylvania. He has been especially interested in grasses, about which in the
state he has published a special bulletin. He has collected in various parts of
Pennsylvania, and has built up a considerable herbarium at the Pennsylvania
State Museum at Harrisburg. A unique feature is a large collection of seeds
of native plants.

Otway H. Brown, born in 1877, is a horticulturalist, long resident at Cape
May, New Jersey, and a keen student of the Cape May flora. Many of his
specimens therefrom are in the Local Herbarium of the Academy of Natural
Sciences. He has assembled, by collection and exchange, a large private her-
barium. ;

Walter H. Leibelsperger, born in 1877, has supplied to the Local Herbarium
of the Academy many specimens from Berks County, Pennsylvania.

Kenneth K. Mackenzie, born in 1877 and early living in Missouri, had in
later life a legal office in New York City, with residence at Maplewood, in north-
ern New Jersey. He became America’s leading authority on the large and
critical genus Carex; and about this genus his posthumous work has recently
appeared. It is illustrated by the Philadelphia artist, H. N. Creutzberg, with
unusually accurate and attractive drawings, many of which are from specimens
in the herbarium of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Macken-
zie was keenly interested in the flora of the state of New Jersey, collecting
mostly in its northern half, but extending his trips to various portions of the
southern half also. His collections are at the New York Botanical Garden in
New York City. He died in 1934.

Harold W. Pretz, born in 1877, a lifelong resident of Allentown, has made
such an extensive study of the flora of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, as to make
it one of the most thoroughly known county units in the United States. His
collections are most fully represented at the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia. In the Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club for February, 1911,

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA LOCAL AREA 27

Pretz commenced a series of notes on this county’s plants, but only a single part,
that on the Pteridophytes, was published.**

Edwin B. Bartram, born in 1878, a descendant of John Bartram, joined the
Philadelphia Botanical Club in 1908 and soon became one of the most active
collectors in the Philadelphia territory. Soon after 1920 he retired from busi-
ness in Philadelphia, and made his home in Bushkill, Monroe County, Pennsyl-
vania. Then he commenced the study of mosses, and in 1926 gave his large
herbarium of flowering plants and ferns to the Academy of Natural Sciences so
as to devote his whole attention to this new interest. He has since become one
of America’s leading authorities on Bryophytes, publishing reports on these
plants from various parts of the World.

Joseph H. Painter, born in 1879 at Chad’s Ford, Pennsylvania, became an
assistant curator at the National Museum in Washington, D. C. Although best
known for his collections in Mexico, he made considerable collections in our
Local Area, some of which are now at the United States National Museum.
His own herbarium, after his untimely death in 1908, was given to Westtown
School in Chester County, Pennsylvania.**

William A. Poyser, born in 1882, was a keen student of Pteridophytes, con-
cerning which he published a number of papers on our local species. His Pteri-
dophyte collections are amply represented in the herbarium of the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Poyser also collected Algae, and especially
Diatoms. He died in 1928, and his Diatom herbarium is now at the New York
Botanical Garden. (B. 11: 49-50.)

Norman Taylor, born in 1883, made collections in at least Monmouth and
Ocean counties, New Jersey, in preparation for his “ Flora of the Vicinity of
New York ”, a work covering the counties within 100 miles of New York City,
thus embracing all New Jersey, and southeastern Pennsylvania to the western
limits of Chester and Berks counties. These collections are at the New York
Botanical Garden, and this study was published in 1915 by that institution.
Taylor’s later collections, largely concentrated on Long Island, are at the Brook-
lyn Botanic Garden.

43 In it is a summary of collecters in Lehigh County, among whom are especially men-
tioned C. F. Beitel (approximately 1830 to 1865), whose specimens, without data, are at
Muhlenberg ee Durand, Schweinitz, Rau, Huebener, nh teh sr and Herbst, a

W. Hamm, C. N. Lochman, and Charles .
at the _— of Natural Sciences. The last has collected especially in No
vania.

44 Westtown School, under care of the Society of Friends, has a small herbarium, with
specimens mostly from adjacent Pennsylvania. the school dates from 1799, it is not sur-
prising that some of these were gathered over a hundred years ago. To the early and middle
portions of the last century belong those collected by Davis Reece between 1826 and 1859, and
smaller series ili i Benjami s, Ann F 1, George M. Trim-
ble, Edward Tatnall, William M. Canby, and Samuel Alsop. Beside the herbarium of Joseph

i i e enry S. Conard an red S. Haines, two former
teachers, and in m a student, Edward E. Terrell. See account by Robert R. Tatnall
of “The New Westtown Herbarium ? in The Westonian, 47, no. 3: 4-6, 1941.

28 BARTONIA

Dr. Edgar T. Wherry, born in 1885, is on the botanical staffs of both the
University of Pennsylvania, where he teaches plant ecology, and of the Academy
of Natural Sciences, where he has succeeded Arthur N. Leeds as curator of the
herbarium of Pteridophyta. Starting from a study of distribution as chemically
and geologically controlled, he developed a keen interest in ferns, orchids, and
the Phlox family, Polemoniaceae. He is the author of a “ Guide to Eastern
Ferns ”, published at Philadelphia in 1937, with a second edition in 1942; and
of a series of studies of eastern Polemoniaceae, that appeared in Bartonia from
1929 to 1934. He is an enthusiastic flower photographer, and each year the
Philadelphia Botanical Club awaits with interest his exhibition of colored lan-
tern-slides of the season’s acquisitions. An ardent field-botanist, he has made
botanical journeys over much of the United States.

Bayard Long, born in 1885, joined the Philadelphia Botanical Club in 1906,
and from that time to the present has remained the most active field-botanist
within our Philadelphia area. He succeeded Van Pelt as Curator of the Club’s
Herbarium in 1914, and has well sustained his predecessor’s record for beautiful
and scientifically satisfactory specimens. He is an Associate Curator of the
Academy of Natural Sciences. His knowledge of our local flora, both taxonomi-
cally and geographically, is the most thorough ever achieved, while the numerous
specimens being added year after year to our herbarium will remain a priceless
record of the flora of the present period. These include flowering plants, ferns
and mosses. To Bartonia he contributed in 1924 and 1929 summaries of what
new species, appearing since the last editions of the leading manuals, have been
discerned in our Local Territory. Beyond our area Mr. Long is the chosen
companion of Professor Fernald of Harvard University on his trips to eastern
Canada and Newfoundland, and more recently to Virginia.

Dr. Francis W. Pennell, born in 1886, is the writer of these notes. In 1905
and 1906 he was a student-assistant in the herbarium of the Academy of Nat-
ural Sciences, and supplied some collections from Delaware and Chester Coun-
ties, Pennsylvania. In 1908 and 1909 he made extensive collections toward a
Flora of the Serpentine Barrens of these counties, that was published in the
Academy’s Proceedings for 1910 and 1912; and these specimens are in the
Academy’s herbarium. From 1911 to 1914 he studied the “ Gerardia” group
of the Scrophulariaceae, the collections of this period being at the University of
Pennsylvania. From 1914 to 1921 during his service at the New York Botanical
Garden, he gathered for the herbarium of that institution many specimens from
the Philadelphia local flora, among which are those that contributed toward the
account of “‘ The Scrophulariaceae of the Local Flora” * that appeared in Tor-
reya in 1919 and 1920. From 1921 he has been Curator of Plants at the Acad-
emy of Natural Sciences; in the early years he gave some attention to collecting
miscellaneous local plants, the study of which led to accounts in Bartonia of

45“ Tocal Flora” here means the combined local territories of the Torrey and Philadel-
phia Botanical Clubs.

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA LOCAL AREA 29

certain problems from the Serpentine, etc., but in later years he has given atten-
tion nearly wholly to the single family Scrophulariaceae from various parts of
the World. Local records enter extensively into his account of this family from
eastern temperate North America, that was published in 1935 as a Monograph
of the Academy.

Dr. Walter M. Benner, born in 1888, a school-teacher in Philadelphia, has
made an especial study of the “Flora of Bucks County, Pennsylvania,” his
book so entitled being published in 1932. He is a Research Associate of the
Academy of Natural Sciences, and his collections are at that institution.

Robert R. Dreisbach, born in 1888, is a chemist who joined the Philadelphia
Botanical Club in 1922. He collected ardently in our local territory, especially
in southern New Jersey, from which he contributed many specimens to the
Club’s Herbarium. In 1927 he removed to Michigan, but still remains an active
member of the Club. At various times he has sent Michigan plants to the
Academy’s herbarium, but of recent years his collecting has become chiefly ento-
mological. (It was my pleasure to visit him at Midland in 1937, and to see
his large and growing insect-collection.)

Emory C. Leonard, born in 1892, is on the botanical staff of the United
States National Museum at Washington, D. C. Some years ago he was asso-
ciated in the study of the biota of Haiti with the late Philadelphia zoologist,
William L. Abbott, and also made considerable collections of plants on Dr.
Abbott’s estate on Elk Neck, Cecil County, Maryland. After a long life of
zoological exploring and collecting in many parts of the World, Dr. Abbott had
retired there, and he himself prepared therefrom and gave to the Academy’s
Local Herbarium a series of excellent specimens. Dr. Abbott died in 1936.

Dr. William Randolph Taylor, born in 1896, was instructor of botany at the
University of Pennsylvania, leaving in 1930 to join the botanical staff of the
University of Michigan. His special interest is the study of Algae, and he has
published extensively on the marine species. Before 1930 he put in order the
Algal collections of the University of Pennsylvania and the Academy of Nat-
ural Sciences, contributing to the former many of his own collections. Some
of these were obtained within our area.

Dr. John M. Fogg, Jr., born in 1896, joined the Philadelphia Botanical Club
in 1921, and from 1935 to 1940 was its President. As a member of the botan-
ical faculty of the University of Pennsylvania he has for more than ten years
given courses on the Local Flora, and has assigned to his students certain local
problems ** or the formation of county lists of plants. For his own personal

46 In 1934 Miss Esther L. Larsen explored the marshes along Se ae

and Kent counties, Delaware, and her Mig mrs of the “ Distribution of Lilaeopsis
Delaware ” extend in oles no. 16, issued in 1935. gal tad and 1936 36 Miss Flora Flora s.
re)

30 BARTONIA

county he selected some years ago Salem County, New Jersey, from which he
has added many specimens to the University’s and the Academy’s herbaria.
Recently he and his associates have undertaken the large project of a Flora of
the state of Pennsylvania, which, under the auspices of the University, is being
developed on a plan of cooperation with every botanical institution and nearly
every isolated collector in the state.47 The completion of this project is being
eagerly awaited.

Hans Wilkens, born in 1898, lives at Reading, and has contributed to the
herbarium of the Philadelphia Botanical Club, of which he is a member, many
specimens from Berks County, Pennsylvania.

Joseph W. Adams, born in 1906, now with the Morris Arboretum of the
University of Pennsylvania, has contributed many local specimens to the Club’s
Herbarium, especially from Cumberland County, New Jersey. He has long
had special interest in aquatic plants.

Dr. Ruth Patrick, born in 1907, Associate Curator of the Microscopical De-
partment of the Academy of Natural Sciences, is giving main attention to the
study of fresh-water Diatoms from various parts of the Earth. She has col-
lected much within our Local Area.

Miss Grace M. Tees, from 1930 to 1938 Assistant in the Herbarium of the
Academy of Natural Sciences, put in order a large proportion of the Bryophytes
that had long been awaiting attention, at the same time contributing many of
her own collections, largely made within our Local Area.

Robert L. Schaeffer, Jr., born in 1917 at Allentown and now a graduate stu-
dent at the University of Pennsylvania, is making extensive collections of local
plants, especially from Northampton County, Pennsylvania, these being con-
tributed to the Local Herbarium of the Academy of Natural Sciences. He has
given valuable information about collectors in that county.

It is difficult to close this list of collectors. Other names occur, with claims
for inclusion. Thus, for a few years William C. Steere, and then Frederick J.
Hermann, were on the staff of Temple University, and collected in our area;
both were later associated with the University of Michigan, where the former
has become an important bryologist, but the latter is now with the herbarium
of the United States National Arboretum in Washington, D.C. Another former
Philadelphian and member of our Club is Guy G. Nearing, who a few years ago
moved to Ridgewood, Bergen County, New Jersey. (In Torreya, commencing
with the issue for April, 1939, he has been bringing out a “Guide to the

47 This is bringing to the herbarium of the University of — large collections
from all parts of the state. Within our Local Area collectors often contribute to both it and
the Academy’s Local Herbarium, which is that of the Phila saihis g Saas Club. Thus,
Mrs. Louise F. A. Tanger, who is actively collecting in Lancaster County, given to both,
though her most extensive collections are at the = eer Similarly, Dr. David Berkheimer
and W. G. Brumbach, collecting in Berks Coun represented at both herbaria, though
mainly at the Academ ey. put Ethel Brubaker i Se ster, F. Raymond Fons for Chester,
ane Mildred T. Tra r Delaware counties, have contributed only t rie University’s

rbarium.

BOTANICAL COLLECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA LOCAL AREA 31

Lichens of the New York Area”, a phrase presumably used as in Taylor’s
“Flora” to cover a radius of 100 miles from that city.) Louis E. Hand, in
1939 and 1940 Secretary of the Philadelphia Botanical Club, is a keen collector
who spends much time afield. But this enumeration must end, though not with-
out the realization that, to-day as in the past, there is ample promise for the
future in the growing interest of so many younger men and women.

In scanning the record of such prolonged activity in the collecting and
study of the flora of our Local Territory, one wonders whether we are near the
conclusion of this effort to identify and classify its component plants and to
portray their distribution, or whether we are still relatively near the beginning.
For flowering plants and ferns surely the record in the Club’s Herbarium, com-
plemented by that at the University of Pennsylvania, is approaching a theo-
retical completion, although when that is reached there will remain the task
of explaining each plant’s occurrence in relation to its physical background of
soil and climate, and against its further background of the geologic past. For
mosses, fungi, lichens, and algae we still need collections as full as those now
at hand for the higher plants. And beyond our inventory of life, our efforts
to understand relationships and to map distributions, there remain many other
things we need to learn about our plants—what are their life-histories, seasons,
methods of survival over winter, of pollination, of dispersal by seeds or spores,
etc. There remains for generations to come fascinating work for the member-
ship of the Philadelphia Botanical Club.

At such a center as the Academy the appetite for specimens seems insatiable,
but let us remember that the accumulating of specimens must ultimately find
its justification in the information to be gleaned from these mummified records
of a vegetative past—more than specimens we need an increasing succession
of men and women who will gather this information and use it toward the better
taxonomic work of the future. They will of course add specimens of their own,
but, however that be, I think that the botanists of fifty years hence, gathered
then to celebrate a century of our Club’s history, will look back with gratitude
to those who brought together such a magnificent representation of the flora of
a tiny section of the Earth’s surface as is contained in the Academy’s Local
Herbarium, sponsored by this Club. Through the vicissitudes of time it may
well be that the printed record about them will outlast the specimens themselves,
but these need to be preserved as long as possible—old Rafinesque was right
when he spoke of herbarium specimens as “ autikons ”, ‘ self-pictures’, for they
themselves have unimpeachable accuracy as against our efforts to tell of them
in words.

The Cladoniae of Pennsylvania
W. L. Dix

The reader, if there should be one, should know from the beginning that
this is not a treatise on Cladonia, and that the writer has not attempted, except
as noted, to revise the determinations of the specimens he has examined. The
purpose of this catalog is to make a check-list of the Cladoniae of Pennsylvania
and to indicate the distribution of the different species within the state.

The Cladoniae of the United States, as a whole, have had no separate treat-
ment by any student of lichens. Whatever has been written has been a part
of the general subject of lichenology.

The earliest serious student of lichens in America was Edward Tuckerman.
During the last half of the last century he published at least two books on this
subject. In 1897 A. Schneider published a “ Text-book of General Lichen-
ology”. The most recent book is that of Bruce Fink who published in 1935
“The Lichen Flora of the United States”. ‘“Lichens”, by Annie Lorain Smith,
in the Cambridge University Series, and “Mosses and Lichens”, by Nina Mar-
shall, in the Doubleday Nature Series, are two readable books on the subject.

At this time there is in process of publication a modern book on lichens by
G. G. Nearing. It is an untechnical treatment of the whole field “ for students,
beginners, and non-specializing botanists ”’.

However, there are available for those who can read a foreign language two
works on Cladonia alone,— Vainio’s “ Monograph on the Cladoniae of the
World”, and Sandstede’s on “ The Genus Cladonia ”’, dealing with the species
found in Europe.

Fortunately, within the last decade there have been published four separate
articles dealing with American Cladoniae of the eastern United States within
limited areas. The first and most comprehensive of these is “ The Cladoniae
of Connecticut” by Dr. Alexander W. Evans of Yale University, published in
1930. To this he has added three supplements printed in Rhodora. In addi-
tion to these he published in Torreya in 1935 “ The Cladoniae of New Jersey ”,
with supplements in 1938 and 1940. These include a short treatise on the
morphology of the genus, descriptive and critical notes, the date and place of
collection, and the name of the collector.

Two other articles are “The Cladoniae of the District of Columbia and
Vicinity ”, by Robbins and Blake, published in Rhodora in 1931, and “ Cla-
doniae in the range of the Torrey Botanical Club” by Raymond Torrey in
Torreya in 1933. Both of these contain photographic illustrations of most of
the species described. Also, “ The lichen Genus Cladonia in Wisconsin ” by John
W. Thomson, Jr., was published in the American Midland Naturalist in May,
1942.

32

BarTonIA No. 22

SOME nee meas CLADONIAS

Fie. : oo major, No. 4 Fic. la. C. major, single large pode-
tia. Fic. 2. C. degenerans f. Pee, No. 37. Fie: 3a..C. turgida f.
bene oe 25a. Fie. sp, C: a ca wih erahab with pisegpengcot
and secondary cups, No. 28b. Fia. 3c. C. turgida f. squamulosa, No

1G. 4. C. pleurota f. centralis, No. Oe mahg 5. C. alpestris, No. 5. a
facies CY.

a

~_

THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 33

The Bryologist, the official organ of the Sullivant Moss Society, has fre-
quently published interesting articles on American Cladoniae, sometimes with
good illustrations.

At least three lists of Pennsylvania Cladoniae have been published. The
earliest of these is that of Muhlenberg, published as part of his “ Catalogus
Plantarum” in 1813. It mentions 18 species without locality, merely noting
that practically all of the cryptogamous plants were collected in Pennsylvania.

The next list is that of Michener, published in William Darlington’s “ Flora
Cestrica”” in 1853. It lists 12 species and 10 varieties, but mentions no locali-
ties within the county. Six of the twelve specimens of this collection, now at
the State Teachers College at West Chester, cite New Garden as the locality.
Michener’s home was in that township.

The third list, included in a report on the lichens of western Pennsylvania,
is by Giovanni I. Giardini, published in the Bryologist of September, 1922.
This account lists 22 species, practically all of which are represented by speci-
mens in the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, Pa. Most of the identifications
were made by G. K. Merrill.

The Herbarium of the Carnegie Museum contains some 120 specimens of
Pennsylvania Cladoniae, largely the collection of Dr. O. E. Jennings. Eighteen
species are represented.

In recent years, in addition to the collections of the author, extensive col
lections have been made by Dr. John W. Thomson, Jr. in the central counties,
by Raymond Torrey and G. G. Nearing in the eastern counties, and by Dr.
Evans in Pike and Monroe counties.

Many recent changes in interpretation have resulted in the division of some
species and the raising of varieties to the rank of species. This will explain in
part some differences of nomenclature between the species of the old collections
and those of recent date. Also some of the recently segregated species have
been separated largely on the basis of chemical differences. While any one has
a right to his opinion about the validity of species so separated, the great ser-
vice of chemistry in determining some of the closely related species must be
recognized.

Throughout the catalog specimens collected by the writer will be listed by
the date of collection only. Other collections will bear the name of the collector.
The listing of specimens under the species alone does not indicate that they are
typical of it, but rather that they possess no special distinctness of form.

All the specimens collected by the author, by Dr. Thomson, Mr. Nearing,
and Mr. Torrey have been examined by Dr. Evans, and are in the herbarium
of the Osborn Botanical Laboratory of Yale University. The location of other
specimens is indicated in the text as follows: AS., Academy of Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia; C., Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, Pa.; D., Darlington’s Col-
lection at State Teachers’ College, West Chester, Pa.; NY., New York Botanical

34 BARTONIA

Garden, New York City; SI., United States National Museum, Smithsonian In-
stitution, Washington, D. C.; and SMS., Sullivant Moss Society, Missouri Botani-
cal Garden, St. Louis, Mo. To the curators of these herbaria I am indebted.

On the title page of this catalog should appear the name of Dr. Alexander
W. Evans. In addition to examining and making written reports on most of
the one thousand specimens listed here, he has given detailed explanations on
new or difficult species, directed the writer to sources of information, and ex-
humed many an old outmoded synonymy. To all this and many other services
must be added his constant advice and encouragement. Whatever is of value
in this catalog should be credited to him.

The writer is also grateful for the assistance of Dr. O. E. Jennings, Curator
of Botany at the Carnegie Museum, Dr. John M. Fogg, Jr., Dean of Arts and
Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Robert B. Gordon, of West
Chester State Teachers College, Mr. G. G. Nearing of Ridgewood, N. J., and
Dr. John W. Thomson, Jr., of State Teachers College, Superior, Wisconsin.

EARLY COLLECTIONS OF CLADONIAE IN PENNSYLVANIA
(not listed in the Catalog)

The following series is from Muhlenberg’s “Catalogus Plantarum Americae
Septentrionalis ”, published in Lancaster in 1813, and follows his order. In
parentheses are the names of the probable species represented, according to
more recent nomenclature.

Cenomyce alcicornis Cenomyce ce no vy
sees iy Mf. C. turgida) cicularis Ce. C. fimbriata)
“ euidats “ pigs ta
ze cele fe
2 deformis a gonorega (cf. C. degenerans)
“ * “ec symphicarpa

bacillaris
- allotropa (cf. C. furcata) *
adunca eapitata (cf. C. mitrula)
furcata

HABITAT NOTES

Notes on the habitat of the different species and forms have been omitted
from the text because they usually are a tiresome repetition. Lichens grow
where they are found. However soil preferences and geological limitations do
affect the distribution of all lichens.

Practically all species of Cladonia will grow on bare, or barren, ground.
On rocks will be found C. cristatella, C. pyzridata, C. chlorophaea, C. Gray,
C. conista and C. coniocraea. Among mosses and other vegetation will be found
particularly the Cladinae, C. furcata, C. scabriuscula, C. multiformis, C. squa-
mosa, C. turgida, C. gracilis, C. verticillata, C. chlorophaea, C. Grayi, and C.
nemoxyna. Those likely to be found on tree bases include C. didyma, C. crista-
tella, C. mitrula, C. chlorophaea, C. Gray, C. fimbriata, C. coniocraea, and

THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 35

C. pityrea. On dead or decaying wood all species grow except the Cladinae,
seldom, C. papillaria, C. caroliniana, C. uncialis, C. furcata, C. scabriuscula,
apodocarpa, C. turgida, C. clavulifera, C. subcariosa, C. gracilis, C. verticillata,
C. major, C. fimbriata, C. nemoxyna, and C. strepsilis.

KEY to the SPECIES of Pennsylvania CLADONIAE.

ey is not a series of fool-proof compartments into which one can toss species with
the same Pct of definiteness as that with which a printer sorts pi. A Key for the Cladoniae
is especially difficult, for often species differ within themselves more than they differ from

and C. subcariosa f. pleurocarpa as of the same species, — the separation of C. verticillata
and C. calycantha i be ome on very small Pr an For these reasons this Key is somewhat
like a country si t which points along the right path, got presupposes a more or less
intimate knowledge Pot ts habits of country roads.

Glossary for Key.

Primary thallus — Fundamental basal plant structure.

Squamules — Leaf-like structures

Podetia — Stem-like growths.

Cortex — Rind covering the podetia.

Apothecia — Fruiting bodies

Soredia — Fin = powdery makieoe oF grains.

K — Abbreviation for KOH.

P — Abbreviation for paraphenylenediamine.

The minus sign, or an indicated color, after P or K indicates either the lack of reaction,
or the a me Rg Hecate on of these chemicals.

A. Podetia with cups.
. Sorediose

C. Apstheds red.
p-.

E. Soredia granular; cups usually regular 12. C.
EE. Soredia farinose; cups usually irregular. 13. C. Anes
. P red; cups ill-shaped, edges turned inward. 14. C. digitata

CC. Apotheuis brownish.
. Cups definite and well-developed.
E. Soredia granular.
F. P red 40. C. chlorophaea
41. C. grayi

PF P
EE. Soredia farinose.
F. Podetia 25 mm. high or over 44. C. major
FF. Podetia less than 25 mm. high.
G. Cups usually 2-5 mm. wide at top of slender eines a
mbria.

GG. Cups usually 5-10 mm. wide at top of stout ‘ot
42. C. conista
DD. —— ie obsolete, or wanting.
redia granular.

- Cups funnel-shaped, tops turned inward. ......... 24. C. cenotea
FF. = orate often flaring.
G. Squamules usually replacing soredia, except -
£. epiphylla, which is corticate 9. C. pityrea
GG. Podetia esquamulose. 45, C. nemozryna

36 BARTONIA

EE. Soredia farin
F. Podetia ie bearing coarse granules; primary squamules small.
48. C’. borbonica
FF. Podetia not bearing coarse granules; primary Ps gene large.
G. Cups corticate within 46. C. ochrochlora
GG. Cups ecorticate within 47
BB. Esorediose.
Bins | as ee er 11. C. coccifera
CC. Apothecia brownish.
D. Cups open, small, funnel-like at tips of podetia.......... 3. C. squamosa

DD. Cups normally closed, broad, but with sieve-like ence Es or slits
aC,

multiformis
DDD. Cups closed, but not perforated.
Cups shallow, usually in tiers, and proliferate.
F. Cups usually regular.
G. Proliferations primarily from center of cup.
H. Cups gradually expanded from podetia.
. C. verticillata
HH. Cups abruptly expanded from podetia.
36. C. calycantha
GG. Proliferations primarily from margins of cups. :
34. C. gracilis
FF. Cups usually irregular; proliferations generally from margins of
cups, primarily.
G. — fragmentary, often exposing a — pattern on
medulla 37. C. de

= x continuous 38. C. mateocyatha
EE. Cups deep fenbist farina: ; very rarely dellietoss. .39. C. pyxidata
AA. Podetia without cups.
B. Sorediose.

C. Apothecia red. j
D. Plants P-red and K-yellow 9. C. macilenta
DD. Plants P- and K-.
Podetia more or less corticate entire length.
F. Podetia usually obconic; soredia on squamules.
16. C. incrassata
FF. Podetia usually cylindric, occasionally subulate.
7. C. floerkeana

EE. Podetia largely ecorticate.
F. Podetia covered with small squamules or granular oe
0. C. didyma
FF. Podetial soredia farinose : = bacillaris
CC. Apothecia brownish.
D. K-orange; podetia simple or sparingly branched; on earth.

33. C. acuminata
DD. K-yellow; podetia seldom branched; on stumps or sss logs.

25. C. delicata
DDD. K-; seldom branched, except in C. scabriuscula.
E. Podetia 3-6 cm. long, usually branched; often a over half
their length 20. C’. scabriuse
EE. Podetia less than 3 em. long, seldom branched, corticate less than half
their length from base.
F. Soredia granular.

Podetia more or less —— (except :
"in f. epiphylla, also esorediose 49. C. pityrea

THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 37

GG. Podetia a squamules. 45. C. nemozyna
FF. Soredia farin
G. Pesdetiad os area more or less corticate.
46. C. ochrochlora
GG. Podetia corticate only basally 47. C. coniocraea
BB. Esorediose.
C. Podetia growing from a persistent crustaceous base. ........... 6. C. papillaria
CC. Podetia without persistent crustaceous base
D. Apothecia red. ... 15. C. cristatella

DD. Apothecia brownish.
E. Podetia growing in mat-like colonies, not persistent basally, intri-
cately interwoven, sometimes long, slender, and many-branched.
F. *Podetia lacking a real cortex; small terminal branches often
parallel.

G. Podetia dead gray, with no stramineous -
1. C. rangiferina

GG. Podetia greenish gray, with stramineous tinge.
H. ae branchlets usually “swept” in one direc-

—— oficn whorled ; axils - n.

2. C. silvatica

II. P-. 3. C. mitis
H. a branchlets pointing in several directions;
bran: not so often whorled; axils closed.

4: C. sien:
GGG. Podetia whitish or grayish, with little eae cob

&. C. ont
FF. Podetia corticate; terminal branches divergent.
G. Podetia with more or less stramineous color; tips of sterile
os ets mpcmted: p-.
Axillary pease a gto usually lacking on sterile 2 ore
” tia; inner podetial surf: spa tha .18. C. caro
HH. Axillary oo usually present; niger eee
surface smooth. 7. C. uncialis
GG. Podetia with no prucea color, grayish, esa or
brownish.

H. P red.
I. Squamules 1-2 cm. long. ae, plants
persistent basally.) urgida
II. Squamules less than 1 cm. long.. ie ze ue
H. P- or P yellow. 23. C. squamosa
EE. Podetia not in mat-like colonies; persistent basally, not interwoven;
shru or in C. strepsilis rather irregular and shapeless.
F. Podetia with tubular-shaped openings in tips» ad, crotches;
K yellow and P red. 22. C. floridana
FF. sees = tubular openings in tips and crotches.

g 5 pina none; apothecia sessile on rs esate or
27. C. apodocarpa

wan
HH. ap ‘akhoak
odetia about 2-3 mm. long. ..26. C. caespiticia

IL. Podetia normally more than 5 mm. long.
J. Apothecia pale brown, usually twice the
width of podetia. ..........-. 29. C. mitrula
JJ. Apothecia dark brown, scarcely wider than

apothecia.

38 BARTONIA

Ko Pet. so ee 31. C. subcariosa
EE. 5 yew. 6 aes 32. C’. cariosa
eS eS ee eee 30. C. clavulifera

GG. P-; primary squamules stramineous beneath.
H. Apothecia dark brown or purplish; eae (K) blu-
green. sat

HH. Apathaele light brown or ates oer (K
oe: pledmontensis

Subgenus 1. Cladina (Nyl.) Vainio
1. Cladonia rangiferina (L.) Web.
Lichen rangiferinus of Linnaeus, the earliest name of the species, originally
comprised at least six species as now separated by most taxonomists,—Cladonia
rangiferina, C. silvatica, C. mitis, C. tenuis, C. impexa, and C. alpestris.

PENNSYLVANIA: No locality cited. (Tuckerman, Exs. No. 127.) Also listed in his
N. A. Lichens, p. 248. BEDFORD: Bedford ero Genaings, 1919, C.). BRADFORD:
Armenia Mt. and Cedar Ledge (Nearing, 1939). CHES No locality cited (Jacob Por-
ter, without ie D.). ERIE: Presque Isle (Jennings, pon: 38 and Cedar Point, 1905, C.).
FULTO urnt Cabins Rg Innk, 1925, C.). HUNTI NGDON: Nature Camp and
Penn. State Rooatch Forest (Thomson, 1937). LANCASTER: Welsh Mt. (J. K. Small,
Lage SI.), Conewago (A. A. Heller, 1892, SI.). LEHIGH: Blue Mt. Si i _MON-

: WwW a6

: ca Depo
(1939) and Galilee (Nearing, 1939). WYOMING: N race (1941).

la. Cladonia rangiferina f. incrassata Schaer.

This is more robust than the normal forms of this species, and has wrinkled
podetial surfaces.

BRADFORD: Cedar Ledge (Nearing, 1939).

1b. Cladonia rangiferina f. leucitica Flet.
This is a shade form, and is marked by fewer branches and a lighter color.
MONROE: Poconos (Evans, 1941).

2. Cladonia silvatica (L.) Hoffm.

PENNSYLVANIA: No a —. (Tuckerman, Exs. No. 128). BERKS: Birdsboro
ae ge Haycock Mt. (Geo. B. Kaiser, 1910, P., and SMS. det. Mary Miller).

940). ROE: nos (Evans, 1941). MONTGOMERY: Haverford
Boel, ‘oe AS.). PIKE: Bushkill Falls ( 1941), near Newfoundland (Evans, 1941).
: Bernice (Nearing, 1939). WAYNE: Shehawken (1939).
2a. Cladonia silvatica f. laxiuscula Del.
This form is marked by its loosely intertwined podetia. Some of the speci-
mens formerly classified as above would be now listed as C. wmpeza.

ALLEGHENY: near —- af -* ene? 1888, C., det. Merrill). FAYETTE: Ohio-
pyle (O. E. Jennings, 1908, C.,

THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 39

3. Cladonia mitis Sandst.

This species is so similar to C. silvatica that it is most easily determined
by its negative reaction to P. Certainly more common than this single collec-
tion would indicate.

WAYNE: Shehawken (1940).

4. Cladonia tenuis (Floerke) Harm.

E : Birdsboro (1939). BRADFORD: Cedar Ledge (Nearing, 1939). BUCKS:
Newtown and Morrisville (1939). CHESTER: Nottingham (Nearing, 1940). ator
Buck Glen (1941). DAUPHIN: Deodate (1941), HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (7
son, 1937). LACKAWANNA: Moscow (Nearing, 1939). LANCASTER: Wakefield Neus
ing, 1940). LYCOMING: Hepburnville (1941). MONROE: Marshall’s Creek (Torrey,
1937) and Poconos (Evans, 1941). PERRY: Sterrett’s Gap (1941). PIKE: Bushkill Falls

VAN:

1939). SUSQUEHANNA: Starrucca Depot (194 1). UNION: Foresthill (1941)
Shehawken (1939), and Galilee (Nearing, 1989). WYOMING: Nicholson (1941).
4a. Cladonia tenuis f. setigera Sandst.

This form is marked by hair-like appendages growing from the tips of
branchlets or sides of the podetia.

PIKE: Bushkill Falls (Thomson, 1940).
5. Cladonia alpestris (L.) Rabenh.

o locality cited | Penne 4 M a D.). This specimen is labelled

sae O manoGarts (Ach.) Var Flora C. rangi

re ogg Th wi fone to the pot specimen. WAYNE: Shehawken
(1989). This recent collection! is according to Dr. Evans, “ the first I’ve seen from an ge -
mediate locality ” between New York State and “a single station Tad

st
found in an unused pasture on the aa side of a hill at an elevation of about 2100 feet.
Only a single “biscuit” was found, and no amount of search in the vicinity or in that part
e Wayne sored has revealed more. Southern forms of beng species, or what was considered

Subgenus 2. wee

6. Cladonia papillaria (Ehrh.) Hoffm.

CHESTER: Nottingham (Rodney True, 1935, P.). MONTGOMERY: Haverford (J.
W. Eckfelt, 1882, AS.). PIKE: Bushkill Falls (1941).
6a. Cladonia papillaria f. molariformis (Hoffm.) Schaer.

In this form the podetia are simple, or sparingly branched.

BERKS: Birdsboro (1940). Ee het RD: Nearing 4040). (Nearing, orig spi rib
Newt 1939). CHESTER: ttingha : Na
preg vom 1939). LANCAST ER: Ovaeefald (N earing, 1940). LEBANON: Mt.
Gretna (1941). LUZERNE: Penobscot Head (Torrey, no date). MONROE: Poconos
(Evans, 1941). PIKE: Bushkill Falls (1941). WAYNE: Shehawken (1939).
6b. Cladonia papillaria f. papillosa Fr.

The a of f. papillosa are very rudimentary, and papilliform.

CHESTER: Nottingham (Nearing, 140). HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson,
1937). cine Penobscot Head (Torrey, no date). MONROE: Poconos eBoane, 1941).

1See Torreya 40: 45. 1940.

40 BARTONIA

6c. Cladonia papillaria f. stipata Floerke
The upper part of the podetia in this form is densely branched.
HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, = LANCASTER: Wakefield (Nearing,
1940). MONROE: Water Gap and Poconos (Evans 941).
Subgenus 3. Cenomyce
Section 1. Cocciferae
Subsection 1. Subglaucescentes
7. Cladonia Floerkeana (Fr.) Hloarke
TER: Listed in Flo = Bg ca. [However, the specimen labelled “ a
kii Fr. Ex. Herb. E. Mi ” in 'D. is, according to Dr. Evans, C. cristatella {. Beau-
oink} LYCOMING: Ellenton (N earing, 1939).
7a. Cladonia Floerkeana f. intermedia Hepp
The podetia have no squamules, except occasionally toward the base.
PIKE: Bushkill Falls (Nearing, 1941), and near Newfoundland (Evans, 1941). WAYNE:
Scott Center (1941).
7b. Cladonia Floerkeana var. carcata (Ach.) Vainio
This variety has the podetia covered throughout with scattered squamules.
WAYNE: Shehawken (1940).

8. Cladonia bacillaris (Ach.) Nyl.

BERKS: Birdsboro (1940). BRADFORD: Cedar Ledge and Armenia Mt. (Nearing,
1939). CENTER: Bear Meadows (Thomson, 1937). CHESTER: Nottingham (Nearing,
1940). HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, 1937). LANCASTER: Wrightsdale
(Nearing, 1940). LEHIGH: Blue Mt. (Torrey, ees) LYCOMING: Ellenton WW earing,
1939). MONROE: Water Gap and Poconos (Evans, 1941). NORTHUMBERLAND: Tur-
botville (1941). PIKE: Bushkill Falls (1940), and near Newfoundland (Evans, 196), Pa.
Route #402 (1941). ters AN: Bern shee (Nearing, 1939). SUSQUEHA pi Mese Starrucca
Depot (1941). TIOGA: berty (T 1937), Harrison State Park (Nearing, 1939).
WAYNE: Shehawken (iDH0). Galilee (Ne aie: 1939). YORK: Bryansville (Nec ade 1940).
8a. Cladonia bacillaris f. peritheta (Wallr.) Arn.

The accessory apothecia in f. peritheta are either sessile, or on short inna
branches.

HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, 1937)

8b. Cladonia bacillaris f. clavata (Ach.) Vainio

This form has blunt podetia.

HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp en 1937). FAYETTE: Ohiopyle (Jennings,
Giardini’s Report in Bryologist, Sept. 1922
9. Cladonia macilenta Hoffm.

Cladonia macilenta can always be separated from the other species of this
group by its positive reaction to K(yellow) and P(red).

. BERKS: Monterey a4 rs. E.C. White, 1921, SI., det. Evans). CENTER: Bear Meadows
(Thomson, 1937). CHESTER: Listed in Flora Cestriea. LAWRENCE: Slippery Rock
(Susan rT 1906, C.).

THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 41

9a. Cladonia macilenta f. styracella (Ach.) Vainio
The podetia in this form are covered with farinose soredia.

BRADFORD: Cedar Ledge and Armenia Mt. (Nearing, er CENTER: Bear
aren (Thomson, 1937). HUN as Nature Camp (Thomson, 1937). LAN-

rnice (Nearing, 1939). SUSQUEHANNA: Starrucca Depot (1940). WAYNE:
wken ‘a 940), and Galilee (Nearing, 1939). UNION: Foresthill (1941). YORK:
Trvansville (Nearing, 1940).
9b. Cladonia macilenta f. granulosa Aigret
This differs from the previous form in having coarser soredia.
PIKE: Bushkill Falls (1940).

9c. Cladonia macilenta f. squamigera Vainio
C. macilenta f. syuamigera is marked by its squamulose podetia.
WAYNE: Shehawken (1941).

9d. Cladonia macilenta f. tomentosula (Floerke) Aigret
Differs from f. styracella in being more robust and more densely sorediose.
WAYNE: Scott Center (1941).

10. Cladonia didyma (Fée) Vainio

FAYETTE: Ohiopyle (Jennings, 1905, 1907, C.; also as «¢C ladonia pulchella”, det. G. K.
Merrill, nen — “species belongs, as a Se to C. didyma ”.) From Giardini’s Report.

10a. Cladonia didyma f. subulata Sandst.
This form has pointed, translucent, and ecorticate podetia.

CHESTER: Nottingham - earing, 1940). HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson,
1937). PIKE: Bushkill Falls (1941).

Subsection 2. Stramineo-flavidae
11. Cladonia coccifera (L.) Wild.

[CHESTER: The specimen in D. labelled “Cenomyce coccifera (Ach.)” proves to be
Cladoma cristatella f. Beauvoisit.] ARMSTRONG: Kittaning (D. R. Sumstine, 1902). This
specimen is listed in Giardini’s Fags oie in the Bryologist, Sept., = 1922, with this comment, “this
is a rather doubtful specimen”. Probably détenmnna by G. K. Merrill.

12. Cladonia pleurota (Floerke) Schaer.
KS: Birdsboro (1940). BRADFORD: Cedar Ledge an and Armenia Mt. (Ne aring,

a otti
Water Gap and Poconos (Evans, 1941). NORTHUMBERLAND: Turbotville (1941). PHILA-
ELPHIA: near Betictin (1941). PIKE: Lake Wallenpaupack (Torrey, 1937), near New-
foundland (Evans, 1941). SULLIV IVAN: Forksville (Nearing, 1939). SUSQUEHANNA: Star-
rucca Depot ( 1941). igs : Harrison State Park (Nearing, 1939). UNION: Foresthill (1941).
WAYNE: Shehawk en (1940), and White Mills (Torrey, 1937). YORK: Bryansville and
Delta (Nearing, 1940).

42 BARTONIA

12a. Cladonia pleurota f. centralis (Schaer.) Oliv.

This form has central proliferations. I believe this is the only record of
f. centralis in America. Dr. Evans writes, “Sandstede mentions an f. centralis
Schaer. under var. frondescens, and Anders also mentions an f. centralis Schaer.
under C. pleurota itself . . . but so far as I can learn Schaerer did not propose
the combination attributed to him.”

WAYNE: Shehawken (1940).

13. Cladonia deformis (L.) Hoffm.

WAYNE: Lakewood (1941), and Scott Center (1941).
13a. Cladonia deformis f. crenulata (Ach.) Sandst.

Margins of the taller cups are somewhat crenulate, and the soredia are fari-
nose.

HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, 1937).

14. Cladonia digitata (L.) Hoffm.

MONROE: Pocono Mts. (Torrey, no date). PIKE: Bushkill Falls (Nearing, 1940, and
Thomson, 1940). WAYNE: Shehawken (1939).
14a. Cladonia digitata f. monstrosa (Ach.) Vainio

A form with larger, more regular cups.

WAYNE: Scott Center (1941).

15. Cladonia ne see Tucks
Il (Jennings, 1908, C., det. Merrill), near ‘Carnot (J. A. Shafer,

ALLEGHENY:
1888, C., det. Merrill), i . Wildwood and Gibsonia (Jennings, 1905, C.), Wildwood Road
(Jennings, 1908, C., det. Merrill), Schenley Park (Jennings and Kinzer, 1905, C., det., Merrill).

‘The following key will separate the many forms of C. cristatella:

Plants with scarlet apothecia.
Apothecia on distinct podetia.
Podetia without squamules.
Podetia cupless. f. Beawvoisu
Upper branches forming a cup-like depression. f. scyphulifera
Podetia with squamules.
Apothecia at ends of podetia, or main branches.

Squamules of medium size. f. vestita
Squamules small, densely crowded. f. squamosissima
Apothecia sessile, or short-stalked from sides of podetia. f. pleurocarpa
Apothecia sessile on squamules, or on short stal f. abbreviata
Plants with orange, yellowish, or flesh-colored apothecnk:
Podetia without squam
Apothecia flesh-colored to yellowish. f. ochrocarbia
Apothecia 3 f. aurantiaca
Podetia Ran a f. squamulosa
15a. Cladonia cristatella f. Beauvoisii (Del.) Vainio

ERKS: Birdsboro (1940). BRADFORD: Cedar Ledge and Armenia Mt. (Nearing,
100). BUCKS: Sanat (1939). CHESTER: No locality ies (Specimen labelled,

THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 43

“Coccifera Ach. Ex. Herbarium Wm. org oe and specimen labelled, “ Cladonia Floer-

if: erbarium E. Michener”, D.), and Nottingham (Nearing, 1940). DAUPHIN:
Deodate (ou). DELAWARE: No locality cited (J. W. Eckfeldt, 1878). HUNTINGDON:
. Ww ;

ng, 1940). L ON: in,
Hepburnville ends gMFELIN: Maitland (194). asses Blakeslee (Torrey,
1936), Scotrun (Nearing, 1939), and Poconos and Water Gap (Evans, 1941). MONTOUR:
sia ke se ae NORTHUMBERLAND: Turbotville C19. PERRY: Sterrett’s

15b. Cladonia cristatella f. vestita Tuck.

ALLEGHENY: Wildwood Station Mi basate Milward, 1919, C.), Fern Hollow, Pittsburg
(Giardini, 1921, C.). ARMSTRONG g (Amy Neale, 1926, C.). RD:
Armenia Mt. had ae 1939). * BUCKS: Morrisville (1939). BUTLER:
Nixon Station (Milward, 1917). CHESTER: Nottingham (Nearing, 1940). HIN:
De N: Natu a ho ‘ ). LACKAWANN
w (Nearing, 1939). LEBANON: Mt. Gretna (1941). LUZERNE: Ellenton (Near-
, 1939), and g ener (1941). MIFFLIN: a (1941). O

ing

(Nearing, 1939), and Poconos and Water Gap (Evans, 1941). MONTOUR: Washington-

ville (1941). NORTHUMBERLAND: Turbotville (1941). PERRY: Sterrett’s bmg (i941).

PIKE: B ill Falls (Thomson, 1940, and Evans, 1941). SULLIVAN: Eagles Mere (Tor-
UE ae 40).

n N an +
WAYNE: Lake ‘Shehawicen (1939), and Galilee (Nearing, 1939). WESTMORELAND:
Laurel Mt. New Florence (Jennings, 1907, in Giardini’s Report in Bryologist, Sept., 1922).
YORK: Near Youk (1941), and Bryansville and Delta (Nearing, 1940).
15c. Cladonia cristatella f. squamosissima Robbins.

MONROE: Poconos (Evans, 1941). WAYNE: Shehawken (1940).

eo Cladonia cristatella f. pleurocarpa Robbins

UCKS: Morrisville (1940). LYCOMING: Ellenton (Nearing 1939). MONROE: Po-
ait eae 1941). PIKE: Bushkill Falls (Evans, 1941). WAYNE: Shehawken (1940).
ee Cladonia cristatella f. secyphulifera Sandst.

RADFORD: Cedar Ledge and Armenia Mt. (Nearing, 1939). BUCKS: Morrisville
asep) LACKAWANNA: Moscow (Nearing, 1939). LUZERNE: Pike’s Creek (Nearing
1939). LYCOMING: Ellenton (Nearing, 41939). MONROE: Poconos be 1941). SUL.
LIVAN: Bernice (Nearing, 1939). SUSQUEHANNA: Starrucca Depot (1941). WAYNE:
Shehawken (1941). YORK: Delta and Bryansville (Nearing, 1940).

15f. Cladonia cristatella f. abbreviata Merrill
HUNTERDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, 1937). LYCOMING: Ellenton (Nearing,
1939). TIOGA: Harrison State Park (Nearing, 1939).

15g. Cladonia cristatella f. ochrocarpia Tuck.
RD: Armenia Mt. (Nearing, 1939). PIKE: Bushkill Falls (Thomson, 1940).
WAYNE: Shehawken (1941).

15h. Cladonia cristatella f. aurantiaca Robbins
WAYNE: Shehawken (1941).

15i. Cladonia cristatella f. squaamulosa Robbins

44 BARTONIA

BUCKS: Morrisville (1941). HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, 1937). MIF-
FLIN: Maitland (1941). WAYNE: Shehawken (1939).
16. Cladonia incrassata Floerke
BRADFORD: Armenia Mt. (Nearing, x CENTER: Bear Meadows (Thomson,
wise LACKAWANNA: Moscow (Nearing, 1939). PIKE: Bushkill Falls (1940 and Thom-
1940). SUSQUEHANNA: Starrucca Depot (1940). WAYNE: Shehawken (1940).
16a. Cladonia incrassata f. aurantiaca f. nov.
Apotheciis aurantiacis. This form has orange-colored apothecia, and is
esquamulose. It is analogous to C. cristatella f. awrantiaca Robbins.
WAYNE: Scott Township (1941).
16b. Cladonia incrassata f. epiphylla (Fr.) Vainio
Apothecia in this form are sessile on the primary squamules.
WAYNE: Scott Township (1941).
16c. Cladonia incrassata f. squamulosa (Robbins) Evans
The podetia in this form are more or less densely squamulose.
WAYNE: Scott Township (1941).

Subsection 2. Ochrophaeae
Subsection 1. Unciales
17. Cladonia uncialis (Del.) Vainio
PENNSYLVANIA: No locality cited (Tuckerman in Syn. Am. Lich., 1848. “S§”, prob-
ably Schweinitz, as the record seems to be in his handwriting. AS.). BRADFORD: ’ Gedar
Ledge (N earing, ae HUNTINGDON: Natiark Camp FAG oieA. 1937). LANCASTER:
McCall’s Ferry (A. A. Heller, 1892). MONROE: Water Gap and Poconos (Evans, 1941).
MONTGOMERY : Gladwyne. (Geo. B. Kaiser, 1910, SMS.). PIKE: Bushkill Falls (1940).
WAYNE: Shehawken (1939).
17a. Cladonia uncialis f. setigera Anders.
A form bearing fibrils on the ultimate branchlets.
LEHIGH: Blue Mt. (Torrey, 1933).

17b. Cladonia uncialis f. spinosa Oliv.
A form with prostrate podetia bearing short spiny outgrowths.
WAYNE: Galilee (Nearing, 1939).

17c. Cladonia uncialis f. turgescens (Del.) Fr.

F. turgescens is characterized by having large podetia and by being sparsely
branched

PIKE: Bushkill Falls (Thomson, 1940).

18a. Cladonia caroliniana f. dilatata Evans
- f. dilatata the podetia are more or less dilated upward, about 2-5 mm. wide.

ERKS: Hota (1939). SO oe boo! Wakefield (Nearing, 1940). MONROE:
Water Gap ro are oconos (Evans, 1941).

THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 45

18b. Cladonia caroliniana f. tenuiramea Evans

In this form the podetia are usually less than 1 mm. in diameter.

BERKS: Birdsboro (1939). LANCASTER: Wakefield (Nearing, 1940). MONROE:
Poconos and Water Gap (Evans, 1941).
18c. Cladonia caroliniana f. prolifera Evans.

The podetia in this form have adventive outgrowths.

MONROE: Poconos and Water Gap (Evans, 1941).

Subsection 2. Chasmariae
Group 1. Microphyllae
19. Cladonia furcata (Huds.) Schrad.

ARMSTRONG: No locality cited (In Bi nee Report in Bryologist, Sept., pf
LANCASTER: Conewago (John K. Small, 1892, NY.). MONROE: Pocono Mt. (Smal
1888, NY.).

-Key to the varieties and forms of C. furcata.

Podetia whitish to greenish gray.
Cortex smooth and subcontinuous. var. racemosa
Podetia esquamlose
Podetia fertile.

Podetia only slightly fissured. f. corymbosa
Podeti fissured. f. fissa
Podetia sterile. f. furcatosubulata
ja squamulose. f. squamulifera
Cortex broken by transverse splits. var. pinnata
Podetia irregularly branched and swollen. f. turgida
Podetia more or less brownish. var. palamaea

Podetia esquamulose. f. subulata
Podetia squamulose. f. rigidula

19a. Cladonia furcata var. racemosa (Hoffm.) Floerke
PENNSYLVANIA: No locality cited (Schweinitz, without date, AS.). ALLEGHENY:

i : s tsb inze
C. det. Merrill). BERKS: Birdsbor (1939). BUCKS: Haycock Mt. (Geo. B. Kaiser, 1910
P., and SMS. det. Mary Miller). BUTLER: Nixon Station (Milward, 1919, Cc. ). CENTER
iardini’s Report in Bryologist, Sept., 1922, and Tussey Mt. near ‘Shingletown Aer

fe)

1919, C.). CHESTER: cited (Listed by Michener in Flora rica) speci-
e D. so labelled. However, the two following specimens there prove to be of t
variety onia = eve Fl Floerk. New Garden, E. Miche-
ner”, an ar. a. crispata Floerk.?”). CLINTON: Renovo E
1908, C. ae Merrill). “CRA : Pymatuming Swamp, Linesville (Jennings, 1905, C.
det. Merrill). DAUPHI N: Deodate (1941). FAYETTE: Connellsville (Thos. G. Lea, 1841,
AS.) pital te ature Camp (Thomson, Le L CE ippery Rock
( Gageby, 1906, C., det. Merrill). LEBANON: t. Gretna (1941). LEHIG lue
Mt. (Torrey, ¥933). 0 : ot ae (Dad). MONROE: ill’s ;
(Torrey, 1937), and Poconos (Evans, 1941). PHILADELPHIA: Philadelphia (Miss Morris,
1935, ). PIKE: Near Newfoundland (Evans, 1941) : Springs (1941)

SULLIVA Eagles Mere (Torrey, 1937). TIOGA: Liberty (Torrey, 1937).
(Jennings and Kinzer, 1905, C.). te Mills (Torrey, 1937),

‘ON: Charleroi
Shehawken (1939). YORK: Bryansville (Nearing, 1940).

46 BARTONIA

— recto ose var. racemosa f. corymbosa (Ach.) Vainio

DFORD: Mt. (Nearing, 1939). SUSQUEHANNA: Starrucca Depot
asiiy RAYNE: Sonewkes (1939).
19ab. Cladonia furcata var. racemosa f. — Sandst.

BRADFORD: Burlington, Cedar Ledge, d Armenia (Nearing, 1939). BUCKS:
Dolington (1939). CENTER: No locality feeg (Margaret Pullone 1932, det. Sandstede).
LACKAWANNA: Moscow (N earnd: 1939). LANCASTER: Wrightsdale and Wakefield
(Nearing, 1939). LEHIGH: Blue Mt. (Torrey, 1933). LUZERNE: Pike’s Creek (Nearing,
1939). LYCOMING: Ellenton (Nearing, 1939). MONROE: Marshall’s Creek pate |
1937), Water Gay (1941), Poconos (Evans, 1941), and Scotrun (Nearing, 1939). PIKE:
Bushkill Falls (1940). SNYDER: Beaver Springs (1941). SULLIVAN: Taxiee tae. (Tor-
rey, 1937) and Forksville and Beatrice (Nearing, 1939). SUSQUEHANNA: Starrucca Depot
(1939). TIOGA: Harrison State Park (Nearing, 1939). UNION: Foresthill (1941). WAYNE:
Shehawken (1939), Galilee [Neorian. 1939), and White Mills (Torrey, 1937). WYOMING:
Nicholson (1941).
19ac. Cladonia furcata var. racemosa f. furcatosubulata (Hoffm.) Vainio

LANCASTER: Wakefield (Nearing, 1940).
19ad. eee furcata var. racemosa f. fissa (Floerke) Aigret

COLUM : Buck Glen (1941). SUSQUEHANNA: Starrucca Depot (1941). WAYNE:
Shehawken Tan), Galilee (Nearing, 1939).
19b. Cladonia furcata var. pinnata (Floerke) Vainio

ALLEGHENY: Stoop’s Ferry (O. E. Jennings, 1905, C., det. Merrill). CHESTER:
The specimen in D. labelled “ Cladonia Ss. var. _ attenuata (Fr. )” appears to eee
in this group. FAYETTE: Ohiopyle (O. E. Jennings, 1905, and 1908, C., det. —
HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp Phonan: wary WESTMORELAND: Idlewild DR
Sumstine, 1907, C., det. Merrill).
19ba. Cladonia furcata var. pinnata f. turgida (Scriba) Sandstede

LEBANON: Mt. Gretna (1941).
19c. Cladonia furcata var. cristata Fr.

This is a feos form of es species, resembling f. corymbosa.

CHESTE Darlington’s Fl. C. as “ Var. f. cristata”. No specimen in FAY-
ETTE: Connellsville (Thos. G. Se 1841 (2), AS.). This specimen is likely to be e furcata
var. racemosa, f.
19d. Cladonia furcata var. crispata (Ach.) Floerke

C. furcata var. Pita is a synonym for C. furcata var. cristata.

CHESTER: ener’s specimen in D. proves to be var. racemosa. FAYETTE: Con-
nellsville (Thos. ei cp 1841 (7), AS.).
19ea. Cladonia furcata var. palamaea (Ach.) Vainio

LACKAWANNA: Moscow (Nearing, 1939). WAYNE: Shehawken (1940).
19eb. Cladonia furcata var. palamaea f. rigidula (Mass.) Vainio

MONROE: Poconos (Evans, 1941).
20a. Cladonia scabriuscula f. farinacea (Vainio) Sandst.

This is the characteristic form found in Pennsylvania. It is marked by an
abundance of soredia and esquamulose podetia, or with a few squamules toward
the base.

THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 47

a aoe Nature Camp (Thomson, pace LACKAWANNA: w (Near-
939). Lf ee Bey 1941). : Lake Walleasacanck { (Torrey, 1937),
Bech Pails San. ‘SUSQUE ANNA: ee » Depot (1941). WAYNE: Shehawken
(1939). WYOMING: Lake eee and Nicholson (1941).
21a. Cladonia multiformis f. Finkii (Vainio) Evans
In f. Finkii the ultimate proliferations are irregularly cylindrical; the
branches are often fissured laterally.

BRADF eee Armenia Mt. (Nearing, 1939). LACKAWANNA: ag soe § (Nearing,
1939). MONROE: Pocono Mt. (Torrey, no date). LUZERNE: Pike’s Creek (Nearing
1939). SUSQUEHAN NA: Starrucca Depot (1939). WAYNE: Shehawken (1939), and Galt.
lee (Nearing, 1939).
21b. Cladonia multiformis f. subascypha (Vainio) Evans

In this form the cups are not very distinct, and often seem to be broken up
into lero and to create corymbose clusters of branchlets.

LACKAWANNA: Moscow (Nearing, 1939). SULLIVAN: Eagles Mere (Torrey, 1937).
WAYNE: Shehawken (1939).
2lc. Cladonia multiformis f. simulata Robbins

The podetia in this form proliferate repeatedly, and the proliferations of
ultimate rank terminate in numerous very small cups.

WAYNE: Shehawken (1940).

21d. Cladonia multiformis f. subtestacea (Vainio) Evans
Much like f. Finkii, except that the podetia are brownish.
WAYNE: Shehawken (1940).

22a. Cladonia floridana f. typica Robbins
The podetia in this form are both fertile and squamulose.
MONROE: Poconos (Evans, 1941).

22b. Cladonia floridana f. elegans Robbins
In contrast to f. typica, the podetia in this form are sterile.
MONROE: Poconos (Evans, 1941).

The recent collection of Cladonia floridana from the Kittatinny Mts., from
the Shawangunks, and this last from the Poconos, seem to indicate that this
species, formerly regarded as a southern, coastal plant, may have a much more
eee range. Its previously limited occurrence may be due in part to its

ilarity to some forms of C. squamosa. The K yellow and P orange-red re-
tien of C. floridana will consistently separate these species.

23. ee squamosa (Scop.) Hoffm.

RADFORD: Cedar Ledge and Armenia Mt. (Nearing, 1939). CENTER: No locality
oe (Margaret Fulford, 1932), — College in i. Hastings, without date). GDON:
Nature Camp (Thomson, 1937). ee : Moscow (Nearing. 1939). LANCASTER:
Octoraro Creek, s. of Christiana GE Small pee NY.), McCall’s Ferry (Small, 1892, SI.),
Lancaster (H. EB. ee 1933, det. Evans). MONROE: Scotrun (Nearing, 1939). MONT.

48 BARTONIA

GOMERY: Gladwyne (Geo. B. Kaiser, 1910, SMS. det. Fink). PIKE: Matamoras (A.

ree, 1896, NY.). SNYDER: Beaver Springs (1941). SULLIVAN: Forksville and

ae ce (N — 1939). TIOGA: Harrison State Park (Nearing, 1939). WAYNE: Galilee
sarin

Key to forms and modifications of C. squamosa:

Podetia with ew
Podetia decosticats above.
Podetia densely squamulose with small squamules. f. squamosissima
Podetia naked, or —— squamulose. f. denticollis
Podetia corticate throughou
Podetia whitish, or mee squamules larg f. phyllocoma
Podetia glaucescent, or brownish ; ake or with medium-sized
squamules.
Podetia more than 7 mm. in height. f{. levicorticata
Sterile.
Esquamulose; cups regular. m. pseudocrispata
Often squamulose; cups bearing marginally short,
rigid proliferations. m. rigida
With apothecia. m. pityrea
Podetia less than 7 mm. in height. f. epiphylla
Podetia without cups.
Podetia 2-8 mm. in height; primary thallus persistent; occasionally
cup-forming. f. phyllopoda
Podetia 7-25 mm. in a usually without primary thallus; pode-
tia densely squamulose f. clavariella

23aa. Cladonia squamosa f. levicorticata m. rigida (Del.) Evans
BUCKS: Morrisville (1939). HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, 1937). MON

ROE: Blakeslee (Torrey, 1936), Poconos (Evans, 1941). PIKE: Bu sbkill I Palis (1940). SUS-
QUEHANNA: Starrucca "Depot. (1940). WAYNE: Shehawken (1940), Lakewood (1941).
23ab. Cladonia ie f. levicorticata m. pityrea (Arn.) Evans

CHESTER: Nottingham (Nearing, 1940). HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson,
1937). MONROE: Poconos (Evans, 1941). WAYNE: Shatawken (1939).
23ac. Cladonia squamosa f. levicorticata m. pseudocrispata Sandst.

MONROE: Poconos (Evans, 1941).
23b. Cladonia cree f. squamosissima Floerke

FAYETTE: Ohiopyle (D. R. Sumstine, 1906, C., det. Merrill). SOMERSET: Somerset
(Sumstine, 1906, C., rw Merrill). WESTMORELAND: Idlewild (Sumstine, 1906, C., det.
Merrill).

23c. Cladonia squamosa f. phyllocoma (Rabenh.) Vainio
HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, 1937).

23d. Cladonia squamosa f. epiphylla (Arn.) Sandst.
MONROE: Poconos (Evans, 1941).

23e. Cladonia squamosa f. clavariella Vainio
PIKE: Shohola Falls (Torrey, 1937, det. Sandstede).

THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 49

23f. Cladonia squamosa f. denticollis (Hoffm.) Floerke
SOMERSET: Somerset (D. R. Sumstine, 1906, C., det. Merrill).
23g. Cladonia squamosa f. phyllopoda Vainio
TIOGA: Liberty (Torrey, 1937).

Two additional forms of C. squamosa are listed in Darlington’s FI. C., as
follows: Cladonia squamosa var. a. ventricosa and var. b. attenuata. No speci-
men in D. for the former. See 19b for the latter.

24. Cladonia cenotea (Ach.) Schaer.
LANCASTER: Martic Forge (J. K. Small, 1892, SI.).
24a. Cladonia cenotea f. crossota (Ach.) Nyl.
The typical form in this region. Slender, sorediose, open cups, with slightly
involute margins.
WAYNE: Shehawken (1941), Lake Hiawatha, and Pleasant Valley Road (1942).
25. Cladonia delicata (Ehrh.) Floerke

CHESTER: Chester Creek (Ge eo. = aoe 1911, P.. SMS.), Nottingham (Nearing,
1940). SOMERSET: ge (Jennings, 1904, C.). SULLIVAN: Bernice (Nearing, 1939).
WAYNE: Galilee (Nearing, 1939).

25a. Cladonia delicata f quercina (Pers.) Vainio

This is the normal form in Pennsylvania. The podetia are covered with
granular ag

BRADFORD: Cedar Ledge and Armenia M Mt. (Nearing, 1939). CENTER: Bear M Meadows
ac gage ioe). LYCOMING: Ellenton (Nearing, 1939). reine Scotrun (N, earing,

. PIKE: Bushkill Falls (1940, and Thomson, 1940). SULLIVAN Bernice (Nearing,
1930). SUSQUEHANNA: Starrucca Depot (1941).

26. Cladonia caespiticia (Pers.) Floerke

BERKS: Monterey (Mrs. E. C. White, 1936, SI., det. Evans). BRADFORD: Armenia
Mt. (Nearing, 1939). BUCKS: Morrisville (1939). ‘CENTER: Bear Meadows Shenae wae
1937). CHESTER: Avondale Quarry (A. F. K. he without date, P.). Listed in
ington’s Fl. C. No specimen in D. CRAWFOR D: , Pymatuming Swamp, Linewville Fen
nings, 1907, C.). FAYETTE: Ohiopyle enacage 906, C.). HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp
(Thomson, 1937). JUNIATA: Cuba Mills (1941). LANCASTER: Wri ightsdale (Nearing,
1939). LUZERNE: Pike’s — (Nearing, 1939). MONROE: Poconos (Evans, pode
IKE: Bushkill Falls (1939). SNYDER: Beaver Springs (1941). SULLIVAN : Eagles
(Torrey, 1937). WAYNE: eae (1939), and Galilee (Nearing, 1939).

Group 2. Megaphyllae
27. Cladonia apodocarpa Robbins

BRADFORD: Cedar Ledge (Nearing, 1939). CHESTER: Nottingham (Nearing, 1940).
COLUMBIA: Buck Glen (1941). LANCASTER: —— eG 1939). LEBANON:
Mt. Gretna path MONROE: Poconos (Evans, 1941). MONTO Washingtonville (1941).

ver Springs (1941). SULLIVAN: Forksville earns 1949). WAYNE:
Shckaeken (1939). YORK: Delta (Nearing, 1940).

28. Cladonia turgida (Ehrh.) Hoffm.
PENNSYLV. hae ok No locality = (Tuckerman. in his Syn Sem

Lich.,
1848, but accredited to Muhlenberg). FAYETTE: Ohiopst Gh emis 1905, t. Mer-
rill). WAYNE: Sockaokor ¢ (1939).

50 BARTONIA

28a. Cladonia turgida f. corniculata Floerke
With cupless and esquamulose podetia.
MONROE: Poconos (Evans, 1941). WAYNE: Shehawken (1940).
28b. Cladonia turgida f. scyphifera Vainio
Podetia in this form are cup-forming, and the cups may proliferate.
WAYNE: Shehawken (1940).
28c. Cladonia turgida f. squamulosa (Rabenh.) Theobald
The podetia are cupless and densely squamulose.
MONROE: Poconos (Evans, 1941). WAYNE: Shehawken (1942).

Subsection 3. Clausae
Group 1. Podostelides
Subgroup 1. Helipodium
29. Cladonia mitrula Tuckerman
PENNSYLVANIA: No location cited (Schweinitz, no date, AS.), also listed by Fink in
Bryologist, July, 1906. BERKS: Wernersville (Mary E. Wi illiams, 1909, SMS., det, Mary F.
(B.A BUCKS: Nockamixon (Geo. B. Kaiser, 1910, P.). CHESTER: No location cited
Flora Cestrica is the original description of this sparse. pees: No ae os cited
U. W. Eckfeldt, without date, AS.). ERIE: Presque Isle (O. E. Jenning. Co
rill). LYCOMING: Hepburnville (1941). MONTGOMERY: Sbiverford (Hekjeldt, 1882,
AS.). WAYNE: Shehawken (1939).
29a. Cladonia mitrula f. imbricatula Vainio

The apothecia in this form are few, large, and oa brown to dark brown.

RKS: Birdsboro (1940). BRADFORD: Armenia (Nearing, 1939). BUCKS:
Morrisville (1939). CHESTER: erreehg Gv earing, 1940). Seah tagre
Deodate (1941). DELAWARE: Chadd’s Ford (EZ. C. and Grace

; . Leonard, 1908, §
vans). HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, 1937). LEBANON: Mt. Gretna Cot
HIGH: Blue Mt. (Torrey, 1933). LUZERNE: Pike’s Creek (Nearing, 1939). IF-
: Maitland (1941). MONROE: Scotrun (Nearing, 1939). Pocono Mts. ‘Dito

1934), and Poconos and Water Gap (Evans, 1941). NORTHAMPTON: Wind Gap aa):

PERRY: Sterrett’s Gap (1941). PHILADELPHIA: (1942). :

Lake Wallenpaupack and Shohola Falls (Torrey, 1937), Bushkill Falls (Evans, sore

SCHUYLKILL: Zion’s Grove (1941). WAYNE: Shehawken (1939). YORK: Near York
(1941), and Delta (Nearing, 1940).

29b. Cladonia mitrula f. pallida Robbins

In this form the apothecia differ from f. imbricatula only in being flesh-
colored.

HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, 1937). LANCASTER: Wrightsdale (Near-
ing, 1939). LYCOMING: Hepburnville (1941). MONROE: Poconos (Evans, 1941).

29c. Cladonia mitrula f. squamulosa Merrill

This form can be distinguished by the squamulose podetia.
MONROE: Poconos and Water Gap (Evans, 1941).

THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 51

30. Cladonia clavulifera Vainio
BRADFORD: Cedar Ledge (Nearing, 1939).

30a. Cladonia clavulifera f. nudicaulis Evans

The ons in ke form are without squamules.

CHESTER: ingham (Nearing, 1940). PIKE: Near ah aapencency (Evans, 1941).
TIOGA: Liberty pit 1937). WYOMING: Nicholson (1941).
30b. Cladonia clavulifera f. pleurocarpa Robbins

This form is distinguished by the presence of many small apothecia and the
almost cup-like appearance of the apex.

SULLIVAN: Bernice (Nearing, 1939). WAYNE: Shehawken (190). WYOMING:
Nicholson (1941),
30c. Cladonia clavulifera f. subvestita Robbins

This form has squamulose podetia.

HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, 1937). PERRY: Sterrett’s Gap (1941). PIKE:
Near Neataniiocd (Evans, 1941). TIOGA: Liberty (Torrey, 1937).
31. Cladonia subcariosa Nyl.

ALLEGHENY: Coraopolis (Jennings, 1905, C., det. Merrill). BRADFORD: Cedar
Ledge and eee (Nearing, 1939). LANCASTER: McCall’s Fe erry (A. A. Heller, listed
by Merrill in Bryologist, May, 1909). LYCOMING: Ellenton (Nearing, 1939). MONROE:
Water Gap eioaes- 1941). PIKE: Bushkill Falls (1939).

The four forms of C. subcariosa found in Pennsylvania may be separated
as follows:

Podetia without — f. evoluta
Podetia squamulose f. squamulosa
Apothecia sessile on primary squamules f. epiphylla
Apex of the podetia almost cup-like, wad bearing many small apothecia. f. pleurocarpa

3la. Cladonia subcariosa f. evoluta Vainio

BRADFORD: Cedar Ledge and Armenia es (Nearing, 1939). BUCKS: Morrisville
and Washington’s Crossing (1940). ee Nottingham (Nearing, 1940). DAUPHIN:
Deodate (1941). HUNTINGDON: ure Camp and Penn. State orest
son, 1937). LEBANON: Mt. Gretna ae MONROE: Poconos (Evans, 1941). PERRY:
Sterrett’s Gap (1941). PHILADELPHIA: Near Bustleton (1941). PIKE: Lake ae.
paupack oot, 1937). WAYNE: Shehawken (1941). WYOMING: Lake Carey (1941).
YORK: Delta (Nearing, 1940).

31b. Cladonia subcariosa f. squamulosa Robbins
BERKS: Birdsboro (1940). BUCKS: ioe ie Oe: DAUPHIN: Deodate (1941).
MONROE: Poconos iieons 1941). PHILADEL : Near Bustleton (1941).
3lc. Cladonia subeariosa f. epiphylla Robbins
HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, 1937)
31d. Cladonia subcariosa f. kgenaties Robbins

BRADFORD: Arm . (Nearing, 1939). BUCKS: Morrisville and New Hope
(1941). RUN TGDON. Netere Camp (Thomson, 1937). PIKE: Bushkill Falls (1940).
WAYNE: Shehawken (1941). YORE. Delta (Nearing, 1940).

52 BARTONIA

Cladonia symphicarpa Fr.
Since the validity of this species is questioned by most American systema-
tists at present, the existence of these specimens is merely recorded at this place.

BUCKS: Haycock Mt. (J. W. Eckfeldt, 1883, AS.). LEHIGH: No locality cited (Eck-
feldt, 1883, AS.).

32. Cladonia cariosa (Ach.) Spreng.

ALLEGHENY: Wildwood (Wm. Milward, 1919, C.). BUTLER: Nixon Station (Mil-
ward, 1917, C.).

Subgroup 2. Macropus
33. Cladonia acuminata (Ach.) Arn.
WAYNE: Pleasant Valley Road, near Twp. line, Scott Township (1940 and 1942).
The occurrence of C. acuminata in Pennsylvania is unusual, as it is generally
considered a species of more northern distribution.

Group 2. Thallostelides

34. Cladonia gracilis (L.) Willd.

PENNSYLVANIA: No location cited (Tuckerman in Syn. Am. Lich., 1848). Cited by
Tuckerman from Muhlenberg’s list.
34a. Cladonia gracilis var. dilatata (Hoffm.) Vainio

This is the only variety found in Pennsylvania. It has relatively stout
podetia.

— ORD: Cedar Ledge and Armenia Mt. (Nearing, 1939). HUNTINGDON: Na-
ture Camp (Thomson, 1937). LYCOMING: llenton (Nearing, 1939). — Poconos

cane “1941). SULLIVAN: Bernice (Nearing, 1939). SUSQUEHANNA: Starrucea Depot
a TIOGA: Liberty (Torrey, 1937). WAYNE: Shehawken Geer “Galilee (Nearing,

34aa. Cladonia gracilis var. dilatata f. squamulosa (Schaer.) Sandst.

The podetia in this form are sterile, and densely squamulose to the middle.

BRADFORD: Cedar Ledge (Nearing, 1939). LACKAWANNA: Moscow (Nearing,
1939). PIKE: Bushkill Falls (Nearing, 1941). WAYNE: Shehawken (1940).

34ab. Cladonia gracilis var. dilatata f. anthocephala (Floerke) Vainio.
In f. SS the ae are regular and bear apothecia.

BRADFORD: (Nearing, 1939). MONROE: Blakeslee (Torrey, 1936).
SNYDER: Beaver Eker: gab). UNION: Foresthill (1941).

34ac. Cladonia gracilis var. dilatata f. dilacerata (Floerke) Vainio.

In this form the cups are irregular, often with deep marginal indentations.

—— Nature Camp (Thomson, 1937). SULLIVAN: Bernice (Nearing,

34b. Cladonia gracilis campthosa Wain.
No description of this form was found.

a (Geo. B. Kaiser, 1910, SMS.). This specimen was first iden-
tified as C. fimbriata. This was crossed out, and d etermined as above, with, gs note, “ det.
_ Fink, provisionally ”.

THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 53

34c. Cladonia gracilis “ Var. a. cervicornis ” (Ash.) Schaer.

Now known as C. verticillata var. cervicornis. It has larger primary squa-
mules but shorter podetia than f. evoluta.

CHESTER: Listed in Darlington’s Flora Cestrica.

35. Cladonia verticillata (Hoffm.) Schaer.

PENNSYLVANIA: No locality cited (Listed by Fink in Bryologist, Nov., 1904). ALLE-
GHENY: Wildwood (Wm. Milward, 1919, C.). ARMSTRONG: In Giardini’s Report, Bry-
ologist, Sept., 1922. BRADFORD: In Giardini’s Report, Bryologist, Sept., 1922. BUCKS:
Morrisville (1940). BUTLER: Nixon Station eslerard, "919. GC), CRAWFORD: In
Giardini’s Report, Bryologist, Sept., 1922. ERIE: Presque Isle (Jennings, 1906, C., det. Mer
rill). HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, 1937). MIFFLIN: Maitigad “sub.
PIKE: Bushkill Falls See? SULLIVAN: Wheelersville (Torrey, 1937). SUSQUEHAN
Starrucca Depot (1941). TIOGA: Liberty (Torrey, 1937).

35a. Cladonia verticillata f. evoluta (Th. Fr.) Stein

In this form the podetia are without squamules, and the proliferations are
all central.

BRADFORD: oe Ledge and Burlington (Nearing, seg BUCKS: Haycock Mt.
(Geo. B. Kaiser, 1 SMS., det Mary Miller). CHESTER: Nottingham (Nearing, em
ee Weak “Glen (1941). DAUPHIN: Deodate (1910). HUNTIN ag Nat

p (Thomson, 1937). LEBANON: Mt. Gretna (1941). LEHIGH: Blue . one,

1933). LUZERNE: Pike’s Creek ae 1939). LYCOMING: —— (Wen ane. 1939),
Hepburnville (1941). MONROE o Mts. (Dillman, 1934), Poconos (Ev 1941).
MON Washingtonville Goal). NORTHUMBERLAND: Turbotville ( (1941). PERRY:
itr Gap (1941). PIKE: Shohola Falls and Lake Wallenpaupack (Torrey, 1937), Bush-
Falls (Evans, Bogs gto hes Eagles Mere (Torrey, 1937 FB aca So and girly

CVearing 1939). TIOGA: Harrison State Park (Nearing, 1940). UN Foresthill (1941

YNE: Shehawken ‘ity. Galilee (Nearing, 1939). WYOMING: Nicholson (1941).
YORK: Delta (Nearing, 1940).
35b. Cladonia verticillata f. apoticta (Ach.) Vainio

The proliferations in this form are in ie marginal or lateral.

CHESTER: Nottingham (Nearing, 1940). UPHIN: Deodate Eecag MONROE:
Scotrun (Nearing, 1939). PERRY: Sterrett’s ae (1941). PIKE: e Wallenpaupack
(Torrey, 19837). WAYNE: Shehawken (1940).
35c. Cladonia verticillata f. aggregata (Del.) Oliv.

In this form the proliferations are very numerous and close together.

DAUPHIN: Deodate (1941). LEBANON: Mt. Gretna (1941). LYCOMING: Hep-
peers (1941). MONROE: Poconos (Evans ¥ <a Lake Wellenpaupack 2 De aay.

(1941). PERRY: Sterrett’s Gap (1941 e Wallenpaupac orrey,

: Bernice and Forksville em, 1939). UNION: Foresthill (1941). WAYNE:
Shehawken (1940 ).

35d. Cladonia verticillata f. phyllocephala (Flot.) Oliv.

In this form the podetia are somewhat squamulose.

HUNTINGDON: Nature C (Thomson, 1937). LEHIGH: Blue Mt. (Torrey, 1933).
LUZERNE: Pike’s Cenk (Ne ae 1939). MONROE: Poconos (Evans, 1981). WAYNE:
Shehawken (1940).
35e. Cladonia verticillata “ cervicornis” (Ach.) Floerke

This form has larger primary squamules, but shorter podetia than f. evoluta.

54 BARTONIA

MONTGOMERY: Gladwyne (Geo. B. Kaiser, 1910, SMS., det. Mary Miller, and P.,
det. Fink).
36. Cladonia calycantha Del.

WAYNE: Shehawken (1940).

37a. Cladonia degenerans f. phyllophora (Ehrh.) Flot.
This form has indistinct cups, and podetia without squamules. This is the
characteristic form in Pennsylvania.
MONTOUR: Washingtonville (1941). UNION: Foresthill (1941). WAYNE: Shehawken
(1940) and Lakewood (1941).
38a. Cladonia mateocyatha f. squamulata Robbins
Characterized by the presence of squamules on the podetia and margins
of cups.
CHESTER: Nottingham (Nearing, 1940). LANCASTER: Wakefield (Nearing, 1940).
39. Cladonia pyxidata (L.) Hoffm.
This species was formerly a very comprehensive one, including the C. chloro-
_ phaea-Grayi group. All specimens observed which were definitely labelled “Cla-
donia pyxidata chlorophaea” will be listed under C. chlorophaea.

BERKS: Woods near Pulpit Rocks (N. L. Britton, oo date, No. 360, NY.). [CHES-
R: One of Michener’s specimens in D. labe acl ‘C. pyzxidata” proves to be C. chloro-
phaea f{. simplex; the other is C. pleurota. The record ar C. pyzidata in Flora Cestrica may
fefen to one of these specimens.| DELAWARE: No i | tied .W. Eck Spe ate AS.).

iardini’s Record, Bryologist j a ’
nee gone ”). LAN Me god McCall’s Tey and Conewago (A. A. Heller,
I.), Safe Harbor (J. K. Small, 1890, NY.). MONTGOMERY: Haverford
(Hokfelat, 1881, AS.).
39a. Cladonia pyxidata var. neglecta (Floerke) Mass.
The characteristic plant in Pennsylvania. It has the primary squamules free
and ascending.

ALLEGHENY: Power’s Run, Montrose, — Schenley - (Jennings, 1905, C., det.
sega Wildwood (Wm. M ilward, 1919, C.). BEAVER: ee A eae 1906, C.
: resson

ane
es

, a): : : po i t., 1922.
CRAWFORD: Pymatuming Swamp (Jennings, 1906, C., det. Merrill). ERIE: Presque Isle
(Jennings, 1906, C., det. Merrill), Corry (D.R. Sumstine, 1908, C., det. Merrill). FAYETTE:
Ohiopyle (Jennings, 1906, ae det. ° Merrill). HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson,
: Brookville (A. R. Hillard, 1917, C.). SOMERSET: Ursina (Jennings,
1905, c. See Merrill). WASHINGTON: No locality cited. In Giardini’s Report, Bryolo-
WAYNE: Shehawken (1940). WESTMORELAND: New Florence ‘Use

nings, i007, C. det. Merrill), Derry (Sumstine, 1905, C., det. Merrill).

39aa. Cladonia pyxidata var. neglecta f. simplex (Ach.) Harm.
This form has esquamulose podetia.
MONROE: Water Gap and Poconos (Evans, 1941). PERRY: Sterrett’s oe es

Near Newfoundland (Evans, 1941). SULLIVAN: Forksville (Nearing,
OMING: Pickens “(i941 ds

THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 55

39ab. Cladonia pyxidata var. neglecta f. lophyra (Ach.) Koerb.
In this form the podetia are squamulose.
WAYNE: Shehawken (1941).

39ac. Cladonia pyxidata var. neglecta f. centralis (Flot.) Koerb.
This is a rare and unusual form with a central proliferation.
WAYNE: Shehawken (1941).

40. Cladonia chlorophaea (Floerke) Spreng.

All specimens labelled “Cladonia pyxidata chlorophaea” are listed here.

ALLEGHENY: Stoop’s Ferry, and Montrose (Jennings, 1905, C., det. eet near
Carnot (J. A. Shafer, 1888, C., det. Merrill), Wildwood (Wm. Milward, 1919, C.). ARM-
STRONG: Clinton (Jennings, 1921, C.). BEDFORD: Will’s Mt., Hyndman (Jennings,
1904, C., det. Merrill). BERKS: Wernersville (Mary E. Williams, 1909, SMS., det. Mary
Miller). BUCKS: Morrisville (1939). BUTLER: Nixon Station (Milward, 1917, Cy; Wolf
Creek Va :

; I 2
berty (Torrey, 1937, det. Sandstede). WASHI NGTON: In Giardini’s Report, Bryologist,
ad 1922. WAYNE: White Mills (Torrey, 1937).

The following key can be used for the different forms of C. chlorophaea.
Podetia sterile.
Podetia free from st except a few at base.
Cups without prolifera
Very similar, but an ae squamules; see also explanation to 40b.
Cups proliferous, proliferations often cup-forming.
Podetia more or less squamulose throughout.

Podetia fertile.

Podetia free from squamules, or occasionally few at base. £

Podetia squamulose throughout. f. lepidophora
40a. Cladonia haere: f. simplex (Hoffm.) Arn.

BRADFORD: Armenia Mt. (Nearing, sms LUZERNE: es oa (1941). MON-
ROE: aeciagr (Nearing, 1939). SCHUYLKILL ae Grove (1941).
40b. Cladonia chlorophaea f. conistea Del.

On the basis of micro-chemical tests, according to Dr. Evans, the first of the
following specimens should be classified as C. chlorophaea f. simplex; the rest
as C. conista. With this explanation, however, I am leaving them under f.
meee

Bh Re Bh eB,
2 2
o .
a
&
3
a

. pterygota

Bowman’s Hill (1941). CLINTON: Logantown (1941). DAUPHIN: Deo-
dete (ibs). ‘ LEBANON: Mt. Gretna (1941). WAYNE: Shehawken (1939).
40c. Cladonia — f. carpophora (Floerke) Anders.

BRADFORD: Cedar Ledge (Nearing, 1939). CENTER: Bear Meadows (Thomson,
1937). CLINTON: “Logantown. (1941). DAUPHIN: Deodate (1941). HUNTINGDON:
Nature Camp and Ross Run (Thomson, 1939, 1937).
40d. Cladonia chlorophaea f. lepidophora (Floerke) Sandst.

WAYNE: Shehawken (1940).

56 BARTONIA

40e. Cladonia chlorophaea f. prolifera (Wallr.) Arn.
HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, 1939).

40f. Cladonia chlorophaea f. pterygota (Floerke) Vainio
TIOGA: Harrison State Park (Nearing, 1939).

In the next two paragraphs are listed specimens which by the usual classifi-
cation belong under C. chlorophaea, but have recently been segregated by the
micro-chemical methods of Asahina,! a Japanese botanist, as follows:

(C. Grayi f. aberrans). — specimens in this group, though having a positive reaction
with Si ese ontain anic acid, according to

A : ee : OGA: Li
Sn Bi het 6 1939). UNION: Foresthill (1941). WAYNE: White Mills (Torrey, 1937),
e (Nearing Fopckt 2), Shehaien (1941). WYOMING: Nicholson (1941). YORK: Delta

(C,. er siyutachleranhoe) Also a micro-chemical segregation. BRADFORD: Burlington
(Nearing, 1939). CHESTER: Nottingham (Nearing, 1940). LEBANON: Mt. Gretna (1941).
MONROE: Mt. Pocono (Torrey, 1936). Poconos (Evans, 1941). LACKAWAN NA: Near-
ing, 1939). LYCOMING: Ellenton n (Nearing, 1939). PERRY: Sterrett’s Gap (1941). SUS-
QUEHANNA: Starrucca Depot (1941).

41. Cladonia Grayi Merrill

This species, to a large extent, is merely a chemical segregation from C.
—— by its reaction to P.

DFORD: Cedar Ledge and Armenia Mt. (Nearing, 1939). LYCOMING: Ellenton
(N —— MONROE: Sikedes (Torrey, 1936).
41a. Cladonia Grayi f. simplex Robbins

With esquamulose podetia, and usually sterile.

BUCKS: oe and Newtown Fae a Hill (1940). CHESTER: “ New
Garden” (Michene a o date; listed as C. cumoides. Specimen in D.) LUZERNE:
Pike’s Creek (Nea ng, 1939). PIKE: “Bushkill Falls (1941, and bombing 1941). SCHUYL-
KILL: Zion’s Grows 4 (1941). SUSQUEHANNA: Starrucca ‘Depot (1941).
41b. Cladonia Grayi f. squamulosa Sandst.

BUCKS: Dolington (1939). LACKAWANNA: Moscow (Nearing, 1939). LANCAS-

Wrightsdale (Nearing, 1940). MONROE: Blakeslee (Torrey, 1936). WAYNE: She-
hasten (1939), Galilee (Nearing, 1939).
41c. Cladonia Grayi f. carpophora Evans
This form is fertile, and Se oe large apothecia.

LEBANON: Mt. Gretna (1941). LYCOM : Hepburnville (1941). MONROE: Po-

eonos (Evans, 1941). _PIKE: Peak Falls cn > ear Newfoundland (Evans, a
: Zion’s Grove (1941). SUSQUEH Saat Depot (1941). WAYNE

Shehawken (1940), Takewncd (1941).

1 Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, Vol. 70, No. 2, pp. 139-151. 1943.

THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 57

41d. Cladonia Grayi f. prolifera Sandst.

This form is sterile, esquamulose, and proliferous from margins of cups. The
proliferations may alo be cup-forming.

WAYNE: Shehawken (1940).

4le. Cladonia Grayi f. carneopallida f. nov.
This form is analogous to C. chlorophaea f. carneopallida (Ach.) Robbins,
and is distinctive in having flesh-colored apothecia. Apotheciis carneopallidis.
BUCKS: Morrisville (1941).

42a. Cladonia conista f. simplex (Ach.) Robbins

In this form the podetia are sterile, without proliferations, or squamules.

BRADFORD: Armenia Mt. Hideo J aes LUZERNE: Pike’s Creek (Nearing, 1939).
MIFFLIN: Maitland (1941). ONROE: Poconos (Evans, 1941). NORTHAMPTON:
Wind Gap (1941). PIKE: Bus Gl Tells (1939, and Evans, 1941). UNION: Foresthill
(1941). WAYNE: Shehawken (1940). YORK: near York (1 941 i
43. Cladonia fimbriata (L.) Fr.

This species originally included C. nemoxyna, C. ochrochlora, C. coniocraea,
and C. borbonica, as varieties. If the original record listed such a variety, the
specimen will be grouped according to the more recent segregations. Thus “Cla-
dona fimbriata var. nemoxyna” will be classified a C. ne et th

apie No locality wis (Tuckerman in Amer. 1948, and
o date, AS.). CHESTER: ew Garden” (afistonar without ae labelled
: : és

date, AS.). HUNTINGDON : Nature Camp (Thomson, 1930). LUZERNE: Pike's Creek
(Nearing, 19389). MONROE: Poconos (Evans, 1941).
dasa) WAYNE: Shel skeat (1939), and Shrawder Mt. (1941). YORK: Drvunnvile (Near-

43a. Cladonia fimbriata f. apolepta (Ach.) Vainio
Now known as C. coniocraea.
ALLEGHENY: Wildwood (Wm. Milward, 1919, C.). GREENE: Halbrook (Sarah A.
Marley, 1925, C.).
43b. Cladonia fimbriata f. fibula (Hoffm.) Ny].
This form is synonymous with C. nemoryna f. fibula. Fertile and without
squamules, the apothecia either sessile on the cups, or borne on short stipes.
DELAWARE: Radnor ee one B. Kaiser, 1910, SMS., det. Mary Miller, ver. Fink).
SOMERSET: (D. R. Sumstine C.).
43c. Cladonia fimbriata “v. subcornuta ” Nyl.
This form is probably synonymous with C. cornutoradiata f. subulata Vainio.
Of doubtful —
BERKS: e (Mary E. Miller, 1909, SMS., det. H. E. H.). SOMERSET: No
locality cited ais “R. gt 1906, C.).

58 BARTONIA

43d. Cladonia fimbriata simplex (Weis.) Flot.

This form is probably synonymous with C. fimbriata f. fibula. With definite
and well shaped cups.

BERKS: Wernersville (Mary E. Williams, 1900, SMS., det. Mary F. Miller).

44. Cladonia major (Hagen) Sandst.

This is a segregate from C. fimbriata partly on chemical differences. It also
is a larger form, sometimes as much as 3 mm. in diameter and 40 mm. in height.
The cups may be as much as 12 mm. wide at the mouth.

WAYNE: Winterdale (1942).

45. Cladonia nemoxyna (Ach.) Nyl.

PENNSYLVANIA: No locality | cited (Fink in his Lichen Flora of the U. S., p. 266
= Cladonia fimbriata var. nemoxyna’’). This is the only reference by Fink to Pennsylvania
FO i

onia. : 1a : ea
ing, 1939). BUCKS: Bowman’s Hill and Washington’s Crossing (1940). CENTER: State
College (Miss F. Wiley, 1937). CLINTON: Logantown (1941) DAUPHIN: Deodate (1941).

(Evans, 1941). SCHUYLKILL: Zio n's Grove (1941). SULLIVAN: IN? Forksville (Nearing, 1939).
SUSQUEHANNA: Starrucca Depot (194 1). WAYNE: White Mills (Torrey, 1937).
45a. Cladonia nemoxyna f. fibula (Ach.) Vainio

In this form the podetia are without squamules, fertile, and bear apothecia
on the margins of the cups or on short stipes.

HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, 1939). LYCOMING: Hepburnville (1941).
NORTHAMPTON: Wind Gap (1941). PIKE: Bushkill Falls (1940), Lake heb ir pee pe
(Torrey, 1937). WAYNE: Shehawken (1939), Galilee (Nearing, 1939). WYOMING:
Carey and Nicholson (1941).
45b. Cladonia nemoxyna f. Rei (Schaer.) Anders.

This form has in addition to the regular coarse granules a growth called isidia,
resembling very large granules, or small squamules, and the podetia are more
or less squamulose.

MONROE: Water Gap (Evans, 1941). WAYNE: Scott Township (1941).

46. Cladonia ochrochlora Floerke

A great deal of the material formerly classified under this species has recently
been allocated to C. coniocraea. A re-examination of the material collected prior
to 1930 would probably place most of it with that species. However, all speci-
mens originally labelled C. ochrochlora are listed here according to that deter-
mination. The apparent distinction between the two species rests on the relative
distribution of cortex and soredia. The four following collections are classified
according to the more recent usage, and represent the true C. ochrochlora.

LUZERNE: ata Creek (Nearing. 1939). Bushkill Falls (Nearing, 1941). SUSQUE-
HANNA: Starrucca Depot (1941). WAYNE: Galilee (Nearing, 1939).

THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 59

46a. Cladonia ochrochlora f. ceratodes Floerke
This form represents the form, in part, now classified as C. coniocraea f.
ceratodes. It is marked by its arn podetia, usually without squamules.

i Near Carnot (J. A. Shafer, 1888, C., det. Merrill), Fern Hollow, Pitts-
burg (D . Sumstine ne, 1906, C., det. Mera ll, Giardini, 1921, see and Jennings, G. E. Kinzer,
CC), stone r’s Run Ravine (Jennings and Kin zer, 1905, C), T rafford (Jennings, 1922,
Edgworth Jennings, 1916, C.) and ae ae "Hilward, i9 19. C.), ARMSTRONG: In
ee Rep rt, Bryologist, Sept., 1922. VER: In Giardini’s Report, Bryologist, Sept.,

B LER: — Station (Hilward. iOIy, C.). CENTER: Stormtown (Miss H. E.

C., det. Merrill). CRAWFORD: Pymatuming Swamp (Jennings, 1905, C., det

Monit) ERIE: Paae Isle (Jenning (Alas E: Ohiopyle (Jennings and
Kinzer, 1905, C N: Near Brookville (A. R. Hillard, 1917, C.). 8

Somerset (Swmstine, 1906, C., det. Merrill). WASHINGTON: Van Emman (Jennings, 1908
C., det. Merrill). WESTMORELAND: Near Blackburn (Jennings, 1908, C., det. Merrill),
Idle wild (Sumstine, 1906, C., det. Merri

46b. Cladonia ochrochlora f. suede Floerke

This form is the same as that represented by C. coniocraea f. truncata, and
cf. that form below.

ALLEGHENY: Stoop’s Ferry (Jennings and Kinzer, 1905, C.). ERIE: Presque Isle
(Jennings, 1905, C.).
46c. Cladonia ochrochlora f. paraphyonema Floerke

Of this form Dr. Evans writes, “ This is an unusual form of the species, and
I have seen only a few specimens from North America. It is characterized by
having the cups two or three times proliferous, some of the proliferations bear-
ing smaller cups.”

WAYNE: King’s Woods, Scott Twp. (1942).
47. Cladonia coniocraea (Floerke) Spreng.

BERKS: Woods near Pulpit Rocks (VN. L. Britton, no date, NY.). HUNTINGDON
Nature Camp (Thomson, 1937). LACKAWANNA: Mosco w (Nearing, 1939). MO NTGOM-

3 8 Gece (Geo. B. Kaiser, 1910, P.). PHILADELPHIA: Wissahickon Creek (Kaiser,

1921, SMS.). PIKE: Blakeslee’ (Torrey, 1936).
47a. Cladonia coniocraea f. ceratodes (Floerke) Dalla Torre & Sarnth.

BERKS: Montere ig .E. C. White, 1936, SI.). BRADFORD: Burlington, Cedar Ledge,
and Armenia Mt. (Nearz f 1939). BUCKS: Morrisville (1 939). ib, LEHIGH. Nature
p : i

ang, 1 =), oc
man, 1934), Poconos iE , 1941). PIKE: Shohola Falls and Lake Wallenpaupack rhe
I SULLIVAN: Bernice and

939). : Libe (N
WAYNE: Maheetan ¢ (to40). Galilee (Nearing, 1939). WYOMING: Nickola ( Seaty
YORK: Bryansville (Nearing, 1940).
47b. Cladonia coniocraea f. truncata (Floerke) Dalla Torre & Sarnth.

The podetia in this form have blunt tips, frequently forming small cups.

BERKS: Monterey aw: Near ae 1936. Saar pen rag Cedar Ledge a ear-
ing, 1939). BUCKS: Morrisville (1 HUNTIN : Na amp (Thomson
LEHIGH: Blue Mt. (Torrey, 1933). LUZERNE: Pike’s Creek (Nearing. > tone TyCOM.

= Hepburnville (1941). MIFFLIN: Maitland (1941). ek aanu suake Lenape, Po-
o Mts. (Dillman, 1934), Poconos (Evans, 1941). PIKE: Bushkill Falls (Thomson, 1940).

60 BARTONIA

SULLIVAN: Forksville and Whirl’s End (Nearing, 1939). TIOGA: Harrison State Park
(Nearing, 1939). WAYNE: Shehawken and South Sterling (1940). WYOMING: Sok
son (1941).

47c. Cladonia coniocraea f. pyenotheliza (Nyl.) Vainio

This form is characterized by an unusual abundance of apothecia. They
may be either sessile or stalked, on the primary squamules, or stalked at the
summit or along the sides of the podetia.

FORD: Armenia Mt. (Nearing, 1939). CENTER: Bear Meadows (Thomson,

1937). HUNTIN N: Nature Camp Pag ere 1937). ager gen Hepburnville
(1941). MONROE: Lake Lenape, Pocono Mts. (G e F. Dillman, 1934), Blakeslee (Torrey,
1936), Poconos (Evans, 1941). WAYNE: Galilee (Nes saeiig: 1939), Tae id Te (1940).
47d. Cladonia coniocraea f. stenoscypha (Stuckenberg) Sandst.

In f. stenoscypha the podetia are narrow, ecorticate, and have slender cups.

LEBANON: Mt. Gretna (1941). LUZERNE: Pike’s Creek (Nearing, 1939). WYOM-
ING: Nicholson (1941).
47e. Cladonia coniocraea f. robustior (Harm.) Sandst.

Similar to f. ceratodes, but stouter, often with a diameter of 2.5-3 mm. in the
middle of the podetia.

PIKE: Bushkill Falls (Nearing, 1940).
47f, Cladonia coniocraea f. phyllostrota (Floerke) Vainio

A form marked by the presence of podetial squamules.

LYCOMING: Hepburnville (1941).
48a. Cladonia borbonica f. cylindrica Evans

The usual form in Pennsylvania, and characterized by esquamulose podetia,
often sharp-pointed, cupless or with narrow cups.
: BUCKS: Morrisville (1939). BRADFORD: Armenia Mt. (Nearing, 1939). CHESTER:
. DAUPHI ’ E

otti ( , 1940 N: Deodate (1941). LANCA R: Wrightsdale
(Nearing, 1940). LUZ E:. Pike’s Creek (Nearing, 1939). MI N: Maitland (1941)
MONRO Scotrun (Nea ), Water Gap v ‘-

ring, 1939), Wate and Poconos (Evans, 1941).
: Turbotville (1941). PIKE: Bushkill Falls (1941), Lake Wallenpaupack
and Shohola Falls (Torrey, 1937). SULLIVAN: Bernice (Nearing, 1939). SUSQUEHANNA:
Starrucca Depot (1941). WAYNE: Shehawken (1940), Galilee (Nearing, 1939).
49a. Cladonia pityrea var. Zwackhii Vainio

Characterized by its relatively short podetia. The only SS ae here.

BERKS: Wernersville (Mary E. Willia 1906, SMS., det. Mary ller; species
only on label). SCHUYLKILL: Zion’s Gee (1941). WAYNE. Sheowen oa.
49aa. Cladonia pityrea var. Zwackhii f. subacuta Vainio

If sterile, the podetia may be simple or irregularly branched, with gradually
tapering branches. If fertile, the podetia are usually simple.

HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, 1939). LACKAWANNA: Moscow (Near-
ing, 1939). LUZERNE: Pike’s Creek (Nearing, 1939). MIFFLIN: Maitland (1941). MON-

ROE: Poconos (Evans, 1941), Scotrun (Nearing, 1939). PIKE: Bushkill Falls (1941).
WAYNE: Scott Center (1941).

THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 61

49ab. Cladonia pityrea var. Zwackhii f. squamulifera Vainio

A form —— abundant squamules on the podetia.

HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, 1939). MONROE: Pocono Lake (Mrs. D.
ne 1935). TIOGA: Harrison State Park (Nearing, 1939). WAYNE: Galilee (Nearing,

and Lakewood (1941).

ac Cladonia pityrea var. Zwackhii f. epiphylla Sandst.

This form has short cupless podetia, with branches usually tipped with apo-
thecia, and is corticate throughout, and generally without soredia.

LUZERNE: Pike’s Creek (Nearing, 1939).
49ad. Cladonia pityrea var. Zwackhii f. phyllophora Sandst.

A form with indistinct cups, and squamules on podetia.

WAYNE: Lakewood (1942).

Group 3. Foliosae
50. Cladonia strepsilis (Ach.) Vainio
WAYNE: Shehawken (1940).

50a. Cladonia strepsilis f. coralloidea (Ach.) Vainio

This form is esorediose and squamulose.

LANCASTER: Wakefield (Nearing, 1940). MONROE: Poconos (Evans, 1941).
50b. Cladonia strepsilis f. glabrata Vainio

Podetia without soredia, and squamulose.

HUNTINGDON: Nature Camp (Thomson, 1938).

Group 4. Ochrochlorae
5la. Cladonia piedmontensis f. obconica Robbins
The podetia in this form are obconical, bear large apothecia, and are without
squamules, or only a few basally.
LANCASTER: Wakefield (Nearing, 1939).

51b. Cladonia piedmontensis f. squamulosa Robbins
This form has a tendency toward bearing large squamules throughout.
CHESTER: Nottingham (Nearing, 1940).

5lc. Cladonia piedmontensis f. lepidifera (Vainio) Robbins
The podetia are cylindrical, much-branched, and bear many small apothecia.
YORK: Delta (Nearing, 1940).

This catalog represents collections from 54 of the 67 counties of Pennsyl-
vania. Eight of the counties are represented by a collection of over 20 species,
in the following order: Wayne 46, Monroe 36, Pike 34, Huntingdon, Bradford,
and Chester 28 each, Lancaster 21, and Sullivan 20. The total number of col-
lections listed is 1040 odd specimens. This catalog includes 51 species, with
about 130 varieties and forms, of Cladonia in Pennsylvania.

62 BARTONIA

From the standpoint of number of collections, Cladonia cristatella, with 122
separate records in the state, is the commonest species. The rarest, based again
on the number of collections, are as follows: C. coccifera (1 doubtful specimen),
C. mitis 1, C. calycantha 1, C. major 1, C. cariosa 2, C. floridana 2, C. alpes-
tris 2, C. piodmontensis atl C. defovinis 3 each, C. cenotea, C. degentrane, 4
each, C. digitata 5, and C. didyma and C. turgida 6 each. Most of these rarer
species find in Pennsylvania either their northern or their southern limit.

Program of Meetings during 1942

Date Subject Speaker Attendance
Jan. 22....Plant Colonization Problems on Anthracite
Waste Heaps ..J. R. Schramm 17
Feb. 26....Camera Adventures with New Jersey —
Barre We 50s oo oe eee John Gill 54
Mar. 26....A Botanist’s Experiences in Kashmir ...... Robert R. Stewart 25
Apr. 25....Plant Collecting along a Mexican Highway..Mrs. Ida K. Langman 22
May 20....Exploring for Orchids and Air-plants in
"THORNE AMOTICE Soo a ees ge co Mulford B. Foster 54
Sept. 24....Reports by Members on Summer Work ........-.---seeeeeecerceceees 9
Oct. 29....A Botanist in the a Wests oreeee ease John M. Fogg, Jr. 34
Noy. 19,.<. Plants and Civilization 26.062. 35-33 Fo Elmer D. Merrill 47
Dec. 17....Native Plants in om "Field and the Garden. .Edgar T. Wherry 27
List of Officers and Members, 1942
Francis W. PENNELL, President
Harry W. TrupeLu, Vice-President
Ricuarp W. Pout, Secretary
Lee Sowpen, Treasurer
Bayarp Lone, Curator
Francis W. PENNELL, Editor of BARTONIA
ACTIVE MEMBERS
(as of February 1, 1943)
Elected
3. W: Apas, 32 Pleasant St., Germantown, ee os OE ee re erie oe 1925
Mas. A: C. Barnes, Latch’s Lane, Merion, Pa. ....22 2.0.6.0 0 cc eee cee e eee en ees 1942
Epwin B. Bartram, Bushkill, Pa. ..-. 1906
J. Russe. Bester, 135 E. Phil Ellena St., Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. ............-- 1919
Dr. Water M. Benner, 5636 Loretta Ave., Frankford, Philadelphia, Pa. .............-- 1912

Jasper T. Bentiey, 7334 Rural Lane, Mt. hiy: Philadelphia, Pa. 1933.

LIST OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS

Cart E. Briss, 76 N. Grove St., East Aurora, N. Y

63

1924

Cart Boyer, Wagner Institute, 17th St. & Montgomery Ave., Philadelphia, Pa. ...
Miss Erne Brusaker, “ The Fairfax ”, 48rd & Locust Sts., Philadelphia, Pa. ........

Lioyp G. Carr, Dept. of Botany, University of Ponneyivaiie, Philadelphia, Pa. ......
Miss Marte Curr1as, 233 Winona Ave., Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. ..........
Ricuarp B. Cum1as, 233 Winona Ave., Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. ............

Pror. M. A. Curyster, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N. J

... 1926
-.. 1939
... 1942
ove AGL
... 1942
1931

F. Van Buren Connett, 443 Berkley Road, Haverford, Pa.

Pater DePve, 4209 Longshore St., Tacony, Philadelphia, Pa.
W. H. Drx, 801 Crown S&t., Mocriavilic. Pa:

Rosert T. Dretspacu, 301 Helen St., Midland, Mich.

Leonarp J. Dumsrrn, 511 Walnut St., Columbia, Pa.

Miss Exizasetu C. Ginex 4209 Peake Ave., Philadelphia, Pa.

Howarp W. Erkrinton, 6514 Germantown Ave., Philadelphia, Pa.

Mrs. Haroitp Evans, “ Aebary yfe Weshinetn Lane, Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. ..

Ricuarp Brossom Fartey, “ Sarobia ”, Eddin

gton, Pa.
Dean Joun M. Foca, Jr., ee Hall, Universes of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. ..

Farman R. Furness, Media

Joun Guz, Haddon Farms, gdm a wy

Dr. Rosert B. Gorvon, State Teachers College, West Chester, Pa. ...........2.2555

Louis E. Hann, 8061 Fairview St., Holmesburg, i saat Pa.

... 1942

ArtHur M. Henry, 416 New Post Office, Atlant

Howarp K. Henry, 1464 Grayton St., Penn Wenas, Pa,

Mrs. J. Norman Henry, Gladwyne, Pa.

Miss JoSEPHINE DE NorMANn Henry, Gladwyne, Pa.

Miss L. K. Herrina, 444 Queen Lane, Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa.

Mrs. Arnoxp S. Hyarr, Andowee: Conn.

Les P. Hynes, Haddonfield, N. J.

Miss Nancy E. James, 4043 Baltimore Ave., Philadelphia, Pa.
Cuartes F. Jenxrns, Kitchens Lane, Mt. Airy, Philadelphia, Pa.

Miss Crara Kast, 2004 Spring Garden St., Philadelphia, Pa.

Miss Navarre B. Kruser, 538 E. Locust Ave., Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. .......

--- 1928
1911

Pror. W. A. Krrnz, Ursinus College, Collegeville, Pa.

Cuartes E. Knorr, 7161 Georgian Road, Philadelphix: Pa.

Ray Krrner, 419 Hershey Community Bldg., Hershey, Pa.
Dr. Henry A. Lazssrz, 5900 Market St., Philadelphia, Pa.

Mrs. Ipa K. Lanoman, 2316 Delancy St., Philadelphia, Pa.

Morais E. Leeps, 1025 Westview St., Mt. Airy, Philadelphia, Pa.
Dr. Harry A. Lioyp, 200 N. 35th St., Philadelphia, Pa.

Bayarp Lona, 250 Ashbourne Road, Elkins Park, Pa.
ERNEST

H. Lupwie, Walter Reed General Hospital, Washington, D. C

rwyn, Pa.
Dr. Samuet C. Parmer, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa

Dr. Rut Parrick, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa.

Harotp W. Prerz, 123 S. 17th St., Allento

wn, Pa.
Mrs. Kart Rueart, 612 Bryn Mawr Ave., Penn Valley, Pa.

64 BARTONIA

Rosert L. ScHaerrer, Jr., Dept. of Botany, Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. .. 1938

Dr. J. R. ScuramM, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. .... 1937
Miss Hexen B. Surtver, 2004 Spring Garden St., Philadelphia, Pa. 1935
Henry Sxrnner, Morris Arboretum, Chestnut Hill, Pa. ............ 20. eee eee e eee eee 1942
Lee Sownen, 3823 Oak Road, Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. -- 1901
Dr. Watter Steckseck, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa... 1925
Huau E. Srong, 431 Berkley Road, Haverford, Pa. . 1892
J. Frercuer Srreer, 1120 Locust St., Philadelphia, Pa. 1918
Dr. Rosert R. Tatnatt, 1100 W. Tenth St., Wilmington, Del. 1928
Horace E. THompson, 5016 Schuyler St., Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. 1920
Wm. M. Tuompson, Jr., Leroy Court Apts: #403, 1700 S. 60th St., Philadelphia, Pa. .. 1936
R. J. Trruertncron, 6317 N. Norwood St., Philadelphia, Pa. ..- 1942
Harry W. Truvext, 303 Highland Ave., Abington, Pa. so «SS
Miss Heren Vrooman, Ashbridge Road, Rosemont, Pa. 1942
Dr. Paut R. Wacner, Ursinus College, Collegeville, Pa. 1935
Warren H. Wacner, 7708 N.W. Morningside Drive, Washington, D. C. .............. 1942
E. Peror Waker, 511 Lynmere Road, Bryn Mawr, Pa. 1939
Mars. Marcuerire L. Warnxks, 142 S. Logan Ave., Audubon, N. J. 1935
Rosert F. Wetsu, 325 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, Pa. 1909
Dr. L. C. WHeeter, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. .... 1942
Dr. Encar T. Wuerry, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa... 1925
Hans Wrrxens, 424 S. 15th St., Reading, Pa. .. 1942
Wurm H. Wrrre, Riegelsville, Pas i 2: 1898
Carrott E. Woon, Jr., Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa... 1942
Miss Mary F. Watcut, 538 Locust Ave., Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. 1928

HONORARY MEMBERS

Samuet N. Baxter, Morris & Abbotsford Sts., Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. ......... 1918
Dr. Josep S. Inricx, State College of Povsstey. rem wy. . 1925
Epwarp Pennock, 243 Harvey St., Philadelphia, P Founder
Dr. Epwarp E. Wirpman, 4331 Osage Ave., Philadelphic, Pa. 1931

CORRESPONDING MEMBERS

Dr. Jonn H. Barnuart, New York ee Garden, New York, N. Y. .. 1936
Orway H. Brown, Cape May, N. J.. R. F. D. #1 .. 1908
Srewart H. Burnxam, Cornell Cane lise "2. Be 3 1911
Pror. M. L. Fernarp, Gray Herbarium, Harvard University. Cambridge, Mass. ......-..- 1929
Dr. A. AnrHur Hetter, Chico, Calif. 1893
Dr. Harorp Sr. Joun, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, T. H. . 1927
Dr. Wr11AM RanporpH TAyYLor, enged = Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. ..........-- 1921
Dr. Campsett E. Waters, Washington 1904

De. Heser W. YouNGKEN, gacanc Ocha of Pharmacy, Boston, Mass. ......--- 1918

Index to Species

(Also includes in bold-face type names of new forms.)

Aegilops cylindrica, 5

Carex mesochorea, 4

Cladonia acuminata, 36, 52; alpestris, 37, 38,
39, 62; oe 35, 37, 49; bacillaris, =
40; borbonica, 36, 60; caespiticia, ot;

chlorophaea, 34, 35, 55; clavulifera, 35, 38,
51; coccifera, 36, 41, 62; coniocraea, 34, 36,
37, 59; conista, 34, 35, 57; cristatella, 34, 37,
42, 62; cryptochlorophaea, 56; deformis, 35,
42, 62; a 36, 54, 62; piglet 36,
49; didyma, 34, 36, 41, 62; digitata, 35, 42,
62; fibrinta. 34, 35, 57; floerkeana, 36, 40;
floridana, 37, 47, 62; furcata, 34, 35, 37, 45;
gracilis, 34, 35, 36, 52: grayi, 34, 35, 56; g., f.
carneopallida, 57; incrassata, 36, 44; i., f.
aurantiaca, 44; macilenta, 36, 40; major, 35,
58, 62; mateocyatha, 36, 54; mitis, 37, 38, 39,
62; mitrula, 34, 37, 50; multiformis, 34, 36,

47; nemoxyna, 34, 35, 37, 58; ochrochlora,
36, 37, 58; papillaria, 35, 37, 39; piedmont-
ensis, 38, 61, 62; pityrea, 35, 36, 60; pleurota,

38; scabriuscula, 34, 35, 36, 46; silvatica, 37,
38; squamosa, 34, 36, 37, 47; strepsilis, 35,
-38, 61; subcariosa, 35, 38, 51; symphicarpa,
52; tenuis, 37, 38, 39; turgida, 34, 35, 37, 49,
62; uncialis, 35, 37, 44; verticillata, 34, 35,

,
Cuscuta campestris, 4
Euphorbia serpyllifolia, 5
Juncus effusus pylaei, 4

Panicum tsugetorum, 3

Phlox floridana, 1; g., f. bella, 2
Plantago indica, 4

Poa palustris, 3

Quercus cinerea, 3; incana, 3

Index to Persons Considered

(In account of Philadelphia Botanical Collectors)

Abbott, Millie, 23; Abbott, W. L., 29; Adams,
. W., 30; Alsop, Samuel, 27; Apgar, A. C.,
15; Austin, C. F., 12
Bachman, C. C., 27; Bartram, E. B., 27; Bas-
sett, F. L., 25; Bassett, G. W., 25; Beaver,
D. B. D., 18; Beitel, C. F., 27; Benner, W.
M., 29; Beringer, G. M., 20; Berkheimer,
David, 30; Bilgram, Hugo, 17; Bischoff, G.,
22; Boyer, C. S., 19; Brinton, J. B., 14;
Britton, N. L., 20; Brown, O. H., 26; Brown,
Stewardson, 22, 23; Browne, C. H., 15; Bru-
baker, Ethel, 30; Brumbach, W. G., 30;
Burk, Isaac, 11

Canby, W.M., 18, 27; Carter, J. J., 17, 23;
Commons, Albert, 13; Conard, H. S., 26, 27;
Crawford, Joseph, 20, 23

Darlington, William, 27; Dautun, Henry, 19;
Diffenbaugh, ree 22; Dowell, Philip, 27;
Dreisbach, R. R.,

Eby, A. F., 12; Eckfeldt, J. W., 18; Ellis, J.
B., 13; Everhart, B. M., 11

Febiger, Christian, 11; Fender, F. S., 29; Fish-
er, H. L. 20; BERS J. M., 29; Fosberg, F.
R., 30; Fothergill, Ann, 27; Fretz, C. D., 17,
23

Garber, A. P., 15; Githens, T. S., 23; Grass, E.
M., 26; Gross, C. A., 22; Grove, J. H., 19;
Gruber, C. L., 21

Haines, A. S., 27; Hamm, D. W., 27; Hand, L.
E., 31; Harshberger, J. W., 23, 24; Heller,
A. A., 22; Herbst, William, 14, 23, 27; Heri-
tage, Benjamin, 14, 23; Hermann, F. J., 30;
Hoopes, Benjamin, 27; Hoopes, Josiah, 14

Jackson, eo 11; Jahn, Albrecht, 23; Jel-
lett, E. C.,

Kain, C. H., 18; Kaiser, G. B., 15; Kauffman,
C. H., 24; Keller, I. A., 21, 23; Krout, A. F.
it, 15, 16,25; 27

Lang, H. A., 19; Larsen, E. L., 29; LaWall,
C. H., 25; Leeds, A. N., 23, 25; Leeds, M.
E., 23, 25; Leibelsperger, W. H., 26; Leidy,
Joiegh: 12; Leonard, E. C., 29; Lippincott,

C. D., 16, 23; Lochman, = N., 27; Long,
Bayard, a Lowe, J. D.,

MacElwee, Alexander, 23, 24; Macfarlane, J.
M., 19; Mackenzie, K. K., 26; Marot,
Philip, 23; Martin, George, 13; Martindale,
I. C., 16; Meehan, Thomas, ee 23; Mere-
dith, H. B., me Moyer, I. 8., 15, 17; Mur-
phy, A. R., 1

Nearing, G. 30
Oberlin, T. J., 18; Otis, J. P., 17

Painter, J. H., 27; Palmer, T. C., 17, 20; Pal-
mer, Walter, 20; Parker, C. F., 12, 16; Pat-
rick, Ruth, 30; Pennell, F. W., 28; Pennock,
Aldrich, 23; Peters, J. E., 18; Porter, T. C.,
12, 27; Poyser, W. A., 27; Pretz, H. W., 26;
Price, F. W., 23

Rau, E. A., 17, 27; Redfield, J. H., 10; Redles,
George, 23; Reece, Davis, 27; Rex, George,
17; Rhoads, J. R., 13; Rothrock, J. T., 15;
Ruth, H. F., 21; Ruth, J. A., 21

Saunders, C. F., 20, 23; Schaeffer, Charles, 23;

i 18;

seph, 23; Stone, H. E., 25; Stone, Witmer,
a <3
Tanger, L. F. A., 30; Tatnall, Edward, 11, 23,

27; Tatnall, R. R., 25; Taylor, Norman, 27;

Henry, 17; Trimble, Samuel, 17, — Trim-
ble, William, 17, 23; True, R. H,,

Van Pelt, S.S., 21, 23

Ware, C. S., 28; Wherry, E. T., 28; Wilkens,
Hans, 30; Williams, Newlin, 23; William-
son, C. §., 19, 23; Willmarth, H. M., 18;
Wingate, Harold, 19; Wismer, Virginia, 15;
Witte, W. H., 21, 26; Wolle, Francis, 11;
Wood, H. C., 16; Woolman, Lewis, 16

York, H. H., 26

66

ae en

se, ee ke be ee

ro
.
mS
*

No. 23 1944-1945
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
PHILADELPHIA BotanicaL CLUB

Bartonia No. 23 PLATE 1

Phlox triflora Michaux
Type specimen in Michaux herbarium, Paris
(Courtesy of Mr. Ivar Tidestrom)

Phlox carolina I.
Type specimen in Linnaean herbarium
(Courtesy of Dr. Wm. R. Maxon)

BARTONIA

PROCEEDINGS OF THE PHILADELPHIA BOTANICAL
CLUB

No. 23 PHILADELPHIA, PA. 1943-1944

The Phlox carolina Complex

Epgar T. WHERRY

In a series of papers in Bartronia from 1929 to 1934 the writer discussed the
eastern Phloxes, concluding that 15 species could be recognized. Subsequent
studies have led to no change in this list, but the subdivision of the species into
infra-specific entities now needs some revision. In those papers the primary
subdivision of the species was termed the variety. For some years, however, the
more progressive taxonomists have taken to using the term subspecies instead.
While some rather violent denunciations of the latter term have been published,
the arguments against it have been subjective and legalistic rather than objective
and scientific. Accordingly, it has been decided to adopt the concept of sub-
species for major subdivisions of species.

On the other hand, the plan of merely listing entities of lower rank without
assigning them technical epithets is being continued. These minor variants are
of special interest to students of evolution, geneticists, ecologists, ete., and to fol-
low rules which may require the use of an inappropriate epithet is likely to re-
sult in more confusion than clarity. For example, Bentham mistakenly pub-
lished the combination Phlox carolina y puberula for an entity which was not a
bit more puberulent than the original P. carolina, but differed therefrom in hav-
‘ing shorter inflorescence-branches. When the significance of branch-length is
under investigation, it would be ridiculous to have to use the epithet puberula
for the short-branched variant.

The most extensive changes from former usage are called for in connection
with Phlox carolina L. The treatment of its history presented in the writer’s
previous discussion was not as full as now seems desirable, so it is here expanded.
The entity was first noted by Martyn! in 1728 with the characterization:
“Tychnidea Caroliniana, Floribus quasi umbellatim dispositis; foliis lucidis

1 Hist. Plant. Rar.; 10, pl. 10, 1728; ed. 2: A pl. 9, 1752. What wee pe promety the same
species was was figured by Dilleni ius, Hort Eltham 1: 205, pl. 166, f. 203, 1

2 BARTONIA

crassis, acutis.” His plate shows the upper part of a flowering stalk, with oblong-
lanceolate leaves and long panicle-branches. The geographic designation indi-
cates that the plant i meg sent to England by Catesby, who was in South
Carolina from 1722 to 1725.

In 1745, after he as ick to England, Catesby wrote to Linnaeus? that
he had arranged for a Dr. Lawson to send over some American plants which he
deemed worthy of cultivation in Linnaeus’ garden. Included in the list was a
“ Lychnidea flore purpureo,” presumably the species under discussion.

The generic term Lychnidea was in Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum * replaced
by Phlox. In the original edition of this work, however, he failed to include the
Catesby-Martyn plant. This was classed as a Phlox by Miller * in 1759, but he
did not publish a binomial. He noted, however, that it appears a fortnight later
than another species, which was said to bloom in June.

His attention being called to this Phlox by Miller’s reference to it, Linnaeus
evidently pressed two specimens from his garden, where the material sent by Dr.
Lawson had grown, and added the sheet to his herbarium, as noted by Jackson,
subsequent to 1755. Then in the second edition of the Species Plantarum ® he
proposed for it the epithet carolina, with the following description:

“PHLOX foliis lanceolatis laevibus, caule scabro, corymbis subfastigiatis. [then fol-
lowed quotations from Miller and Martyn] Similis Ph. glaberrimae, sed Caulis triplo altior,
nonnihil scaber. Folia latiora, ex ovato-lanceolata. Corymbus floribus numerosis, pluribus
pedunculis ex a supremis foliorum, erectis, quasi in corymbum fastigiatis. Corollarum
tubus laevis est.

Some subsequent workers have reduced the Linnaean epithet to synonymy
with P. glaberrima L., which had been named in the finst edition of the Species
Plantarum, while piles have not only accepted it as valid, but have also pro-
posed additional epithets for closely related entities. The present writer favors
the recognition of P. carolina as an independent species, and the assignment of
relatives to infra-specific status under it. The original representative may be
known as:

Phlox carolina typica Wherry, nom. nov.

Stem scabrous, about 75 cm. tall; nodes remote; leaves changing gradually in
- outline from one node to the next, dominantly oblong-lanceolate, their maximum
a aera shown few nodes below the inflorescence, 75 and 25 mm.; sepals (8)

ong, united over half their length to a cylindric sub-urceolate tube,
ay junction-membranes narrow and inconspicuous; summer-blooming.

2Select. Corresp. Linn., by J. E. Smith 2: 440, 1821.

3 Species Plantarum: 151, 1753.

4Gard. Dict., ed. 7: PHL col. 7, No. 2, 1759.
sheath Vaccligg Gee toe tpetouenlk stich wae Seadlly ai tained for me it 1928 by Dr. William
Maxon, is reproduced herewith (Plate 1).

6 Species Plantarum, ed. 2. 1: 216, 1762.

THE PHLOX CAROLINA COMPLEX 3

Synonyms: P. ovata var. elatior Gray;7 P. ovata tall form Gray.8

SuPerFLuous EpirHETs: P. caroliniana Hill® The drawing illustrating this epithet rep-
resents the compact-inflorescence form of the plant.

P. carnea Loddiges,!° not P. carnea Sims; 11 P. carolina Sweet.12 This differed in the
leaves being scabrous and in blooming in autumn. Loddiges gave its source as “banks of
the Missouri.” This indicates that he had obtained it from Nuttall, but had guessed as to
_ its native place; for Fraser’s catalog of 1813 included a number of Nuttall’s plants col-
lected “principally on the River Missourie.” Actually, no Phlox was listed in that cat-
alog, and this one was no doubt obtained by Nuttall on his second southern trip in 1816,
when he reached the Carolinas. Sweet attributed the plant to Nuttall without giving any
locality.

. coldryana Hort. ex Paxton,3 alleged to be a hybrid, of Ec EY parentage. This
large-leaved oe -flowered form is best classed as a horticultural vari

P. carolina y puberula Bentham,!4 based on P. carolina ae a spite of Linnaeus
having defined the original P. carolina as having “ caule scabro,” Bentham placed in this
greek-letter category the plant figured by Sims and stated to have the stem “rough with
stiff, short, white hairs.” Actually the Sims plant does not differ from the original in any
significant respe

Distrisution: The original plant and some of its variants came from un-
specified points in South Carolina, probably in the Piedmont sypoecaeed prov-
ince. Chapman distributed specimens of it from “Georgia.” The r has
found it in that region but only rarely; cultivation, overgrazing, and ouasaiia
have largely destroyed such plants there. It seems to be no longer in cultiva-
tion or at least not in the horticultural trade.

The series of entities regarded as separate subspecies will now be taken up
in the chronological order of their original announcement.

Phlox carolina altissima (Moench) Wherry, stat. nov.

The epithet altissima was originally published as a substitute for P. carolina
L., and so was superfluous; but the description accompanying it indicated a dif-
ferent entity to be represented. When in 1932 the writer needed an infra-
specific epithet for the common Appalachian plant, he took up Moench’s in va-
rietal status, because the description fits reasonably well: in cultivation the sta-
ture had become “ orgyali” or about 180 cm. tall, and in nature 125 to 150 cm.

7 Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci. 8: 249, 1870. Only epithets based as is this on the same
type specimen or original poise of an entity are regarded as true synonyms.

8 Syn. FLW: A. 201) < 10. 1878. By Lia cated Gray had recognized the undesirability
of assigning technical epithets to minor v:

® Veg. Syst. 8: 32, pl. 31, fig. 4, 1773.
10 Bot. Cab. 8: pl. 711, 1823.

11 Curt. Bot. Mag. 47: pl. 2155, 1820.
12 Brit. Fl. Gard. 2: pl. 190, 1827.

13 Mag. Bot. 7: pl. 197, 1840; P. “caldriana Courtois ex x Stee, Nomenclator, ed. 2.
2: 322, 1841; P. “ oldryana » ‘Walpers, peptone. ©: 526,

14In DC. Prodr. 9: 304, 1845.
15 Curt. Bot. Mag. 33: pl. 1344, 1810.

x

4 BARTONIA

is sometimes shown by the mountain plant (whereas other representatives of P.
carolina are rarely more than half as tall). Moench noted too that the stem was
dark at the nodes, and one of the striking field characters of the plant in question
is the abundance of anthocyans, causing the stem to be dark-blotched, the leaves
especially dark green above, and the corolla intense purple.

rom P. carolina typica this entity differs in the generally greater stature,
more numerous, close-set nodes, larger leaves—up to 100 mm. long and 40 mm
wide—and shorter sepals, their range being 6 to 8 or rarely 8.5 mm. in length.
The blooming period extends from midsummer well into autumn.

Synonyms: P. altissima Moench;1!¢ P. carolina var. altissima Wherry.17

SUPERFLUOUS EPITHETS: P. suffruticosa Ventenat,1§ not Hort. This was proposed in a
brief footnote appended to the discussion of other species. Five years later it was more
fully described by Willdenow,1® who is indeed often given as the author of the name. To

full information as to its features, one has also to refer to its earliest illustration,
published by Edwards.?° It has also been classed as P. glaberrima var. suffruticosa Gray.?1
For some reason this one of the many names applied to members of the Phlox carolina
complex has appealed most strongly to horticulturists, and is in general use not only for
various of its subspecies, but also for hybrids of it with P. maculata, even though scarcely
any of the material is really suffruticose or basally shrubby. The plant to which the epithet
belongs produces in autumn multiple short sterile shoots with elliptic leaves which persist
through the winter. As this is the only recognizable difference from the usual form of the
entity here classed as ssp. altissima, no segregation seems called for

Phlox nitida Pursh; 22 P. carolina 8 nitida Bentham; 23 P. m silata var. nitida Chap-
man.2# Except for its lesser stature, recorded by Pursh for tihivetad material which may
have been stunted, this corresponds exactly to the mountain plant under discussion.

Here should also be mentioned Phlox carolina Sweet.25 Instead of ssp. typica, this

ms to represent ssp. altissima, differing merely in having scabrous leaves. It was in-
cluded by Brand in the aggregate he termed P. carnea, though not the same as the plant
to which that name was originally applied.

DisrrisuTion: This subspecies is the widespread representative of P. carolina
in the southern Appalachians, ranging from northern Alabama and Georgia to
Tennessee and North Carolina, in the Blue Ridge, Appalachian Plateau, and ad-
jacent parts of bordering provinces. In the field its dark green herbage and
deep purple flowers, produced over a long season, are striking. The stems are

16 Meth. Pl. Hort. Marburg: 454, 1794.

17 Barronia 13: 36, 1932.

18 Jard. Malmaison 2: No. 107, footnote, 1804.
19 Enum. Pl. Hort. Berol.: 200, 1809

20 Bot. Reg. 1: pl. 68, 1815.

21 Syn. Fl. N. A. 2(1): 130, 1878.

22 Flora Amer. Sept. 2: 730, 1814.

23In DC. Prodr. 9: 304, 1845.

24 Flora 8. U. S.: 338, 1860.

25 Brit. Flower Gard. 2: pl. 190, 1827.

THE PHLOX CAROLINA COMPLEX 5

usually solitary or in sparse groups, and sterile shoots are rarely developed at
flowering time. What proportion of the plants are “ suffruticose” and develop
short persistent shoots can only be ascertained by winter field work, which has
not as yet been practicable.

Phlox carolina triflora (Michaux) Wherry, stat. nov.

The description of this entity furnished by Michaux was rather incomplete,
but the type specimen ?* shows the following features:

Stem about 35 cm. tall, with few nodes; leaves changing gradually in size
and shape from linear to oblong-lanceolate, their maximum dimensions shown
near the base of the inflorescence, 50 and 10 mm.; sepals about 10 mm. long,
united over half their length to a narrowly campanulate tube, the junction-mem-
branes broad and conspicuous.

The striking difference in calyx-features from the entities previously discussed
might lead to its being classified as an independent species, were there not num-
erous intermediates between them. All of the entities involved are decidedly
variable, and the present one, as studied in the field, proves to overlap the others
in stature, number of nodes, length of sepals and even conspicuousness of junc-
tion-membranes in the calyx, to say nothing of blooming period and abundance
of anthocyan in the herbage.

Synonyms: P. triflora Michaux;27 P. glaberrima, form with lax corymb, Gray;28 P.
carolina var. triflora Wherry.29

Supsrrivous Epiruets: P. carnea Sims.29 The careful description of the calyx furnished
by Sims shows this to belong to the present subspecies, although the plant was 90 em. tall,
with red-maculate stems and maximum leaf-dimensions 60 and 15 mm.; moreover, it was
recorded as blooming in England in autumn. It thus showed some approach to ssp. altts-
sima, and may indeed have been a hybrid with that. On the other hand, P. carnea Morris*1
corresponds closely to the original plant named triflora by Michaux. Other uses of the
epithet carnea are noted elsewhere.

P. revoluta Aikin32 So far as can be judged from the brief diagnosis, this differed
from the Michaux plant only in having the stem and leaves slightly scabrous. It repre-
sented the northeasternmost occurrence of P. carolina, in the Maryland piedmont, whence
it has long since vanished under the onslaughts of civilization.

P. bridgesti Marnock.33 A rather tall variant with the leaves subcordate. This epithet
should perhaps be classed as a horticultural variety name.

26 For a photograph of this I am indebted to Mr. Ivar Tidestrom. It is reproduced
here (Plate 1) to bring out the general similarity of the plant to ssp. typica.

27 Flora Bor.-Amer. 1: 143, 1803.

28 Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci. 8: 250, 1870.
29 Bartonia 13: 36, 1932.

30 Curt. Bot. Mag. 47: pl. 2155, 1820.

31 Flora Conspicua: pl. 16, 1825.

32 Trans. Md. Acad. Sci. Let. 1: 90, 1837.
33 Hort. Mag. 6: 182, pl. 69, 1842.

6 BARTONIA

Reference must also be made here to the entity to which si epithet triflora hae applied
by Sweet.34 It had the stem “thickly clothed with a dense woolly pubescence,” and max-
imum leaf-dimensions 65 and 25 mm. As noted in the 1932 paper, pubescent stems occur
in various subdivisions of the species.

Another variant which has not received a technical epithet is the narrow-
leaved one, noted by the writer in the 1932 article (3). In this the leaves
scarcely widen upward, being only narrowly linear-lanceolate at the inflores-
cence-base. It thus forms a transition between Phlox carolina and P. glaber-
rima, and has indeed been mistaken for the latter in recent reports of its redis-
covery in Virginia, including one by the writer.2> Actually every modern col-
lection seen proves to have the long campanulate calyx of P. carolina triflora.

Distrisution of P. carolina triflora: This is the most northern of the sub-
species, occurring in Georgia and Alabama only at fairly high elevations, and
ranging from there, in various physiographic provinces, to Indiana and Mary-
land. It is also the earliest to bloom, the usually rather light purple corollas
beginning to open in late May. The crowns send up in addition to the flowering
shoots also sterile ones of similar stature, bearing at the tip a rosette of elliptic
leaves. These sterile shoots are usually deciduous, but occasionally one will
bend down and take root at a node, the terminal rosette then persisting through
the winter and starting off a new clump the following spring. As in the other
subspecies tall sterile shoots are less well developed, this forms a useful character
for field recognition of the present one. The tissues are also usually poor in
anthocyan, so that the leaves are light green.

Phlox carolina heterophylla (Beauvais ex Brand) Wherry, stat. nov.

In keying out the species of Phlox, Brand ** distinguished a P. ovata, with the
stem glabrous and leaves ovate to elliptic, from a P. carnea having the stem
pilose and the upper leaves much broader than the lower. His text shows
that he included P. carolina L. under the former, overlooking Linnaeus’ char-
acterization of the stem as scabrous. Though attributing the epithet carnea to
Sims, Brand on page 65 gave a description not in agreement with the text and
plate published by that author. He then listed three illustrations—two repres-
enting different forms of P. carolina typica, the third P. maculata—and added
as a synonym P. heterophylla P. Beauvais mss. Finally two collections were
cited, North Carolina, Gray & Carey, July 1841 (specimens of which in American
herbaria are P. ovata L.); and Georgia, Rising Fawn, Curtiss 6795 (our own
specimens being P. carolina triflora).

The simplest way out of this bit of chaos is to ignore the illustrations and
specimens cited by Brand, and to use the Beauvais manuscript epithet heter-

34 Brit. Flower Gard. 1: pl. 29, 1823.
35 Bartonia 16: 42, 1935.
36In Engler’s Pflanzemreich IV. 250: 55, 1907.

THE PHLOX CAROLINA COMPLEX 7

ophylla for the representative of P. carolina corresponding to Brand’s descrip-
tion as to leaf-characters. Field study shows this to have the features:

Height to 90 cm.; nodes few; lowest leaves linear, those at successive nodes
markedly widened, until near the inflorescence their dimensions may reach 75

5 mm.; calyx urceolate, 7-9.5 mm. long.

Synonyms: P. heterophylla Beauvais ex Brand, emend.37 P. carolina var. heterophylla
Wherry,38 in large part.

DistrisuTion of P. carolina heterophylla: This entity apparently centers in
northern Alabama, but ranges locally to Mississippi, Georgia, and western Flor-
ida, in Plateau and Coastal Plain provinces. It blooms in summer and at that
time may bear elongate sterile shoots much like those of ssp. triflora, but fewer
in number. The stem is usually glabrate, but as noted in the writer’s previous
paper, there is a soft-hairy variant.

Phlox carolina turritella Wherry, ssp. nova.

Toward the southwestern side of the species range there occurs an entity
like the last in some respects, but having more numerous nodes, with the largest
leaves at the middle of the stem. In annotating herbarium sheets the writer has
in the past labelled such specimens “ var.heterophylla,”’ but now proposes to sepa-
rate them.

The characters of the novelty are:

Height 50 to 100 cm.; nodes numerous, usually 15 to 30, rather crowded;
principal leaves elliptic-oblong, -- mci at or near the middle of the ste m, to
90 mm. long and 20 upper forming a tapering cone of foliage, to
which the epithet a sebals 7 is 9 mm. long, united % to 3% their length to
a cylindric sub-urceolate tube, the junction-membranes rather inconspicuous.

Planta 50-100 em. alta; nodi ca. 15-30, subcongesti; folia majora elliptico-
PEE: ‘edo caule maxima, usque ad 90 mm. longa et 20 mm. lata, apicem
versus conum foliorum attenuatum offert; sepala 7-9 mm. longa, in tubo sub-
urceolato 14-34 longitudinis conjuncta.

Type: Open woods 5 miles west of Autaugaville, Autauga County, Alabama
(32-27, 86-44), collected by Edgar T. Wherry July 13, 1932, in herbarium
Academy Natural Sciences Philadelphia. Known also from Clarke, Henry, and
Wilcox counties, Alabama, and as intermediates elsewhere.

Subspecies Intermediates

Intermediates between the recognized subspecies are frequent, one as noted
above being apparently the basis for P. carnea Sims. Mention should here be
made of one collected by Mrs. J. Norman Henry in Meriwether County, a
and cultivated in her garden at Gladwyne, Montgomery County, This
produces short persistent sterile shoots, like those of the suffruticosa Sass of

37 Op. cit., p. 65; excluding citations and restricting to key-characters.
38 BarTonIA 13: 36, 1932.

Bartonia No. 23

PLATE 2

=e
<=

5A)
iy \ eae
~

Ss
aN

Plate 2. Subspecies of Phlox carolina.
At left, P. carolina heterophylla; at right, P. carolina turritella.
The calyces in the center are twice natural size; the lower one, subcampanulate with
conspicuous junction-membranes, represents ssp. triflora; the upper, sub-urceolate with
_ obscure membranes, is the type characterizing all the other subspecies.
: 8

THE PHLOX CAROLINA COMPLEX 9

ssp. altissima; as in that, too, its blooming season extends over a long period in
summer and autumn. On the other hand, in the arrangement of the leaves and
the sepal-length it is more like ssp. turritella. The inflorescence is very large,-
and the corollas have a lovely glowing pink hue, enhanced by the golden anthers
in the center. Far superior to any of the so-called suffruticosa Phloxes in culti-
vation, it is being placed in the horticultural trade under the name Phlox caro-
ma “ Gloriosa.”
PHLOX CAROLINA: KEY TO SUBSPECIES AND RELATIVES

STEM-NODES only 3-5 (6) below inflorescence; calyx (8) 9-13 mm. long; blooming period
late spring to summer; short sterile shoots conspicuous, persistent; uplands, n Paes to
Ohio and Pa. P. ovata

STEM-NODES 6 or more below inflorescence; calyx not over Aas mm. long.

ROOTSTOCK stout and short, producing multiple green or moderately red-maculate
stems; upper leaves and lower bracts basally eae truncate or exceptionally
su ate; ieioreaee cence more or less corymbose

NODES few, 6-12; largest leaves above mid-stem; late spring to summer.
CALYX sub-campanulate, the junction-membranes broad and _ conspicuous;
length (8) 9-11 mm.; nodes sub-uniformly spaced, the leaf-shape changing grad-
y from one to the next ; Khan 3% leaves long- lanceolate (to linear north-
eastward); tall sterile shoots well-developed, some becoming decumbent
persistent; Ala. to Ind. & Ma, in ase Beg only northward...P. carolina triflora.
CALYX cylindric to sub-urceolate, the ep ees ea narrow, plicate, in-
conspicuous; upper nodes wi : le shoots few
LEAF-SHAPE changing gradually from cae to node, benching oblong-
lanceolate; calyx (8) 9-11 mm. long; foothills, S.C. and Ga. _
P. carolina typica

LEAF-SHAPE changing rapidly from — to node, becoming oblong or
ovate; calyx 7-9 (10) mm. long; Miss. to S. C. sate . Tenn
- eke heterophylla.
NODES numerous, 12-25 (30); tall sterile shoots little Tes
ee LEAVES oblong-lanceolate, crowded or moderately spaced; persis-
t short sterile shoots sometimes well-developed.
Aas soa T LEAVES near mid-stem; calyx 7-9 mm. long; late spring to

summer; lowlands, Ala. and Ga. carolina turritella.
LARGEST LEAVES above mid-stem; calyx 6-8 ie long; summer to _
autumn; uplands, Ga. to N. C. arolina altissima.

PRINCIPAL LEAVES linear to elongate-lanceolate or Br Sar short elliptic
on new growth, well-spaced; no persistent shoots developed ; calyx 6-8 (9) mm
long, the 4 PET wg Cer a eepirig St a late spring en e. Tex.

to Fla., s. W . N. C. (or adj. V:
ROOTSTOCK slender, oa eile up at tip hail a solitary stem, which is strongly
red-maculate, or nm in mutants; nodes numerous, cro upper leaves and lower

bracts sear ipe eas gine cordate hae; ———— whe cylindrie or excep ve tionally
~coni often elongate; ae mm. long, the junction-me fairly
broad; late spring to autumn; N. C. to Que. and Minn maculata.

In Defense of the Validity of William Bartram’s Binomials *

E. D. Merritu

But for the fact that various references in Rafinesque’s numerous botanical
papers which were under examination in connection with the preparation of an
“ Index Rafinesquianus ” involved me in an examination of Bartram’s “ Travels ”,
it is highly probable that this paper would not have been prepared. Normally,
like Professor Fernald, I probably should tacitly have accepted Dr. Rickett’s?
conclusions regarding the non-validity of Bartram’s binomials, and thought no
more about the matter. However, in connection with Rafinesque’s reference to
Bartram, I found it essential to prepare an index to the technical names of
plants used by the latter. While a number of the Bartram names were accepted
soon after they were published and have been recognized by all botanists as
valid, many others have consistently been overlooked. A high percentage of
those that were entered in our standard indices have either incomplete or erron-
eous references. With this background, and after a rather critical examination
of the compiled Bartram data I am personally convinced that, whether we like
it or not, we must continue to consider Bartram’s Travels as a legitimate source
of properly published binomials in botany. In this opinion I have the support
of all of my associates at the Gray Herbarium and the Arnold Arboretum with
whom the matter has been discussed.

Eprtor’s Nore.—Because bE Bartram (1739-1823) was a Philadelphian it seems ap-
= that this discussion of t atin names of plants that appeared in his classic
‘

ons, he ‘
Philadelphia in 1791, should appear in our journal. William Bartram was traveling from
1773 to 1777, and so returned to our city after the Revolutionary War had begun; by the
sien peace Bei = both his _ english patron, Dr. John Fothergill ( 1712-80), “and the
er 2),

me ope anaes of William Bartram: see Dr. Witmer Stone in Bartonia 12S:
20-23, “i931; in a ’2 bibliography of works by him and also about hin see Hoa John H. Barn-

in Bartonia : 55-66; and for the original report of his travels in Georgia and
Florida, eg abundant —— — Dr. Francis Harper in Trans. Amer. Philos.
: — pls. 943. In two y abticles in Bartonia 21: 6-8, 1942, and 22: 3,

: . Harper a ened the adoption of certain neglected names from the
“Travels”, while in Rhodora 46: 389-391, 1944, Dr. H. W. Rickett of the new York Botan-
ical Garden has opposed that course. Now we welcome a careful consideration of the whole
problem by Dr. E. D. Merrill of Harvard University.

1 Rickett, H. W., “ Legitimacy of names in Bartram’s ‘ Travels’.” Rhodora 46: 389-391.
944.

10

IN DEFENSE OF THE VALIDITY OF WILLIAM BARTRAM’S BINOMIALS 1l

As I interpret the Bartram entries the number of different names that he used
as binomials is about 358 as compared with only two “ descriptive phrases” or
entries without binomials, for plant species. I maintain that this proportion of
358 to 2, as between binomials and polynomials is too great in favor of the former
to justify the elimination of Bartram’s work on the basis of Article 86 of the
International Rules. He cites the same binomial from one to many times, there
actually being about 950 binomial entries in the volume. Examples of binomials
mentioned over and over again are Magnolia grandiflora Linn. (28), Lawrus
borbona Linn. (21), Aesculus pavia Linn. (17), Morus rubra Linn. (17), Fagus
sylvatica Linn. (14), Juglans nigra Linn. (12), and Quercus tinctoria Bartr. (12).

Article 86 of the International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature was pre-
pared to take care of certain publications that were issued in the transitional
period following the publication of the binary system in 1753, for certain authors
did not accept the later system, preferring to follow the more cumbersome earlier
one, and yet here and there published “ accidental” binomials after 1753.
Rumphius’ “ Herbarium Amboinense ” is a classical example, the manuscript of
which was prepared in the closing decades of the seventeenth century, the six
volumes forming the work proper being published between the years 1741 and
1750; the “ Auctuarium” was not published until 1755, two years after the
“ Species Plantarum ” was issued. The work is a typical pre-Linnaean one and
all of the volumes contain numerous incidental binomials as well as monomials
and polynomials. The incidental binomials published in the six volumes that
were issued between 1741 and 1750 have no standing under the binary system,
and those published in the Auctuarium in 1755 are illegitimate under Article
86 of the Rules.

Dr. Rickett concludes that the new binomials published in Bartram’s
Travels should be ignored on the basis of Article 86 of the Rules which provides
that specific epithets are illegitimate when they are published in works in which
the Linnaean system of binary nomenclature was not consistently employed.
In a note appended to Rickett’s paper, Professor Fernald accepted his conclu-
sions. To prove his point Dr. Rickett cites a number of entries which he inter-
prets as polynomials, yet in opposition I maintain that in all but two of the
sited cases, the first two words of each phrase consists of a generic and a
specific name, or actually binomials, some proposed by earlier authors, some
proposed by Bartram as new, and that the remaining words in each entry are
descriptive of the species under consideration. In some cases the descriptions
are in Latin, in others in English only, and in still others both in Latin and
English.

There are only two botanical entries in the entire work where species are
described by Latin phrases, without a binomial. One is “ Ipomea, caule erecto,
ramoso, tripedali, fol. radicalibus ...” p. 376, yet elsewhere in the book we note
the entry “ Ipomea erecta”, p. 59, from which we may assume that it was Bar-

12 - BARTONIA

tram’s intent to associate this binomial with the descriptive sentence quoted;
there is no cross reference. The other case is “ the fantastic Clitoria... (Clit.
caule volubili, fol. ternatis pennatisque...) ” p. 243, for neither here nor else-
where in the volume is there a binomial for this species. Dr. Rickett cites on
case with a [Linnaean] binomial followed by a descriptive sentence, in
“ (Smilax pseudo China; Smilax aspera, fructu nigro, radice nodosa...) ” where
Bartram quotes Sloane’s descriptive phrase, either from Sloane’s work or from
Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum 1031. 1753. A more striking case that he did not
note is “ (Panicum hirtellum, gramen panicum maximum, spica divisa, aristis
armatum, Sloan, Jam. Cat. p. 30) ”, p. 430, for here Bartram deliberately added
a binomial, Panicum hirtellum, to Sloane’s descriptive sentence which is “ Gra-
men paniceum maximum, spica divisa, aristis armatum.” Clearly as Smilax
pseudo-china is the Linnaean binomial, so also is Panicum hirtellum a Bartram
binomial, even if the former is set off by a semicolon, and the latter by a comma
only. I do not consider, as Dr. Rickett does, that the entries “ Pinus taeda, foliis
geminatis et trinis,...”, and “ Pinus palustris, foliis trinis,...”, p. 378, “ Mag-
nolia pyramidata, foliis ovatis...”, p. 408, and “ Corypha repens, frondibus ex-
pansis ...”, p. 61, to be polynomials, but rather the first two words of each form
the binomial, for Pinus taeda Linn., Pinus palustris Mill., or at least as the
latter was interpreted by Walter, Magnolia pyramidata Bartr., and Corypha
repens Bartr. Elsewhere in the work Bartram cites as binomials, in Pinus taeda
seven times, P. palustris eight times, Magnolia pyramidata once, and Corypha
repens twice. Another striking case, not cited by Dr. Rickett, is that of Aescu-
lus, p. 476; “ Aesculus pavia, floribus coccineis, caule suffruticoso, Aesculus
sylvatica, floribus ex albo et carneo eleganter variegatis, caule arboreo.” We
can only assume that here Bartram intended by the first Aesculus pavia Linn. to
which he added a short descriptive phrase to contrast it with Aesculus sylvatica
which he proposed as new; elsewhere in his work Bartram cites Aesculus sylva-
tica five times as a binomial without descriptive data. ‘“ Stewartia montana,
fol. ovatis acuminatis, serratis, flor. nivea, staminum corona fulgida, pericarp.
pomum exsuccum, apice acuminato dehiscens,” p. 334, is another case in point,
for from the binomial Stewartia montana a foot note is supplied: “ This is a new
species of Stewartia, unknown to the European botanists and not mentioned
in any catalogues.” How is it possible to interpret this long entry as a poly-
nomial when Bartram definitely states that Stewartia montana, which he pro-
ceded to describe, is a new species and for which he deliberately published a bi-
nomial?

What was Bartram’s intent? I think that it is clear, from the published
record, that he definitely planned to follow the binomial system, for in botany
he was thoroughly familiar with this. He was also familiar with Catesby’s
polynomial names for birds. The transitional period from the pre-Linnaean to
the binary system had long since passed when Bartram prepared his text. He

IN DEFENSE OF THE VALIDITY OF WILLIAM BARTRAM’S BINOMIALS 13

cites no less than about 358 different binomials for plants, as binomials, some of
them listed many times as he observed the same species here and there in his
travels; the total, including repetitions, is about 950 as noted above. He ac-
cepted those binomials previously published for species with which he was fami-
liar, and incidentally proposed no less than about 130 new ones for species that
were new to him. As some of his binomials were consistently accepted by num-
erous early authors as far as they were noted, beginning with Willdenow in 1799,
I maintain that Bartram should not be penalized at this late date, merely be-
cause he lapsed from the binomial system in two cases only as noted above, and
apparently in both cases by oversight rather than by intent. Yet the Ipomoea
case, cited above, is specifically mentioned by Dr. Rickett as indicating that
“we can admit no further doubt ” as to Bartram’s use of polynomials; he prob-
ably did not note the entry Ipomea erecta on page 59. As to whether or not it
was Bartram’s intent to follow the binomial system, the entry on page 164 sup-
plies some evidence. In the description of Cacalia heterophylla he says:
“ (Syngenesia Polygamia Oqul. [Aequalis])”, here indicating the Linnaean
group to which his new species belonged.

It may be noted in passing that when Linnaeus established the binomial
system in 1753 he was not wholly consistent, for in the Species Plantarum, we
note Apocynum fol. androsaemi. Other types of Linnaean specific names that
have been objected to are lachryma jobi, bursa pastoris, unguis cati, coma aurea,
hnum stellatum (Lysimachia), trich[ omanes] dentatum, trich[omanes] ramo-
sum, adiant[um] nigrum, and ruta muraria, these under Asplenium, capillus ven-
eris (Adiantum), f{tlix]mas, f{ilix] femina, flilix] fragile, these under Poly-.
podium, crista castrensis (Hypnum), flos aquae (Byssus) and morsus ranae'
(Hydrocharis). In the past ee of these forms have been simplified as lach-
ryma, bursa, unguis, morsus, etc., but in general they are now universally ac-
cepted in their original msi “There is no question as to Linnaeus’ intent
regarding the binomial system.

The argument is advanced that had Bartram intended to publish new bi-
nomials he would have indicated them by the use of italics. In no case in the
entire work are italics or other special type forms used for either binomials,
polynomials, or for binomials associated with descriptive sentences except in
“ Ixea caelestina ” the description of which is published on plate [3] opposite p.
155. Neither are the plant names differentiated in the text of the three English
editions, 1792, 1793, and 1794, but they are differentiated by italics or other-
wise in the German, Dutch, and French translations. Had Bartram’s binomials
been set off by use of special type it is probable that more of his new ones would
long since have been detected and listed. In these later editions some of Bar-
tram’s misspelled technical names are corrected. Bartram very seldom cited the
authority for the binomial that he used, whether these be those proposed by earl-
ier authors, such as Linnaeus and Walter, or by himself. Of the 123 new bino-

14 BARTONIA

mials proposed by him he very seldom indicated that such names were new, and
never cited his own name as the authority. He wrote a book of travel, not a bot-
anical treatise, and like other early authors liberally interspersed in the text the
technical names for both plants and animals that he observed; if he were to
mention these at all, no other course was available to him, for many of the plants
that he observed at that time had no widely used. English names.

To me it is evident that in botany Bartram intended to follow the binomial
system. Admittedly, the majority of his new names are nomina nuda, but
nevertheless they are binomials. It makes little or no difference whether or
not the numerous nomina nuda be even listed, although names in this category
are rather consistently entered in Index Kewensis. There are about 46 cases
where the new names are provided with shorter or longer descriptions or with
notes or illustrations whereby identifications might be made, and I hold that
these should be accepted; and further that where the species are recognizable,
and Bartram’s specific names are valid, they should be adopted even if new
transfers are involved in a few additional cases. In the zoological field, while
his names are for the most part binomials, the percentage of polynomials is
slightly higher than in botany. He cites technical names for birds, fishes, and
other animals in about 300 cases, and the vast majority of these are in binomial
form. I am not in a position to discuss the validity or non-validity of the Bar-
tram binomials in zoology as I am not familiar with the provisions of the zoo-
logical code of nomenclature. In any case zoological usage does not effect the
status of the botanical names. Messrs. Hubbs, Fowler, Goldman, and F. Harper
accept Bartram’s binomials in zoology as validly published, while others object
to them for one reason or another, and those who do accept them insist that there
are no provisions in the zoological code by which they can be eliminated. This
is a matter for the zoologists themselves to settle.

Bartram was our first ecologist. He was primarily concerned with writing
a readable account of his travels, and this included many descriptions of the
various types of vegetation that he observed. His general botanical usage is
indicated in the following quoted passages:

“ At this rural retirement were assembled a charming circle of mountain vege-
tables, Magnolia auriculata, Rhododendron ferrugineum, Kalmia latifolia, Robi-
nia montana, Azalea flammula, Rosa paniculata, Calycanthus Floridus, Phila-
delphus inodorus, perfumed Convalaria majalis, Anemone thalictroides, Anemone
hepatica, Erythronium maculatum, Leontice thalictroides, Trillium sessile, Tril-
lium cesnum [cernuum], Cypripedium, Arethuza, Sanguinaria, Viola[,] uvul-
aria, Epigea, Mitchella repens, Stewartia, Halesia, Styrax, Lonicera &c.” p. 342,
and “ Halesia, Stewartia, Aesculus pavia, Aesc. alba, Aesc. Florid. ramis divari-
catis, thyrsis grandis, flosculis expansis, incarnatis, Azalea &c. entangled with
garlands of Bignonea crucigera, Big. radicans, Big. sempervirens, Glycine frut-
escens, Lonicera sempervirens &c.” p. 401. These are only two of numerous

IN DEFENSE OF THE VALIDITY OF WILLIAM BARTRAM’S BINOMIALS 15

passages of this type in Bartram’s Travels, the first passage being merely a list
of binomials with a few generic names standing alone, the second a similar one
but with one new binomial followed by a short descriptive Latin phrase. To
illustrate another type of usage wherein English names of plants, —_ nanies
and binomials are involved, a common practice in Bartram’s work is: “ The
forests consist chiefly of Oak, Hickory, Ash, Sour Gum (Nyssa ylvation) Sweet
Gum (Liquid-amber styraciflua), Beech, Mulberry, Scarlet maple, Black walnut,
Dogwood, Cornus Florida, Aesculus pavia, Prunus Indica, Ptelea, and an abund-
ance of Chesnut (Fag. castania) on the hills, with Pinus taeda and Pinus lutea,”
p. 400. In the above quoted passages, the element of description is mostly
absent, and they read like lists of plants in certain types of modern ecological
papers.

In contrast to these he sometimes lapses into really descriptive phrases, often
distinctly poetic in nature, as: “ The pompous Palms of Florida, and glorious
Magnolia, strikes us with the sense of dignity and magnificence; the expansive
umbrageous Live-Oak * with awful veneration, the Carica papaya, supercilious

* Quercus semperv
with all the harmony of beauty and cast mads the Lillium superbum repre-
sents pride and vanity; Kalmia latifolia and Azalea coccinea, exhibit a perfect
show of mirth and gaiety; the Illicium Floridanum, Crinum Floridanum, Con-
valaria majalis of the Cherokees, and Calycanthus floridus, charm with their
beauty and fragrance.”’ Introduction, p. xvi, xvii; “ How gently flow thy peace-
ful floods, O Alatamaha! How sublimely rise to view, on thy elevated shores,
yon Magnolian groves, from whose tops the surrounding expanse is perfumed,
by clouds of incense, blended with the exhaling balm of the Liquid-amber, and
odours continually arising from circumambient aromatic groves of [Illicium,
Myrica, Laurus, and Bignonia,” p. 48; ‘“‘ What a beautiful display of vegetation
there is before me! seemingly unlimited in extent and variety; how the dew-drops
twinkle and play upon the sight, trembling on the tips of the lucid, green sav-
anna, sparkling as the gem that flames on the turban of the Eastern prince; see
the pearly tears ee off the buds of the expanding Granadilla*; behold the
assiflora incarnata, called May-Apple

azure fields of the aaa Ixea! what can equal the rich golden flowers of the
Cana lutea, which ornament the banks of yon serpentine rivulet, meandering
over the meadows; the almost endless. varieties of the gay Phlox, that enamel
the swelling green banks, associated with the purple Verbena corymbosa, Viola,
pearly Gnaphalium, and silvery Perdicium; how fantastical looks the libertine
Clitoria, mantling the shrubs, on the vistas skirting the groves.” p. 155. These
graphic word pictures enable even the casual reader to visualize something of
what he actually saw and described, and they are in sharp contrast to mere lists
of technical names, such as are prepared for the use of botanists only.

16 BARTONIA

Undoubtedly it was Bartram’s intent that the new species in his botanical
collections should be described by British botanists with whom he was in cor-
respondence, and to whom he sent specimens. Faced as he was with the neces-
sity of using technical names of plants in connection with the fascinating account
of his travels, he clearly used those of named species with which he was familiar,
and for many of those that were new to him he coined new names, some with
shorter or longer descriptions, more as nomina nuda. Whether or not we accept
his published and described species is more or less beside the point. We
must, however, admit, that he did the best that he could under the circumstances,
for no author, writing a popular account of his travels could intersperse too
many actual technical descriptions of plants and still produce a readable or
popular book.

Bartram was inconsistent. Sometimes his binomials are in parentheses, fol-
lowed or preceded by the descriptions; sometimes the parentheses enclose both
the name and the description, but more often they are absent; sometimes the
binomial is in the clear and the description is in parentheses. In a number of
cases he provided brief Latin diagnoses without supplementary English descrip-
tions, or sometimes supplemented by the latter; again he sometimes provided Eng-
lish descriptions only. Occasionally he published binomials such as Bartramia
bracteata, p. XVIII, and Bignonia bracteata, p. 468, disassociated with the de-
scription of the plant, which in this case appears in the text (without a name),
on p. 16; see infra, p. 23. He almost never indicated authorities for binomials
that he used. There is no differentiation in the text as between his plant names
and the general text. In addition to these lapses from what is now assumed to
be good botanical usage he not infrequently described species for which, occa-
sionally, he indicates no generic name. Thus for the wild lime or tallow nut, p.
114, no technical name is indicated, his description of which in later years be-
came the whole basis of Rafinesque’s nanan genus Pimecaria = Ximenia
Linn., the species P. odorata Raf.—=X. am ana Linn. In other cases he in-
dieated the genus as in the Aesculus or Paoins sp. which he described on p. 395,
this Bartram description later becoming the whole basis 6f Macrothyrsus odorata
Raf. Alsogr. Am. 75. 1838 (Aesculus stolonifera Raf. l.c., in syn.). In general
it is possible accurately to identify most of the entities that Bartram actually
described, either from his technical or cursory descriptions, or from appended
notes. Here it is, of course, important that the exact localities be considered, for
a knowledge of what species grow in certain localities or in certain habitats is
not only desirable but essential.

I have accordingly compiled the following data from Bartram, listing all
of his new species with their original descriptions, and a supplementary longer
list of his nomina nuda. About 105 of these names do not appear in our standard
indices, but merely because they have been overlooked for a century and a
half is no argument against their being at least listed; after all, we do have a

IN DEFENSE OF THE VALIDITY OF WILLIAM BARTRAM’S BINOMIALS 17

homonym rule. Perhaps Dr. Rickett did not note the extraordinary high per-
centage of unlisted names, or if he did, he perhaps considered that their listing
was unnecessary in view of his contention that none of the binomials in Bar-
tram’s Travels was validly published. In most of the Bartram names that have
been listed there are minor errors in the references, chiefly because most of the
entries are to the so-called second edition of his Travels (1794) ? rather than
to the first edition (1791), and there is a slight discrepancy in the pagination of
the two following page 48 of the second edition. In at least one case the refer-
ence is to the German edition of 1793; in other cases the references are to later
works of Michaux, Dumont-Courset, Pursh, de Candolle, Steudel, and other
authors, who accepted Bartram names.

It is indeed regrettable that so many of the Bartram names have been
overlooked for so many years. Personally, however, I prefer to accept the
changes that have been made by competent botanists. I defer to such author-
ities as Small, Pennell, Fernald, and others who in recent years have taken up
Bartram names, and no one can criticize the various earlier authors, from Wilde-
now on, who accepted Bartram’s work in good faith. If we eliminate the names
in Bartram’s Travels for any reason, this merely adds to our difficulties. Thus Dr.
Rickett states that Hydrangea quercifolia Bartr. may be attributed to Nuttall,
Gen. 1: 284. 1818, but Willdenow accepted the species and provided it with a
formal Latin description nineteen years earlier in Hydrangea quercifolia, Sp. Pl.
2: 634. 1799, citing Bartram’s illustration from the German edition of 1793.

For the most part Willdenow considered only those species that Bartram
illustrated, these being Andromeda pulverulenta, Annona obovata Willd. (A.
grandiflora Bartr., non Lam.), Annona pygmea, Hydrangea quercifolia, and
Ixia coelestina; he correctly reduced Magnolia auriculata Bartr. to the earlier
M. auriculata Lam. Even if we eliminate Bartram’s Travels as the source of
accepted names, we do not eliminate the work as one that must be consulted, for
im some cases his descriptions of individual species are better than are those of
later authors, while his illustrations of plants are excellent. Furthermore, we
would be faced with the difficult task of determining what later author first ac-
cepted and re-described a Bartram species, whether this be Willdenow, Persoon,
Michaux, Roemer & Schultes, Sprengel, Pursh, Nuttall, Elliott, Rafinesque, de
Candolle, Chapman, or some other botanist, and unless one makes a really
thorough search one may easily go as far astray as did Dr. Rickett in the case of
Hydrangea quercifolia Bartr.

A consideration of Bartram’s plant names led me to examine Marshall’s
“ Arbustum * Americanum ” (1785), in which certain species are described for

2 in
lish ylides sede Tat onion wii eee in 7B, followed by ree Dublia ope ok
These three issues were from the same plates, differing only in the imprint at the bottom of
the a pages. SOT oe
en but S he ae witty Ang oe peop pr ycthari ” and we oan do the

Thus , Darlington in his * Memorials of John Bartram and Humphry Marshall” (p. 489,
1849) calls the work “ AAweane American’

18 BARTONIA

the first time, among them several that are currently credited to Marshall. In
the following cases the technical names should be credited to “ Bartram ex Mar-
shall.” They are all indicated as from “ Bartram’s Catalogue”, and are An-
dromeda nitida, p. 8, A. plumata, p. 9, Franklinia alatamaha, p. 49, Lonicera
canadensis, p. 81, and Nyssa ogeche, p. 97. Four of these appear in Bartram’s
undated “ Catalogue of American trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants, most of
which are now growing, and produce ripe seed in John Bartram’s garden, near
Philadelphia, the seeds and growing plants of which are disposed of on the most
reasonable terms.” Here they are all nomina nuda. My conclusion regarding
these “ Bartr. ex Marshall ” binomials is antedated by E. L. Little in his recent
paper “ Miscellaneous notes on nomenclature of United States trees” in Amer.
Midl. Nat. 33: 494-513. 1945. This paper appeared after my manuscript had
been sent to the printer. Little independently reached the same conclusion that
I did regarding the Bartram binomials that appeared as nomina nuda in his
Catalogue and later in Marshall’s work with descriptions, in that the authority
for these should be not Marshall but Bartram ex Marshall. (See his discussion
of the names in Bartram’s Catalogue, op. cit. 502-503.)

This Bartram catalogue is an undated folio broadside, and a photostat copy
of the only original known is in the library of the Arnold Arboretum. This has
marginal annotations by Humphry Marshall, and was doubtless the copy he had
in hand when he prepared the data for his “ Arbustum Americanum.” This in-
dicates that it was published in or before 1785. Marshall states in a footnote,
p. XX: “ The Reader is requested to observe that the names of the Species, under
which the words, Bartram’s Catalogue immediately occur, are not found in Lin-
naeus’s Species Plantarum, but are taken from the Sheet Catalogue published
by John and William Bartram, Botanists in Kingsessing; containing the names of
Forest Trees and Shrubs in, or near, their Garden.” Curiously Franklinia alata-
maha, as described on page 49 of Marshall’s work, appears in the Bartram Cata-
logue merely as “Alatamaha ”, column five of the broadside. However, Marshall
says regarding the genus and species: “ This newly discovered, rare, and elegant
flowering shrub, was first observed by John Bartram when on botanical researches,
on the Alatamaha river in Georgia, anno 1760 [1765]; but was not brought into
Pennsylvania until about fifteen years after, when his son, William Bartram, em-
ployed in like pursuits, revisited the place where it had been observed and had the
pleasing prospect of beholding it in its native soil...and bearing ripe seeds...
some of which he collected and brought home.... William Bartram, who first
introduced it, believing it to be a new genus, has chosen to honour it with the
name of that patron of sciences, and truly great and distinguished character, Dr.
Benjamin Franklin. The trivial name is added from the river, where alone it
has been observed to grow naturally.” If further evidence be needed as to the
proper authority of the names cited above, Bartram notes on page 466 of his

IN DEFENSE OF THE VALIDITY OF WILLIAM BARTRAM’S BINOMIALS 19

Travels: “I presently found striking characteristics abundantly sufficient to sep-
arate it from that genus [Gordonia], and to establish it the head of a new tribe,
which we have honoured with the name of the illustrious Dr. Benjamin Franklin,
Franklinia Alatamaha.”

Regardless of what may be done by systematists as to the acceptance or re-
jection of the binomials published in Bartram’s Travels, many of which were ac-
cepted by botanists before the middle of the last century, the book itself should
be in every botanical library. It is true that the first edition is now in that very
expensive category of a collector’s item, and is rarely offered by dealers. The
complete original title is: “ Travels through North & South Carolina, Georgia,
East and West Florida, the Cherokee country, the extensive territories of the
Muscogulges, or Creek Confederacy, and the country of the Chactaws; con-
taining an account of the soil and natural productions of those regions, together
with observations on the manners of the Indians ”, i-xxxiv. 1-522, frontisp., map,
7 t. Philadelphia, James & Johnson, 1791. Plate 4 only is numbered. However,
a modern facsimile edition is now available in the 1940 reprint.*

Professor Lowes notes in his introduction to the 1940 edition that Bartram
“exemplified that rarest of combinations—the mind of a scientist with the soul
of a poet,” briefly mentioning the influence that Bartram had on the English
poets Coleridge and Wordsworth. Bartram’s rather remarkable influence on lit-
erature, which has attracted the attention of various investigators, is extensively
discussed by N. B. Fagin, pages 127-203 of his “ William Bartram, interpreter of
the American landscape ”, i-vii. 1-229. 1933. See also, J. L. Lowes “ The Road
to Xanadu ” for Hariciare influence on Coleridge’s imagery **. When issued the

3“ The travels of William Bartram.” Edited by Mark Van Doren with an introduction

by Toke Livingston Lowes. 1-14, 1-414. 1940. Facsimile Library. Exclusive distributors
Barnes & Noble, Inc. New York. This follows the original edition as to content, Bartram’s
py not being reproduced, but differs in pagination. Another modern cue: that of

~Masius, New York, 1928, 414 pages; this follows the London edition

3a The follow wing statement is quoted from Van Wyck Brooks’ recent “ The World of
Washington Irving,” 110. 1945: “ Numbers of these — oT appeared in Bartram’s

vels, in some of the world’s great poems; for was published,
in 1791, it opened a new scene for romancers and poets. It passed into the taind of of Coleridge,
whence it reé d in two or three splendid passages in re one found
the jetting fountains and the ort agri eg trees, together with other reminders of the
Isle of P. : rtram’s wondrous fishes, attired in ge red, blue and green, a :
ariner as ath pesto Wordswo rth, too, read the . these pic-
tures of the tropical forest passed into his poems, the green savannahs, the en a
the fair trees, the gorgeous flowers, ae ieatiohes = ike azaleas that * = the hills on fire
Ruth. There one found the Indian maidens gathering stra in the hile

Wordsworth’s Prelude also bore traces of Bartram. Campbell’s Gertrude 0 of Wyom: oming was
full of scenes from Bartram, and more re than fifty pages of Chateaubriand’s Les Neiches were
drawn directly from his pages”, and in a footnote from this _passage: “ When Coleridge
and Southey, rea Bartram, thought for a while of leaving Ya land in order to live on
the banks of the Susquehanna, they took it for granted that ney would find there the
scenery, flowers and birds of Florida. Thus Campbell, in Gertrude of Wyoming, which was
based largely on Bartram, placed ‘hills with high magnolia,’ broad savannahas and the
meteor-like flamingo in a valley that was also on the Susque’

”

20 BARTONIA

book attracted immediate and favorable attention, both at home and abroad. It
was re-published in London in 1792 and reprinted in Dublin in 1793, and again
in London in 1794. The German edition, William Bartram’s “ Reisen durch
Nord- und Siid-Karolina, Georgien, Ost- und West-Florida, das gebiet der
Tscherokesen, Krihks und Tschaktahs, nebst umstandlichen Nachrichten von den
Einwohnern, dem Boden und den Naturprodukten dieser wenig bekannten grossen
Lander,” appeared in Vienna in 1793 as volumes nineteen and twenty of the
Magazin von merkwiirdigen neuen Reisebeschreibungen 19: i-xxxix. [i-ix]. 1-
403. t. [1-5]. 1793; 20: 1-427. t. [1-2]. 1793, and was reprinted in single volume
format under the same title in Berlin the same year, i-xxvi. 1-469 [501]. t. 1-7.
1793. The translation is by E. U. W. Zimmermann. A Dutch edition was issued
in Haarlem in 1794 as: “ Reizen door Noord- en Zuid-Carolina, Georgia, Oost-
en West-Florida: De Landen den Cherokees, der Muscogulges, of het Creek
bondgenootschap en het Land der Chactaws.” i-xxvi. 1-695. 1794. The transla-
tion is by J. D. Pasteur. Bartram’s illustrations were not reproduced. It was
soon translated into French, with two issues, one An VII (1799), the other An

(1801), as: ‘ Voyage dans les parties sud de l’Amérique septentrionale; Sa-
voir; les Carolines septentrionale et meridionale, la Georgie, les Florides orientale
et occidentale, le pays des Cherokees, le vaste territoire des Muscogulges ou de la
confederation, et le pays des Chactaws. Contenant des détails sur le sol et les
productions naturelles de ces contrées, et des observations sur les moers des Sau-
vages qui les habitent.” 1: 1-457, frontisp., t. 1-2; 2: 1-436, t. 3. An VII [1799].
The An IX [1801] issue is a reprint of this. The translation is by P. V. Benoist.
And this several decades before the blast of the British reviewer regarding
American publications: “ Who reads an American book?” ... but Bartram’s fas-
cinating volume was not a work of fiction. In the original Philadelphia edition
only plate 4 is actually numbered (in the several copies that I have examined) ;
in the other editions they are all numbered. They are not included in the Dutch
edition.

Believing that it is the duty of all taxonomists to call attention to unlisted bi-
nomials which are not infrequently noted as one scans both the older and occa-
sionally some of the more recent botanical literature, this with view to making
our standard indices ultimately complete, I have checked the Bartram names on
both “ Index Kewensis ” and its Supplements, and on Christensen’s “ Index Fili-
cum.” In the following pages an asterisk (*) added to a name means that it is
unlisted, and the sign ¢ indicates that while the name is listed, the reference is
either incomplete or erroneous as to the original place and date of publication.
Most of the entries that are included in Index Kewensis are to the London issue
of 1794, the first London edition being that of 1792, rather than to the original
Philadelphia edition of 1791. This actual listing of overlooked or erroneously
cited binomials is of real importance and value to all systematists, for until
published names are actually included in standard indices of the type mentioned,

IN DEFENSE OF THE VALIDITY OF WILLIAM BARTRAM’S BINOMIALS 21

they generally remain in that limbo of overlooked ones where the conservatives
would be only too pleased if they there stayed indefinitely. However, whether
or not we elect to accept a Bartram name, as noted above, we do have a homonym
rule, and this rule alone should justify the listing of all published binomials.
Had all of the Bartram names been listed at an earlier date, we would probably
not, a century and a half after the book was published, be faced with the problem
of accepting the valid ones and replacing specific names long used for this or
that species; and maybe the question as to the validity or non-validity of Bar-
tram’s book as a source of binomials would not have been raised. Including
strictly nomina nuda there are about 110 previously unlisted Bartram binomials,
and about 8 minor corrections to be made to binomial entries that are listed
in “ Index Kewensis.”

In preparing the following lists, I have, where descriptions or notes are con-
cerned, quoted from the first Philadelphia edition of 1791. I have not concerned
myself with minor variants in the spelling of technical names, such as Sideroxilon,
Hybiscus, Euonismus (Euonymus), Acher (Acer), Sambricus (Sambucus), Dros-
sea (Drosera), Halmea (Kalmia), Lantana Camerara, Laurus sasafras, Nym-
phaea nilumbo, Populus trimula, Pinus toeda, Trillium cesnum, Halesia taetrap-
tera, etc., for such variants, with néesacoully badly misspelled specific names
such as clea for vulgare, and usneascites, and ulneadscites for usneoides, are
not uncommon in the text. These errors were due to inadequate proof reading or
~ to slips of the pen. The critical reader will also note various false binomials
that I have deliberately ignored, such as “ Cercis tilia [Cercis, Tilia] ” p. 28,
“Ttea stuartia [Itea, Stuartia] ” p. 10, “Itea Clethra [Itea, Clethra] ” p. 24,
“Callicarpa Johnsonia [Callicarpa, Johnsonia] ” p. 164, “ Morus tilia [Morus,
Tilia] ” p. 221, and “ Viola uvularia [Viola, Uvularia] ” p. 242. These were in-
advertent errors of a typographical nature and there is no warrant in listing them.

Any reader interested in following up Bartram’s routes more closely, should
study William Bartram’s “ Travels in Georgia and Florida, 1773-74: a report to
Dr. John Fothergill,” annotated by Francis Harper, in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. II. —
33(2): 121-242. t. 1-26. 1943, for this forms an excellent supplement to Bar-
tram’s “ Travels.” I am under obligation to Dr. Harper who supplied various
suggestions to me for the improvement of this paper, and especially for his cour-
tesy in determining the exact places in which Bartram observed the species that
he characterized as new.

In general, in this consideration of Bartram’s binomials wherever he recorded
a name that was published by Linnaeus, Walter, or other authors before 1790,
for plants native of eastern North America, I have assumed that he correctly
interpreted the species to which these names appertain. The remaining bino-
mials were originated by Bartram. The number of these new Bartram binomials,
about 130, is much larger than was anticipated before the lists were checked.

22 BARTONIA
Bartram’s Binomiats WitH Descriptions, Notes or ILLUSTRATIONS *

In the following lists an asterisk (*) preceding a name indicates that there is no entry
“Index Kewensis” or in “Index Filicum”; the sign (7) indicates a correction to such

Aesculus *florida Bartr., Trav. 401. 1791, descr.; ed. 2, 399. 1792; Raf., Alsogr. Am. 70. 1838,
nom., nota; Fernald in Rhodora 46 : 48, 1944, nom., nota (as "Aesculus floridana Bartr.).

“ Aesc. Florid. ramis divaricatis, thyrsis grandis, flosculis expansis incarnatis.” Monroe or
an adjacent county, Alabama. Status doubtful, but I judge it to be a form of Aesculus pavia

Linn., as that species is interpreted by Small; see Fernald l.c., who completed the specific
- name as floridana. Whatever Bartram’s intent may have been, either form of the specific
name is admissible, and I accept the name as completed by Rafinesque. Aesculus neglecta
Lindl. is rea = Dr. —— se
Aesculus * 320, nom., 327, nom., 335, nom., 393, nom., 476,

descr. A be oy 2 4. Sie, 325, 333, "301, "474, 1792.

“ Aesculus sylvatica, floribus ex albo et carneo eleganter variegatis, caule arboreo.” Ash-
wood, five miles northeast of Council, Bladen County, North Carolina, on Northwest Cape
Fear River. Accepted by Fernald in Rhodora 46: 47. 1944, as valid for what has hitherto
been known as Aesculus neglecta Lindl. (1846).

Aesculus a Bartr., Trav. 393. 1791, nom. alt. Aesculus sylvatica Bartr. = praec.
Andromeda j;formosissima Bartr., Trav. v, nom., 24, nom., nota, 172, nom., 303, nom. 1791;

ed. 2, iv, 24, 170, 301. 1792,

“The great evergreen Andromeda of Florida, called Pipe-stem Wood, to which I gave
the name of Andromeda formosissima, as it far exceeds in beauty every one of this family.”
St. Mary’s River at King’s Ferry, Florida. There is no description. The Index Kewensis
entry is to “Bart. Trav. N. & S. Car. Georg., ii. (1791) ” = Leucothoé acuminata (Ait.)
G. Don.

Andromeda jpulverulenta Bartr., Trav. t. [7]. opp. p. 476. 1791; ed. 2, ¢. 7. opp. p. 474. 1792.
There is no description, the binomial appearing only on the plate. The Index Kewensis

entry is “ Bartr. Trav. N. & S. Car. Georg. ii. 476.” The first description was published by

Wildenow, Sp. Pl. 2: 610. 1799, as “ Andromeda pulverulenta + A. pedunculis aggregatis,
lis campanulatis, foliis sere sages W. Andromeda pulverulenta. Bartram. it. ed.

germ, p. 458, t. 8.” 1793. The s Zenobia pulverulenta (Willd.) Pollard.

An[nJona jgrandiflora Bartr., hae t. [2]. opp. p. 20. 1791; ed. 2, t. 2. opp. p. 19, 1792;

non eis (1786).

There is no description other than: “I observed a new and most beautiful species of
Annona, having clusters of large white fragrant flowers” (p. 18), the name appearing only on
the plate. The Index Kewensis entry is “Bart. Trav. 20, & 171, t. 2.” The de escription on
page 171 (ed. 2, p. 169. 1792) appertains to the next binomial, but both clearly represent a
single species. Annona obovata Willd. Sp. Pl. 2: 1269. 1800, was based on Bartram’s illus-
tration, “ Bartram, itin. ed. germ. p. 20, tab. 2” [1793]. Near Mt. Pleasant, Wayne Goanty,
Georgia = seq.

In this account the first references are to the original — edition ot Bartram’s
Travele (1791) ; seg references to the second edition are to the Lo editi
which the Dublin 1793, and the

references are to the 1794 London issue. References to the German, Dutch, and

French ig arom are not included, except in special cases where corrections to technical
names are invo

IN DEFENSE OF THE VALIDITY OF WILLIAM BARTRAM’S BINOMIALS 23

Annona jincana B TP Trav. v. nom., 171, descr. (A. “incarna”’). ; ed. 2, te hs 1792

(A, incarna’’) ; Mag. a ristbeachs. 19: 271. 1793 vce Reise. Mf Dh (A ana).

“ Of the low shrubs many were new to me and of a very pleasing appearance, peril
a species of Annona (Annona incarna [incana]), floribus grandioribus paniculatis:) this
three, four or five feet high, the leaves somewhat cuneiform or broad lanciolate, aanealiie
down to the petiole, of a pale or light green colour, covered with a pubescence of short fine
down ; the flowers are very large, perfectly white and sweet scented, many connected together
on le loose panicles or spikes; the fruit of the size and form of small cucumber, the skin or
exterior surface somewhat rimose or scabrous, containing a yellow pulp of the consistence of
a hard custard, and very delicious wholesome food. This seems a variety, if not the same,
that I first remarked [A. grandiflora Bartr.], growing on the Alatamaha near Fort Barrington,
Charlotia, and many other places in Georgia and East Florida.” Southeastern Putnam county,
Florida = Asimina incana (Bartr.) Exell in Jour. Bot. 65: 69. ¢. 581. 1927 (lower figure),

Annona gr

Nash, Pityothamnus incanus Small; see Exell in Jour. Bot. 65: 59. 1927). The entry in
Index Kewensis Suppl. 8 (1926) is “incana (sphalm. incarna), Sane Travels, ed. 2, 169
(1794), in obs.”

Annona {pygmea Bartr., Trav. v, nom., t. [1], opp. p. 18, nom., 171, nom., nota, (pigmea),

181, nom., 1791; ed. 2, iv, ¢#. 1. post D. 18, 169, 179. 1792.

The description, p. 18, without specific name in the text is: “In similar situations, and
commonly a near neighbor of this new Kalmia, is seen a very curious species of Annona. It
is a very dwarf, the stems seldom extending from the earth more than foot or eighteen inches,
and are weak and almost decumbent. The leaves are long, extremely narrow, almost lineal.
However, small as they are, they retain the figure common to the species, that is, lanceolate,
broadest at the upper end, and attenuating down to the petiole, which is very short; their
leaves stand alternately, nearly erect forming two series, or wings, on the arcuated stems. The
flowers, both in size and colour, resemble those of Antrilobe [Annona triloba], and are single
from the axilae of the leaves on incurved peduncli, nodding downwards. I never saw the
fruit.” ‘The entry on p. 171 is: “I observed here in plenty, the very dwarf decumbent Annona,
with narrow leaves, and various flowers already noticed at Alatamaha (Annona pigmea.).”
Vicinity of Mt. Pleasant, Wayne County, Georgia, and in southeastern Putnam County,
Florida.

The Index Kewensis entry is “ pygmaea Bartr. Trav. 18, t. 1.” The species was accepted
by Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 2: 1286. 1800, the citation being to “ Bartram itin. ed. germ. p. 21. t. 1”
(1793). It is Asimina pygmaea (Bartr.) Dunal, Monog. Anon. 82, 84, 1817, synonyms being
Orc. m pygmaeum Michx., Porcellia pygmaea Pers., and Pityothamnus pygmaeus Small;
see Exell in Jour. Bot. 67: 69. t. 581. 1927 (upper figure), who considers that two species are
involved which he recognizes as Asimina pygmaea (Bartr.) — the form described by Bar-
tram, with A. angustifolia A. Gray as a synonym and A. secundiflora Shuttlew., the form
illustrated by Bartram on plate [1], opposite p. 18. Exell’s iltustrations of the two closely

ied species are reproductions of Bartram’s drawings from the collections of the British
Museum (Natural History). He also reproduces Bartram’s original notes. Small, Man. South-
east. Fl. 531. 1933, reduced Asimina secundiflora Shuttlew. to Pityothamnus pygmaeus Small
(Asimina pygmaea Dunal), but retained A. angustifolia A. Gray (as Pityothamnus angustifolius
Small) as a distinct species. May he not have overlooked Exell’s paper?
_—s *bracteata Bartr. Trav. xviii. 1791, nom. = Bignonia *bracteata Bartr. Trav. 468,
, nom,

There is some doubt as to whether or not these binomials should be considered as validly
published, as there are no cross references and it is more or less by inference that we can
associate them with the actual description, published without a binomial, on page 16; yet
there is no doubt that his description and the note on p. 468 belong with the binomials from

24 BARTONIA

the context. The first is on page 16 following Gordonia (Franklinia alatamaha Bartr. ex
Marsh.) : “ The other was equally distinguished for its beauty and singularit, ity; it grows twelve

panicles are ornamented with a number of ovate large brachtae [bracteae], as white, and like
fine paper, their tops and verges stained with rose red, which, at a little distance, has the
appearance of clusters of roses, at the extremities of the limbs; the flowers are Bl. [Cl.] Pen-
tandria monogynia; the leaves are nearly ovate, pointed and petioled, standing opposite to one
another on the branches.” Alatamaha River, Georgia

This is an excellent description of Pinckneya pubene Michx. (1803). On page 468, an
there also following the description of Franklinia alatamaha Bartr. ex Marsh. this entry occurs
“The other new, singular and beautiful shrub, now here in full bloom, I never saw grow oi alk
but two other places in all my travels, and there very sparingly, except in East Florida, in the
neighborhood of the sea-coast.” In a foot note to this passage he states: “I gave it the name
of Bignonia bracteata extempore.” For those who may prefer to accept Bartram’s earlier wee
name the proper combination would be Pinckneya *bracteata (Bartr.) Raf. in Casket 1
194. fig. 17. 1827, in Sat. Eve. Post. 6: no. 303. [4]. fig. 1827, and to be added to the oats
is Mussaenda *bracteata Raf. 11. cc., published as a synonym by that erratic author. Rafi-
nesque deliberately accepted Bavieare’ S specific name because it was earlier than that of
Michaux; yet three years later, in again reproducing his really good illustration of the
species, Med. Fl. 2: 57. fig. 72. 1830, he returned to Pinckneya pubens Michx., not even citing
P. bracteata (Bartr.) Raf. in synonymy. Dr. F. Harper, in Bartonia 21: 7. 1942, independently
published the transfer of Bartram’s specific name to Pinckneya as P. bracteata (Bartr.) F
Harper. Perhaps the mere fact that such an erratic individual as Rafinesque correctly iden-
tified the Bartram entity and published an, as yet unlisted, transfer of the specific name to
Pinckneya, is sufficient to damn the binomial in the minds of the conservatives = Pinckneya
bracteata (Bartr.) Raf. (P. pubens Michx.).

Cacalia *heterophylla Bartr., Trav. 164.1791; ed. 2, 162. 1792.

“Cacalia heterophylla, foliis cuneiformibus, carnosis, papil. viscidis,” immediately pre-
ceded by a longer English description: “One of them particularly engaged my notice,
which, from its fructification I take to be a species of Cacalia. It is an evergreen shrub,
about six or eight feet high, the leaves are generally somewhat cuniform, fleshy and of a
pale whitish green, both surfaces being covered with a hoary pubescence and vesciculae,
that when pressed feels clammy, and emits an agreeable scent; the ascending branches ter-
minate with large tufts or corymbs of rose coloured flowers, of the same agreeable scent;
clusters of these flowers, at a distance, look like a large Carnation or fringed Poppy flower
(Syngenesia Polyg. sy [Aequalis] Linn.).” Near Salt Springs, west side of Lake George,
Marion County,. Florida

Dr. Francis Bircee? who has covered Bartram’s routes thoroughly, informs me that in
his opinion this is Garberia fruticosa (Nutt.) A. Gray, that it is still common in Bartram’s
type locality in the scrub near Salt Springs on the west side of Lake George, and that the
fresh leaves are viscid. Bartram’s specific name is much older than Nuttall’s, so that a new
combination is required. This, with the courage of our convictions that Bartram’s names
are valid and must be accepted, we do not hesitate to make in Garberia a (Bartr.)
Merrill & F. Harper, comb. nov. (Liatris fruticosa Nutt. in Am. Jour. Sci. 5: 822; Gar-
beria fruticosa A. Gray in Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 1879: 379. 1879; apts ec
fruticosum A. Gray in Proc. Am. Acad. 15; 48. 1880).

Cleome *lupinifolia Bartr., Trav. 425. 1791; Raf., Fl. Ludovic. 135. 1817, nom., nota.

“I observed no new vegetable production, except a species of Cleome, (Cleome lupini-
folia) this plant possesses a very strong scent, somewhat like Gum Assafetida, notwithstanding

IN DEFENSE OF THE VALIDITY OF WILLIAM BARTRAM’S BINOMIALS 25

which the inhabitants give it a place in soups and sauces.” Lake Ponchartrain, Louisiana.
Cleome edulis Raf., op. cit. 86, very inadequately described, undoubtedly represents the same
species,
Convolvulus *dissectus Bartr. Trav. 104. 1791; ed. 2, 102. 1792.

“T also saw a new and beautiful palmated leaved convolvulus*. This vine rambles over

* Convolv. dissectus

the shrubs, and strolls about on the ground, its leaves are elegantly sinuated, of a deep grass
green, and sit on long petioles. The flowers are very large, infundibuliform, of a pale incarnate
colour, having a deep crimson eye.” Drayton’s Island in Lake George, Putnam County, Flor-
ida. Bartram’s new binomial actually represents the same species as the earlier Convolvulus
dissectus Jacq., Obs. Bot. 2: 4, 1767 = Operculina dissecta (Jacq.) House.
Corypha *obliqua Bartr., Trav. 61, descr., 1791; ed. 2, 59. 1792.

“Corypha obliqua, caudex arboreus, adscendens, frontibus expansis, flabelliformibus,
plicatis, stipit. serratis.” St. Simons Island, eee gi = seq. See note on the variable habit
of this species by Small, Man. Southeast. Fl. 1933.

Corypha *repens Bartr., Trav. 61, descr., 94, nom., 242, nom., 1791; ed. 2, 79, 92, 240. 1792.

“ Corypha iy Laem expansis flabelliformibus, plicatis, stipit. spinosis (Dwarf Saw
Palmetto).” St. Simons Island, Georgia = Serenoa repens (Bartr.) Small (Chamaerops serru-
lata Michx.; pe sailets Hook.).

Cucurbita *peregrina Bartr., Trav. 137. 1791; ed. 2, 135. 1792.
“It is exceedingly curious to behold the Wild Squash* climbing over the lofty limbs of
* Cucurbita peregrina
trees; their yellow fruit somewhat the size and figure of a large orange, pendant from the
extremities of the limbs over the water.” Lake George, Florida. This seems to be the same
as Pepo okeechobeensis Small (1930)
Fagus *chinkapin Bartr., Trav. 327. 1791; ed. 2, 325. 1792.

“ Fagus pumila s. Chinkapin.” Upper Savannah River, Ga.-S. Car. This is merely an alter-
nate name, there being no description or note. It is possible that Bartram only intended
to record the vernacular name of this well known species = Castanea pumila (Linn.) Mill.
Gerardea [Gerardia] *flammea Bartr., Trav. 412. 1791; ed. 2, 410. 1792.

“These stony, gravelly heights produce a variety of herbacious plants, but one in
particular I shall mention on account of its singular beauty; I believe it is a species of
Gerardea (Gerardea flammea), it grows erect, a single stem from a root, three or four feet in
height, branching very regularly from about one half the length upwards, forming a cone or

id, profusely garnished with large tubular labiated scarlet or flame coloured ee
which give the plant a very splendid appearance even at a great distance.” Baldwin
an adjacent County, Alabama = Macranthera flammea (Bartr.) Pennell in Bull. Torr. Bot.
Club 40: 124. 1913. If Dr. Pennell be correct in his interpretation of Bartram’s species,
synonyms are: Conradia fuschioides Nutt., Macranthera fuchsioides Benth. M. lecontet
Torr., Russelia flammea Raf. Tozocarpus gymnanthes Raf., T. calycinus Raf. Tomiliz
bracteata Raf., Dasystoma tubulosa Bertol., and Conradia lecontei O. Kuntze. However,
Dr. R. M. Harper in Geol. Surv. Alabama Monog. 9: 313, 1928, states: “ Bartram’s Gerardia
flammea has been identified by Mohr es Life, p. 15) [Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 6: 15.
1901] and Pennell (Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 40: 124, 405. sig with Macranthera fuchsioides,
Heck iia we and would hardly be in bloom in August.”
He places Gerardia _—- Bartr. as a doubtful sat of Clinopodium coccineum

26 BARTONIA

(Nutt.) O. Kuntze, of the Labiatae* Small gives the habitat of the latter as “sandy
shores, sandhills, and hammocks, Coastal Plain, Fla. to Ala. and Ga.” His habitat for
Macranthera —— (Sartr.) Pennell is: “Borders of wet sandy thickets, Coastal Plain,
N. Fla. to E. La. ‘

Geum ‘odoratissimum Bart., Trav. 43. 1791; ed. 2, 43. 1792.

“T accidentally discovered a new species of Caryophyllata (Geum odoratissimum) on
reaching to a shrub, my foot slipped, and, in recovering myself, I tore up some of the
plants, whose roots filled the air with animating scents of cloves and spicy perfumes.” On
a tributary of the Broad River, Georgia. Status doubtful.

Hedera *carnosa Bartr., Trav. 243. 1791; ed. 2, 241. 1792.

“ Hedera carnosa (Fol. quinatis inciso-serratis, perennentibus) ”. Near Long Pond, Levy
County, Florida. Probably = Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Linn.) Planch.
Heracleum *maximum Bartr., Trav. 344. 1791; ed. 2, 342. 1792.

“T observed growing in great abundance in these mountain meadows, Sanguisorba Cana-
densis and Heracleum maximum, the latter exhibiting a fine shew, being rendered conspicuous
even at great distance, by its great height and spread, vast pennatified leaves and expansive
umbels of snow-white flowers.” Near Clayton, Rabun County, Georgia = Heracleum mazi-
mum Bartr. (H. lanatum Michx.).

Fernald’s expression of regret, Rhodora 46: 50. 1944, at being obliged to abandon such a
widely and universally used binomial as that of Michaux, led to the preparation of Rickett’s
paper on the legitimacy of names in Bartram’s Travels, Rhodora 46: 389-391. 1944, to which
this paper is a rejoinder.

Hydrangea i Bartr., Trav. xviii, nom., 382, t. [6], descr., 408, nom. 1791; ed. 2,

xii, 380. t. 6, 406. 1792.

“T observ = here a very singular and beautiful shrub, which I suppose is a species of
Hydrangia (H. siaasnttalin’. It grows in coppices or clumps near or on the banks of rivers
and creeks; many stems usually arise from a root, spreading itself greatly on all sides by
suckers or offsets; the stems grow five or six feet high, declining or diverging from each
other, and are covered with several barks or rinds, the last of which being of a cinerious dirt
colour and very thin, at a certain age of the stems or shoots, cracks through to the next
bark, and is peeled off by the winds, discovering the under, smooth, dark reddish brown
bark, which also cracks and peels off the next year, in like manner as the former; thus every
year forming a new bark; the stems divide regularly or oppositely, though the branches are
crooked or wreathe about horizontally, and these again divide, forming others which ter-
minate with large heavy panicles or thyrsi of flowers, but these flowers are of two kinds;
the numerous partial spikes which compose the pannicles and consist of a multitude of very
small fruitful flowers, terminate with one or more very large expansive neutral or mock
flowers, standing on a long, slender, stiff peduncle; these flowers are composed of four broad
oval petals or segments, of a dark rose or crimson colour at first, but as they become older
acquire a deeper red or purplish hue, and lastly are of a brown or ferruginous colour; these
have no perfect parts of generation of either sex, but discover in their centre two, three or
four papillae or rudiments; these neutral flowers, ss the whole pannicle, are truly per-
manent, remaining on the plant for years, until they dry or decay; the leaves which clothe
the plants are very large, pinnatifid or palmated a serrated, or toothed, very much re-
sembling the leaves of some of our Oaks; they sit opposite, supported by slender petioles

* Eprtor’s —This problem has been reconsidered by me in Monog. Acad. Nat. Sci.
sare 1: 414, 1935" with the nee that by lapse of memory or else by confusion of his
otes Bartram has associated the statement of wooed for Morte gee with a description

mea.

IN DEFENSE OF THE VALIDITY OF WILLIAM BARTRAM’S BINOMIALS 27

and are of a fine, full green colour.” Sweet Water Brook = Knoxville Branch, Crawford
County, Georgia. The Index Kewensis entry is: “Bartr. Trav. 382. t. 7; ed. 2. 380, cum
tab. 6.”, accepted by all authors as Bartram’s species beginning with Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 2:
634. 1799, nineteen years earlier than Nuttall to whom Rickett would accredit the binomial.
Hypericum aureum Bartr., Trav. 383. 1791; ed. 2, 381. 1792; non Lour. (1790).

“T observed growing on the steep dry banks of this creek a species of shrub Hypericum,
of extraordinary shew and beauty (Hypericum aureum). It grows erect, three or four feet
high, forming a globular top, representing a perfect little tree; the leaves are large, oblong,
firm of texture, smooth and shining; the flowers are very large, their petals broad and con-
spicuous, which, with their tufts of golden filaments, give the little bushes a very splendid
appearance.” Patsilaga Creek, Taylor County, Georgia. The Index Kewensis entry is cor-
rect. = Hypericum frondosum Michx. (1803).

Ipomoea *erecta Bartr., Trav. 59. 1791, nom.; ed. 2, 57. 1792 (Ipomea).
On page 376 (ed. 2, 374. 1792) this entry occurs: “In the loose soil verging around this
rock, grew several very curious herbaceous plants, particularly one of singular elegance and
ope which I take to ms a species of Ipomea (Ipomea, caule erecto, ramoso, tripedali, fol.
calibus, pinnatifidis, liniaribus, humistratis, florib. incarnatis intus maculis coccinaeis ad-
t grows erect, three feet high, with a strong stem, which is decorated with plumed
or pinnatifid liniar leaves, somewhat resembling those of the Delphinium or Ipomea quamo-
clet; from about one half its length upwards, it sends out on all sides, ascendant branches
which divide again and again; these terminate with large tubular or funnel formed flowers;
their limbs equally divided into five segments; these beautiful flowers are of a perfect rose
colour, — besprinkled on the inside of their petals with crimson specks; the flowers
are in great abundance and together with the branches and delicately cut fine leaves, com-
pose a ne spike or compound pannicle. I saw a species of this plant, if not the same,
growing on the sea coast islands near St. Augustine.” Flat Rock, near Camak, Warren
County, Georgia. In spite of the long description, which contains no binomial and no refer-
ence to the nomen nudum on p. 59, one may question the actual validity of “ publication ”
of the binomial. The case is somewhat like that of Bartramia bracteata and Bi brac-
teata discussed on p. 23. The species is Gilia rubra (Linn.) Heller, of the Polemoniaceae,
according to Long and Wherry.
Ixea oe teaelestina Bartr., Trav. ¢. [3], opp. p. 155. 1791; ed. 2. t. 3, opp. p. 153. 1792.
The description appears on the plate, not in the text, as: “IXEA CAELESTINA. Rad.
bulboee, subrotunda. Caulis teres, mapas Foliis lineari-lanciolatis, cuspidatis. Floribus
expansis magnis caeruleis. vid. Tourn.” Lake Dexter, Volusia County: Florida. On p. 155
is a brief statement: “behold the azure fields of cerulean Ixea!” The Index Kewensis en
is “coelestina Bartr. Trav. ed. Germ. 152. t. 3 [1793]”. This was accepted by Willdenow,
Sp. Pl. 1: 200. 1797 (as I. coelestina) his reference being to the German edition of Bartram’s
Travels. = Nemastylis coelestina (Bartr.) Nutt., quoad syn. Nutt. (Salpingostylis coelestina
—
Kalmia {ciliata Bartr., Trav. v, nom., 7, nom., 94, nom., 171, nom., nota, 242, nom. 1791; ed.

Ate 3 92: 169, 240. 1792.

“Here is also abundance of the beautiful little dwarf Kalmia ciliata, already described ”
p. 171 (p. 169, ed. 2, 1792). On page ere eae a “T observed . . - - a diminutive

abundance all over the moist savannas but more especially near ponds and Rai ici
Mount Pleasant, Wayne County, Georgia. The other localities for those entries where only

28 BARTONIA

the binomial occurs are Colonel’s Island, Liberty County, Georgia, St. John’s River at Rolles-
town, and in southeastern Putnam County and near the Suwannee River, Florida. The
entry in Index Kewensis is “ Bartr. ex Dum-Cours. Bot. Cult. ed. II, iii. 323” [1811].
= Kalmia hirsuta Walt. (Kalmiella hirsuta Small).
*breunis Bartr., aig 19, 1791; ed. 2, 19. 1792; Reizen Noord- en Zuid-Carolina
26, 1794; Voy. Am. Sep : 56. 1799
“T also saw a oy species of . having pale green villous* lingulate leaves;
Lupinus breunis, folus integerimis oblongis villosis.
the flowers are disposed in long erect spikes; some plants produce flowers of the finest
celestial blue, others incarnate, and some milk white, and though they all three seem to be
varieties of one species, yet they associate in separate communities, sometimes approaching
each other’s border or in sight at a distance. Their districts are situa d:

advantage; ere where they are found, they occupy many acres of surface.” Near
Waynesv. esville,

Georgia. The specific name is clearly due to a typographical error, for as it
stands it is ae alle In the Vienna German edition of 1793 it is corrected to Lupinus
*brevis ae the shyla iacre being to Mag. Reisebeschr. 19: 38. 1793 (Bartr., Reise 1: 38). It

is suspected that “biennis” was actually intended by Bartram, yet there is nothing in the
description that would indicate either of these specific names. The status of the species is
doubtful, and Dr. R. M. Harper thinks that the description may have included more than a
single one, perhaps Lupinus diffusus Nutt. and L. villosus Willd. being involved.

Lycium jsalsum Bartr. Trav. 59. 1791; ed. 2, 57. 1792.

“Lycium salsum (perhaps L. Afrum Linn.) a very beautiful ever green shrub, its ceru-
lean flowers, and coral red berries, always on its branches, forming not the least of its
beauties.” St. Simon’s Island, Georgia. The entry in Index Kewensis is “ Bartr. Trav. ed.
II. 57” = Lycium carolinianum Walt. (1788).

Magnolia *auriculata Bartr., Trav. 320, nom., 339, descr., 364, nom., 402, nom., 408, nom.,

nota, "1791; ed. 2, 318, 337, 362, 400, 406, 1792.

“This exalted peak I named mount Magnolia*, from a new and beautiful species of

* Magnolia auriculato
that celebrated family of flowering trees, which here, at the cascades of Falling Creek, grows
in a high degree of perfection, for although I had noticed this curious tree several times

mountain after leaving Keowe, when I observed it in flower, but here it flourishes and com-
man ion.

“This tree, or perhaps a shrub, rises eighteen to thirty feet in height, there are usually
many stems from a root or source, which lean a little, or slightly diverge from each other,
in this respect imitating the Magnolia tripetala; the crooked wreathing branches arising and
* subdividing from the main stem without order or uniformity, their extremities turn upwards,
producing a very large rosaceous, perfectly white, double or polypetalous flower, which is of
a most fragrant scent; this fine flower sits in the center of a radices of very large leaves,
which are of a singular figure, somewhat lanciolate, but broad towards their extremities, ter-
minating with an acuminated point, and backwards they attenuate and become very narrow
towards their bases, terminating that way with two long narrow ears or lappets, one on each
side of the insertion of the petiole; the leaves have only short footstalks, sitting very near
each other, at the extremities of the floriferous branches, from whence they spread them-
selves after a regular order, like the spokes of a wheel; their margins touching or lightly
laping upon on other, form an expansive umbrella superbly crowned or crested with the
fragrant flowers, representing a white plume; the blossom is succeeded by a very large
crimson cone or strobile, containing a great number of scarlet berries, which, when ripe,

IN DEFENSE OF THE VALIDITY OF WILLIAM BARTRAM’S BINOMIALS 29

spring from their cells and are for a time suspended by a white silky web or thread. The
leaves of these trees which grow in a rich, light, humid soil, when fully expanded and at
maturity, are frequently above two feet in length and six or eight inches where broadest.”
About four miles northeast of Clayton, Rabun County, Georgia. = Magnolia fraseri Walt.
(M. auriculata Desr. in Lam. Encyel., 3: 673. 1791).

On page 408 this entry appears: “how gaily flutters the radiated wings of the Magnolia
auriculata? each branch supporting an expanded umbrella, superbly crested with a silver
plume, fragrant blossom, or crimson studded strobile and fruits!” 5
Magnolia jpyramidata Bartr., Trav. 6, nom., 408, descr., 1791; ed. 2, 7, 406. 1792.

“Magnolia pyramidata, foliis ovatis, oblongis, acuminatis, basi auriculatis, strobilo ob-
longo ovato.” Upper Tensaw River, Baldwin County, Alabama. The Index Kewensis entry
is “ Bartr. ex Pursh. Fl. Am. Sept. ii. 382. [1814],” but Pursh at the end of his diagnosis
cites “ Bartr. trav. p....’ The Magnolia briefly described by Bartram, Trav. 340. 1791.
(ed. 2, 338) but there unnamed, undoubtedly represents Magnolia pyramidata Bartr.: “I
discovered in the maritime parts of Georgia, particularly on the banks of the Alatamaha
another new species of Magnolia, whose leaves were nearly of the figure of those of this tree
[Magnolia auriculata Bartr.], but they were much less in size, not more than six or seven
inches in length, and the strobile very small, oblong, sharp pointed and of a fine crimson
colour, but I never saw the flower. These trees grow straight and erect, thirty feet or more
in height, and of a sharp conic form, much resembling the Cucumber tree (Magnolia acumi-
nata) in figure.” See F. Harper in Bartonia 21: 7-8. 1942.

Mimosa *virgata Bartr., Trav. 421. 1791 (sphalm. virgatia); ed. 2, 419. 1792 (virgata) ;

non Linn.
“Here are a few shrubs . . . together with several new genera and species of herbaceous
and suffruticose tribes . . . particularly a species of Mimosa (Mimosa virgatia) which in

respect to the elegancy of its pinnated leaves, cannot be exceeded by any of that celebrated
family. It is a perennial plant, sending up many nearly erect stems, from the root or source,
these divide themselves into many ascendant slender rods like branches, which are orna-
mented with double pinnated leaves, of a most delicate formation. The compound flowers
are of a pale, greenish yellow, collected together in a small oblong head, upon a long slender
peduncle, the legumes are large, lunated and flat, placed in a spiral or contorted manner,
each containing several hard compressed seed, or little beans.” The Rigolets, St. Tammany
Parish, Louisiana. = Neptunia lutea (Leavenw.) Benth.

Myrica tinodora Bartr., Trav. 405. 1791; ed. 2, 403. 1792.

“T observed many curious vegetable productions, particularly a species of Myrica (My-
rica inodora) this very beautiful evergreen shrub, which the French inhabitants call Wax
tree, grows in wet sandy ground about the edges of swamps, it rises erect nine or ten feet,

ividing itself into a multitude of nearly erect branches, which are garnished with many
shining deep green entire leaves of a lanciolate figure; the branches produce abundance of
large round berries, nearly the size of bird cherries, which are covered with a scale or coat
of white wax; no part of this plant possesses any degree of fragrance. It is in high estima-
tion with the inhabitants for the production of wax candles, for which purpose it spawns

well with bees-wax, or preferable, as it is harder and more lasting in burning.
Upper Tensaw River, near Hall’s Creek, Baldwin County, Alabama. The Index Kewensis
entry is “Bartr. Trav. ed. II. (1794) 403.” It is a valid and accepted species. Small makes

5 This was from the Tensaw River, Alabama, above Mobile, in the low coastal region
and so cannot be the same as M. fraseri Walt. (M. auriculata Bartr.), which is a mountain
species. It is M. macrophylla Michx.. as is also the entry on page 402.

30 BARTONIA

it Cerothamnus inodorus (Bartr.) Small, Man. Southeast. Flora 409. 1933. As Dr. Rickett

sche apparently ea Fl. Southern U. 8. 427. 1860, was the first post-Bartram author
recognize this spec

wee jcoccinea ny Trav. 17. descr., 24, nom., 1791; ed. 2, 17, 24. 1792.

“T saw large, tall trees of the Nyssa coccinea, si. Ogeeche, growing on the banks of the
river, They grow in the water near the shore. There is no tree that exhibits a more desir-
able appearance than this, in the autumn, when their fruit is ripe, and the tree divested of
its leaves; for then they look as red as scarlet, with their fruit, which is of that colour also.
It is of the shape, but larger than the olive, containing an agreeable acid juice. The leaves
are oblong lanciolate and entire, somewhat hoary underneath; their upper surface is of a
full green, and shining; the petioles short, pedunculis multifloris. The most northern settle-
ment of this tree, yet known, is on the Great Ogeeche, where they are called Ogeeche limes,
from their acid fruit being about the size of limes, and their being sometimes used in their
stead.” Alatamaha River, at Fort Barrington, McIntosh County, Georgia. The Index Kewen-
sis entry is “ Bartr. Trav. ed. II. (1794) 17.” = Nyssa ogeche Bartr. ex Marsh., Arbust. Am
97. 1785

Nyssa Goa Bartr. Il. cc., nom. alt. N. coccinea Bartr. = N. ogeche Bartr. ex Marsh.,

Arbust. Am. 97, 1785.

Oenothera *grandiflora Bartr., Trav. 406. 1791; ed. 2, 404. 1792.

“Early one morning, passing along by some old uncultivated fields, a few miles above
Taensa, I was struck with surprise at the appearance of a blooming plant, gilded with the
richest golden yellow, stepping on shore, I discovered it to be a new species of the Oenothera
(Oenothera grandiflora) Caule erecto, ramoso, piloso, 7, 8-pedali, foliis semi-amplexicaulibus
lanceolatis, serrato-dentatis, floribus magnis, fulgidis, sessilibus, capsulis cylindricis, 4
perhaps the most pompous and brilliant plant yet known to exist. It is an annual or bien-
nial, rising erect seven or eight feet, branching on all sides from near the earth upwards, the
lower branches extensive, and the succeeding gradually shorter to the top of the plant, form- -
ing a pyramid in figure; the leaves are of a broad lanceolate shape, dentated or deeply ser-
rated, terminating with a slender point, and of a deep full green colour; the large expanded
flowers, that so ornament this plant, are of a splendid perfect yellow colour; but when they

same instant presents to view many hundred flowers. I have measured these flowers above
five inches in diameter, they have an agreeable scent.” Upper Tensaw River, Baldwin County,
Alabama = ? Oenothera grandiflora Aiton (1789).

Antedating Oenothera grandiflora Bartr. by two years is O. See See: Ait., Hort. Kew.
_ 2: 2. 1789, Aiton’s very brief description having been based on specimens grown in Eng-
land, one of Dr. Fothergill’s introductions from North America eek. William Bartram,
the seeds doubtless received under Bartram’s name, and from the plants that he actually
observed. Aiton’s reference to “ L’Hérit. Stirp. Nov. Tom. 2 Tab. 4” is apparently to an
unpublished illustration of L’Héritier that was available to Solander; this part of L’Héritier’s
work was never published.

Panicum *hirtellum Bartr., Trav. 430. 1791; ed. 2, 428. 1792; non Linn., nec Burm. f.
“In one corner of the garden was a pond, round see ves [430] grew luxuriantly the
Scotch grass (Panicum hirtellum, gramen panicum maximum, spica divisa, aristis armatum,

Sloan, Jam. Cat. 30) the people introduced this valuable sae from the West-India islands;

IN DEFENSE OF THE VALIDITY OF WILLIAM BARTRAM’S BINOMIALS 31

they mow or reap it at anytime, and feed it green to cows and horses; it is nourishing food
for all cattle.” The entry in Sloane, Cat. 30. 1696, repeated also in his Voyage 1: 106. 1707,
is “Gramen paniceum maximum, spica divisa aristis armatum,” a pre-Linnaean descriptive
piieta Bartram, however, deliberately provided it with a binomial, Panicum hirtellum
Bartr. Between Manchac and Baton Rouge, on the banks of the Mississippi River in Louisi-
ana = Echinochloa sp

Prunus *caroliniana Bartr., Trav. 187, descr., 198, nom., nota, 1791; ed. 2, 185, 196. 1792.

“ Prunus Caroliniana (pr. flor. racemosis, foliis sempervirentibus, lato-lanceolatis, accumu-
natis, serratis).” The note on p. 198 is: “Prunus caroliniana, a most beautiful evergreen,
decorated with its racemes of sweet, white blossoms.” South side of Alachua Savanna, Ala-
chua County, Florida. Bartram, who seldom cited authorities for binomials, may have in-
tended this to be merely a characterization of Aiton’s species, although considering the dates
involved this is improbable. = Prunus caroliniana (Mill.) Ait., Hort. Kew. 2: 163. 1789
(Laurocerasus caroliniana M. Roem., Padus caroliniana Mill.).

Prunus *nemoralis Bartr., Trav. 408. 1791; ed. 2, 406. 1792.

Prunus nemoralis, floribus racemosis foliis sempervirentibus, nitidis.” Upper Tensaw
River, Baldwin County, Alabama = praec. fide Fernald in Rhodora 46: 45. 1944.
Quercus *incana Bartr., Trav. 378, descr., 403, nom. 1791; ed. 2, 376, 401. 1792.

“ Quercus incana, foliis ovalibus integerrimis subtus incanis.” High ridges, Warren County,
Georgia; see F. Harper in Bartonia 22: 3. 1943, and Fernald in Rhodora 46: 44. 1944, who
accepted Bartram’s binomial, reducing Quercus cinerea Michx. (1803) to synonymy.

Quercus *maritima Bartr., Trav. 164. 1791; ed. 2, 162. 1792.

“Quercus maritima, foliis obcunciformibus obsolete trilobis minoribus.” Near Salt
Springs, west side of Lake George, Marion County, Florida. A species of doubtful status;
see Fernald in Rhodora 46: 45. 1944. Dr. F. os in litt., thinks that it is either Q.
‘myrtifolia Willd. (1805) or Q. chapmani Sarg. (1895

m., nota, 36, , 37, nom., wile. 320,
~~ a oo Total” "i eSestt were = ‘474, nom. 1791; "ed. 2. xi, 28, 36, 37,

318, 333, 360, 376, 392, 472, 1792.

On page 28 the entry is “4. Q. tinctoria . . . Great Black Oak.” On p. 37 “the gigantic
Black * Oak ~ tinctoria).” Georgia = Quercus velutina Lam. (1785).

“ ies of oak
Ged oat alle olgn je Pig eeys taet Ree
Sarracenia +lacunosa Bartr., Trav. xviii, nom., 417; descr., 1791; ed. 2, xii, 415. 1792 (Saracinia).

“And in the level wet savannas grew plentifully a new and very elegant Ao of
Saracenia (Saracinia lacunosa) the leaves of this plant, which are twelve or fourtee
in length, stand nearly erect, are round, tubular and ventricose ; but not a with longi-

leaf, which is of a pale, but vivid green colour, is beautifully ornamented with rose coloured
studs or blisters, and the inner surface curiously inscribed, or variegated with crimson veins
or fibres. It was past the time for flowering, but the plant in any situation is a great
curiosity.” Near Pensacola, Florida. The entry in Index Kewensis is “ Bartr. Trav. ed. II
(1794), p. xii, 415.”

32 ; BARTONIA

Macfarlane, in Das Pflanzenreich 34 (IV. 110): 31. 1908, placed Bartram’s species un-
equivocally in the synonymy of S. drummondii Croom, in Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist. N. Y. 4: 100.
1848 [1837], together with S. leucophylla Raf. Fl. Ludovic. 14. 1817; the latter was based on a
cursory Robin description of what he took to be an aroid, and there is no reasonable doubt

ing the identity of the Croom and Rafinesque species. S. drummondii Croom (1837) =
8. leucophylla Raf. (1817) is abundant in the neighborhood of Pensacola, and this is undoubt-
edly the species that Bartram observed. But, according to Small, Man. Southeast Fl. 582.
1933, sub 8S. drummondii, Bartram’s description is of S. minor Walt., an opinion confirmed
by Dr. F. Harper, in litt.
Stewartia *montana Bartr., Trav. 334. 1791; ed. 2, 332. 1792.

“Stewartia montana *, fol. ovatis acuminatis serratis, flor. nivea, staminum corona ful-
gida, pericarp, ee exsuccum, apice acuminato dehiscens.” Oconee County, South Caro-

* * This i Nes a new species of Stewartia, unknown to — European
botanists, and not mentioned in any catalogu

lina. The entry in Index Kewensis is Stuartia montana, al ee ed. II. (1794 [1792])

332, Stuartia being the accepted spelling of the generic name. Bartram’s species seems

ermid to be the same as Stuartia pentagyna L’Hérit., Stirp. Nov. 155. t. 74. 1791. Small
ains Malachodendron Cav. as generically distinct from Stuartia Linn., and makes the

sng Malachodendron pentagynum (L’Hérit.) Small. The age name for this species is

Stuartia ovata (Cav.) Weatherby (Malachodendron ovatum Cav., as

Stillingia *fruticosa Bartr., Trav. 476. 1791; ed. 2, 474. 1792. (“S. fasctes ).

“Stillingia fructicosa, foliis lanciolatis, utrinque glabris, fructu tricocco.” Ashwood, about
five miles northeast of Council, Bladen County, on Northwest Cape River, North Carolina.
= Sebastiania fruticosa (Bartr.) Fernald in Rhodora 46: 45. 1944. (Stillingia ligustrina Michx.,
S. fruticosa Michx. ex Spreng., S. frutescens Bose ex Steud., Ditrysinia ligustrina Raf., Gym-
nanthes ligustrina Muell.-Arg.).

Tillandsia *lingulata Bartr., Trav. 61, 1791; ed. 2, 59. 1792; non Linn.

“ Tillfandsia] lingulata or Wild Pine; both of these curious vegetables [T. monostachya
and T. lingulata] are parasites, living on the substance of others, particularly on the limbs
of Live Oak; the latter species is a very large flourishing plant, greatly resembling at some
distance, a well grown plant of the Bromelia Ananas: the large deep green leaves are placed
in an imbricated order, and ascendant; but their extremities are reflex, their bases gibbous
and hollowed like a ladle, and capable of containing near a pint of water; heavy tempests
of wind and rain tear these plants from the trees; yet they live and flourish on the earth,
under the shadow of these great Live Oaks.” St. Simons Island, Georgia. = Tillandsia utri-
culata Linn.

Vitis Sieeenieins Bartr., Trav. 400. 1791; ed. 2, 398. 1792.

* our progress over this vast high forest, we crossed extensive open plains, the
soil gravelly, producing few trees and shrubs or undergrowth, which were entangled with
Grape vines (Vitis campestris) of a peculiar species; the bunches (racemes) of fruit were
very large, as were the grapes that composed them, though yet green and not fully grown,
but when ripe are of various colours, and their juice sweet and rich. The Indians gather
great quantities of them, which they prepare for keeping, by first sweating them on hurdles
over a gentle fire, and afterwards dry them on their bunches in the sun and air, and store
them up for provisions: these Grape vines do not climb into » high trees, but creep along
from one low shrub to another, extending their branches to a great distance horizontally

touching the earth, indeed some of them lie upon the ground.” Butler or an adjacent
County, Alabama. Accepted by Fernald in Rhodora 46: 48. 1944, as the valid name for what
has long been known as Vitis rotundifolia Michx. bith (Muscadinia rotundifolia Beal)

IN DEFENSE OF THE VALIDITY OF WILLIAM BARTRAM’S BINOMIALS 33

but Dr. bane Harper, on the authority of Bayard Long, thinks that it may prove to be
Vitis labrusca Linn., considering that further field work in the place where Bartram observed
the species oad be desirable.

PTERIDOPHYTA
Felix [Filix] *scandens Bartr., Trav. 41. 1791; ed. 2, 41. 1792 (Filir).

“Felix scandens, perhaps species of Trichomanes; the leaves are palmated, or radi-
ated; it climbs and roves about, on shrubs, in moist grounds.” Oglethorpe County, Georgia.
= Lygodium palmatum (Bernh.) Sw
Filex [Filix] *osmunda Bartr., Trav. 173. 1791; ed. 2, 171. 1792 (Filix).

“and here were great quantities of a very large and beautiful Filex osmunda, growing
in great tufts or clumps.” Deep Creek, Putnam County, Florida. Here one might assume
that it was not Bartram’s intent to publish a binomial, for he perhaps merely intended to
indicate “the large fern, Osmunda.” Being strictly a nomen nudum Bartram’s binomial
has no standing.

Pteris *scandens Bartr., Trav. 478. 1791; ed. 2, 476. 1792.

“Observed near Cambelton a very curious scandent Fern (Pteris scandens) rambling
over low bushes, in humid situations, the lower larger fronds were digitated or rather radi-
ated, but towards the tops or extremities of the branches, they became trifid, hastated, and
lastly lanciolate; it is a delicate plant, of a yellowish lively green, and would be an orna-
ment in a garden.” Near Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina. = Lygodium
palmatum (Bernh.) Sw.

BarRTRAM’s NomMiInA Nupa

In addition to the various species that Bartram named and characterized,
either with technical or cursory descriptions, or by notes, he also proposed a very
considerable number of new binomials accompanied by no descriptive data.
There is little to be gained by even listing these, although a very few of them
were entered in Index Kewensis. Not being accompanied by descriptive data,
and with no cross references to descriptions elsewhere, they are strictly nomina
nuda and have no standing. In the following condensed list those names marked
with an asterisk (*) are not listed in Index Kewensis; those indicated by the sign
(F) are entered, but the citations are erroneous in one respect or another. The
list of these nomina nuda, with references to the 1791 edition of Bartram’s
Travels only, is as follows:

Aesculus *alba Bartr. 401, 408; A. *arborea Bartr. 36; A. *parva Bartr. 7 (an A. pavia
Linn.?) ; qipicang Me higad ay 303; Annona *alba Bartr. 303; A. *incana Bartr. v; Are-
thusa *pulcherima Bartr. xviii; Asclepias *carnosa Bartr. 342; A. *coccinea Bartr. 472; A.
*fragrans atbug 19; Aster ey Bartr. ix, 470; Azalea *coccinea Bartr.® xvi, xvii,

SIt is suspected that the binomials Azalea coccinea, A. flammea, and A. flammula ac-

to this nak allele ted of Azalea, as asa oh of it
annex most celebrated species o: being pearance
in flower, which ate ih gumeeal the aslour ct. the Smest ved.tend, orange and height gokl, as

34 BARTONIA

319; A. *flammea Bartr. 327; A. *flammula Bartr. 342; A. *nuda Bartr. 29; A. *rosea
Bartr. xvi; *Callicanthus *floridus Bartr. 318, sphalm. = Calycanthus floridus Linn.; Cassine
*yapon Bartr. 476; Chironia *pulcherrima Bartr. 19; Citrus ola Bartr. 461; C. *verru-

cosa Bartr. sg Corypha *palma adie 6, 29, 61, 93, 114, 131, 187, 222, “Great Cabbage
Palm ” == Corypha palmetto Walt. = Sabal palmetto (Walt.) Lodd. ; Crinum *floridanum
-Bartr. xvii; Donec *virginica Bartr. 131, sphalm. = D. virginiana Linn.; Erythronium
*maculatum Bartr. 342; Filer [Filiz] *osmunda Gare. 173 (see p. ae Froikiine *ala-
tahama Bartr. 16, sphalm. = F. alatamaha Bartr. ex Marsh.; Frazinus *aquatica Bartr. 6,
24, 130; Gentiana tcuerilen Bartr. 472; Hydrocotyle Shultans Bartr. 130; Juglans *acumi-
nata Bartr. 32; J. *ezaltata Bartr. 29, 32, 36, 37, 38, 309, 399, 432; J. *hiccory Bartr. 90; J.
*hickory Bartr. 320, 327, 335, vi 374, 378, 494; J. *rustica Bartr. 309; Juniperus *americana

Bartr. 6, 298, 325, 421; Kalmia *spuria Bartr. 303; (sphalm. “ Halmea”, ed. 2, 301. 1792 as
Kalmia spuria); Lupinus * flifolius Bartr. 243; Malva *scandens Bartr. 41; Nyssa *tupilo
Bartr. 93; Ophrys *insectoria Bartr. xviii, sphalm. = O. insectifera reuals Panax *ginseng

Bartr. 362; Pancratium *fluitans Bartr. 35; Pavis *sylvatica Bartr. 44 tAweonlas sylvatica
Bartr.); Persicaria *amphibia Bartr. 130; Pinus *balsamica Bartr. xvi, sphalm. = al-
samea Linn.; P. *phoeniz Bartr. xvi; P. *squamosa Bartr. 6 (an P. squarrosa Walt.?);

36; Q. tdentata Bartr. 6, 10, 24, 28, 84, 131, 161, 204, 320 (Ind. Kew. “ed. II (1794) 28”);
Q. *fammula Bartr. 209 (“flammule ”), 403, 470; Q. *glandifer Bartr. 164; Q. themispherica
Bartr. xv, 309, 320, 394, 421, 426, 474 (Ind. Kew. “ Bartr. Trav. 320”); Q. *laciniata Bartr.
36, ut “lasciniata”; Q. *lobata Bartr. 320, 378, 394; Q. hee Bartr. xvi, 28, 32, 36, 37,
309, 320, 335, 362, 378, 394, 494 (Ind. Kew. “ Bartr. Trav. ed. II. (1794) 37; Michx. Hist.
Chénes Am. ii, 24, 25”); Rhezxia *pulcherima Bartr. 472; Rhododendron *spurium Bartr. v;
Robinia {montana Bartr8 342 (Ind. Kew. “ Bartr. Cat. ex Pursh Fl. Am. Sept. ii. 488”);

plant, and the ers ms cover the shrubs in such incredible profusion on the
des, that suddenly opening to view from dark shades, we are alarmed with the appre
hension t on is is certainly the most gay flowering
shrub yet known grow in little copses o ps, ests ell as
groves, with other shrubs, and about the bases of hills, especially where brooks and rivulets
about them; the b d ise above e m y
t , four or five, but branch and spread their tops greatly; oung leaves are but
very small whilst th are loom, from which ¢ nce the plant exhibits a greater
of splendour.” Between Little and Broad Rivers, Geo be Azalea

: Mo :
calendulaceum (Michx.) Torr. Dr. Wherry thinks that the description applies to R. specvosu’
illd.) Sweet.

7 Bartram’s footnote on p. 38 is: “The Chicasaw plumb I think must be excepted, for
though certainly a native of Prati yet I never saw it wild in the forests but always in
old che Indian ey rss I suppose it to have been — from the S.W. beyond
rpg S aeTT 49 by the Chicasa This is Prunus chicasa Michx. (1803) = P. angustifoha

On page = the gpd description, without a binomial, appears: “‘a species of
Robinia new to me, though perhaps the same as figured and d slightly soni by oes
in his Nat. Hist, Carol. This. beautiful esac tee tree grows twenty to thirty feet high, with
a crooked leaning trunk, the branches serend igreatly, some ek: touching the ground;
however there appears a singular ar pleasing wi SS and freedom in its manner of growth, the

subdivisions of the branches wee hee th heavy compound panicles of rose
pink coloured flowers, amidst a wreath of beautiful cingated pe a (et page seid there p
a reference to the “incarnate Robinia.” There are no references to Robinia
ear ee Station, Cache. River, South Carolina. This is Robinia viscosa Vent. 1300).

IN DEFENSE OF THE VALIDITY OF WILLIAM BARTRAM’S BINOMIALS 35

Rosa re egy Bartr. 334, 342; Ruellia *infundibuliformis Bartr. 224 ut “ infundibuli-
formea”; Salix *fluvialis Bartr. 393; Salvia *graveolens Bartr. 181, 183, ut “ graviolens”;
Sarracenia *galeata Bartr. xviii; Staphylea *trifoliata Bartr. 321 (S. trifolia Linn.) ; Styres
*latifolius Bartr. 32; *Telea Baste. 399, 421, 432, 436, 474 (Ptelea Linn.); Tillandsia tmono-
stachya Bartr. 61 (Ind. Kew. “Bartr. Trav. ed. II (1794) 59 ”); Ulmus *suberifera Bartr.
131 ut “suberifer”, 309 ut “subifer”, 393; U. *sylvatica Bartr. 37, 130, 187, 320; Verbena
*corymbosa Bartr. 155, 173; Viburvewn *canadense Bartr. xviii. 77; Vitis tollobreoten Bartr.
460; V. *corinthiaca Bartr. 460; Zizyphus *scandens Bartr. 87. Also Aesculus *virginica
Bartr. Trav. xvi, which may not be the same as A. virginiana Bartr.

One wonders about some of these binomials, such as Panar ginseng Bartr.,
Vitis allobrogica Bartr. and V. corinthiaca Bartr. May not Bartram have actu-
ally seen them in some publication familiar to him that was overlooked by those
bibliographers concerned with compiling indices to the original places of publica-
tion of binomials? However, I find no references to these names in botanical
literature previous to 1791. Panax ginseng C. A. Mey. was published in 1843.

ADDENDUM

About a week before I received the final proofs of this paper Professor M. L.
Fernald called my attention to edition 8 of “ The Gardener’s Dictionary ” by
Philip Miller (1768), the edition in which he changed his entries to the binomial
system. He was distinctly inconsistent, for while most of the plant names are
binomials, there are a considerable number of monomials and a distinctly large
number of descriptive phrases. Thus in the entries under the letter A, with
about 560 binomials, there are eighteen polynomials in the form of pre-Linnaean
descriptive sentences. Examples are “ Alchemilla foliis lobatis sericeis acutis ”
(4 binomials under Alchemilla) ; “ Aloe foliis erectis subulatis radicatis undique
inerme spinosis” (22 binomials under Aloe); and “ Asparagus caule herbaceo
erecto, foliis setaceis . . .” (9 binomials under Asparagus). I merely cite this
standard work, which all taxonomists accept as a source of both generic and
specific names, as supporting my contention that Bartram’s botanical names
should be accepted. Certainly if Bartram’s “ Travels” be eliminated, so logi-
cally should all the names in Miller’s edition of 1768 be discarded, for he was
more inconsistent than was Bartram. His intention was clear, in that he accepted
the binomial system even if, in a certain percentage of cases he also included
cumbersome pre-Linnaean descriptive sentences as the names for certain species
that he recognized.

Notes on North American Campanulaceae
Rocers McVaucH

1. THe Genus ASYNEUMA IN THE NortH AMERICAN FLORA

The Californian species which has hitherto passed as Campanula prenan-
thoides Durand ! is certainly to be referred to Asynewma Griseb. & Schenk,? and
may be designated as Asyneuma prenanthoides (Durand) McVaugh, comb.
nov. Asyneuma is a genus of about 40 species, mostly natives of Asia Minor
and southeastern Europe, separated from Campanula chiefly by the deeply divided
corolla with tardily separating lobes, and from Phyteuwma by the narrowly panic-
ulate (rather than capitate or spicate) inflorescence. Its generic position is none
too strong, but it comprises a reasonably homogeneous group, and its reduction
either to Campanula or to Phytewma would materially lessen the distinction
between these. It has been accepted as a valid genus by most modern European
workers; it was long known as Podanthum (G. Don) Bois., until Grisebach’s
name was taken up under modern rules of nomenclature.* One of the few Far
Eastern species of the genus, A. japonicum (Miq.) Briq., is very similar to A.
prenanthoides in its gross morphology.

2. Tue Genus WAHLENBERGIA IN THE NorTH AMERICAN FLORA.

In 1939 plants of the genus Wahlenbergia were collected by Mr. Erdman
West from fence rows and along ditches on the grounds of the Agricultural Ex-
periment Station at Gainesville, Florida, where it had been established as a weed
for “several years”. The same species was collected in Washington County,
Florida, the same year, by the late Mary F. Baker; in 1940 it was collected in
Wheeler County, Georgia, by Mr. Don E. Eyles, and also near Lyons, Toombs
County, Georgia, by the writer. At the Lyons locality it was well established
as a weed in dry sand of road embankments. All the above collections (now
represented by specimens in the Herbarium of the National Arboretum) appear
unquestionably to represent the same species, probably Wahlenbergia marginata
(Thunb.)A.DC., a native of the tropics and subtropics of the Old World, here
reported for the first time from North America.

The identification of this species as Wahlenbergia marginata is made after
comparison with herbarium material of what is evidently the same entity. Most
specimens of this have been identified as Wahlenbergia gracilis (Forst.)A.DC.,

1 Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. ser. 2, 3: 93. 1855.
2 Archiv fir Naturgesch. 18(1): 335. 1852.

3 For a synopsis of the known species, see onl og J., in Beih. Bot. Sag eg 38: 333-
351. 1921. For treatments of the Near Eastern species, see Boissier, E., Fl. Or. 3: 945-957.
, and Fomin, A., Flora caucasica gee 4(6): 129-139. 1906.

36

NOTES ON NORTH AMERICAN CAMPANULACEAE 37

but that appears to be a later name for the same plant. The two supposed
species were united by Matsumura ‘ under the name of W. gracilis, and by Koor-
ders® under the name of W. marginata, and even Alphonse DeCandolle, who
maintained the two as distinct, noted ® that the differences between them were
minor ones. N. E. Brown? has published a description of the type specimen of
Campanula gracilis Forst., which seems to fit the American plants mentioned
above, and these plants appear also to represent the species portrayed in Thun-
berg’s original plate of Campanula marginata®

3. CAMPANULA LASIOCARPA CHAM., IN THE UNITED STATES

This species was collected by J. William Thompson (no. 14697) in 1940, at
the base of Big Four Mountain, Snohomish County, Washington, at an elevation
of 2500 feet. Campanula lasiocarpa is prominent in the Alaskan flora, and is
well known in the Canadian Rockies, but it has not, to my knowledge, been re-
ported from near or within the borders of the United States.

4. An Unusual Form or CAMPANULA AMERICANA L.

In 1937 Dr. Donovan §. Correll collected on Warnock Peak, Blount County,
Alabama, a diffusely branched Campanula (his no. 8285) of small stature (plants
up to about 30 cm. high), which bore its long-peduncled flowers in lax racemoid
arrangement on all the branches. The plants seemed utterly unlike any known
American Campanula, until examination showed that the flowers were identical
in every respect (except that they were slightly smaller) with the flowers of
Campanula americana, a native of the same region. Campanula americana,
however, is a tall and usually unbranched plant, often 1-1.5 m. high, with sessile
flowers in a rather dense terminal spike. Even relatively glabrous individuals
of C. americana, moreover, retain numerous chaffy hairs on the upper surfaces of
the leaves, at the tips of the corolla lobes, and along the angles of the stem, while
the plants from Warnock Peak were almost entirely glabrous in these places.
The leaves of the latter were smaller and more abruptly pointed than those of
C. americana, and were all more or less petiolate and often subtruncate at base
rather than merely attenuate or roun

Examination of a large series of speeianect of Campanula americana brought
to light nothing exactly like the plants collected by Dr. Correll, but occasional
herbarium specimens which had been stunted or broken off were found to have
produced abnormal or weak shoots; such shoots, in the few cases in which the
careful collectors of “ normal” plants had given them herbarium room, usually

4Ind. Pl. Jap. 2: 618. 1912.

5 Exkursionsfl. Java 3: 300. 1912.

6 Monog. Campan. 144. 1830.

7 Gard. Chron. ser. 3, 54: 317. 1913.
8 Pl. Jap. Ic. dec. 3.

38 BARTONIA

bore smaller leaves than those usual for the species, with longer petioles and
round and even truncate bases. A single fragment with pedunculate flowers
was found. From these it was but a step to confirm what had been but casually
noted before, that the small and diffuse plants from Warnock Peak had all
been cropped—presumably by deer—within a few inches of the ground; some of
them had been browsed repeatedly. Evidently the unknown “ new species ” had
been produced as a result of such browsing on once normal plants of Campanula
americana.

The apparently fundamental difference between the inflorescence of Cam-
panula americana and that of this form is actually no more than what should

nD

Pd

| aN

‘cas

Figure 1. Leena cee inflorescence types in Campanulas; left to right, Cam:
americana L. (normal ula americana (primary axis interrupted), Cmapomie rotun-
difolia L. (vigorous ewtaat individual). Terminal flowers of the primary axes sola be solid
black. e flowering branches of a normal plant of C. americana is shown enlarged.
Note nes ‘ae lateral be flowers of the branch are represented in the abnormal oat yen
oO} i i bearing bracts

and a r occur ar.
coe i is often displaced 0 as to appear lateral, and the primary axis may be surpassed by

be expected as a response to clipping which stops growth of the principal stem-
axis. Lateral axes, which normally give rise in this species to what are appar-
ently clusters of sessile flowers, are stimulated to abnormal elongation; identical
phenomena are observed by every gardener who clips his plants to make them
bushy. As a result of this, clusters of sessile flowers are replaced by single
pedunculate flowers with abortive remnants of other flowers at the bases of the

NOTES ON NORTH AMERICAN CAMPANULACEAE 39

peduncles. The accompanying diagram shows the floral arrangement in normal
and abnormal Campanula americana, and the homologous arrangement in
another species, Campanula rotundifolia L.

The reduced amount of pubescence found on the cropped plants is probably
also a direct result of the cropping; exactly similar results are produced else-
where in the Campanulaceae. A striking example is found in Lobelia puberula,
which is normally thickly pubescent, but which after cropping usually develops
glabrous or nearly glabrous branches; many of the glabrous specimens from the
Gulf Coastal Plain of the United States, which have been identified as L. pu-
berula laeviuscula Mohr, prove upon examination to have been normally pubes-
cent plants which have been broken off just above the base and have subse-
quently produced the glabrous branches.

5. LOBELIA BERLANDIERI AND LOBELIA BRACHYPODA.

Lobelia berlandieri A.DC. was based on a specimen (Berlandier 106) col-
Iceted near Tampico, Tamaulipas. This specimen, a type common in the coastal
area between Matamoros and Tampico, is representative of a population having
decumbent stems, relatively long and spreading pedicels, a rosette of basal leaves
present at flowering time, and but few cauline leaves. A photograph of the type,
kindly furnished by Professor Hochreutiner, makes clear these points. All plants
so far examined from this area have eciliate calyx-lobes; so, presumably, has
the type of L. berlandieri, but this cannot be ascertained from the photograph.

Lobelia brachypoda Small, as defined in the North American Flora,® is a
taller, more erect plant with cauline leaves and usually with no basal rosette;
the pedicels are shorter and more nearly erect than in L. berlandieri, and the
calyx-lobes are ciliate.

In the lowlands of Tamaulipas and northern Veracruz Lobelia berlandiert is
the prevailing plant of this affinity, while in southern and southwestern Texas L.
brachypoda predominates. In southern coastal Texas, where the ranges of the
two coincide, there are numerous intermediate plants which exhibit various com-
binations of the features supposed to distinguish the species, and I am quite un-
able to refer these intermediates definitely to one species or the other. In 1940
I had seen few such intermediate plants, and their relation to the general popula-
tion was not clear. Because of the apparently ample distinctions between the
extremes (typical berlandieri and brachypoda) I maintained the two plants as
distinct species at that time ?° and in the North American Flora. Recently, how-
ever, I have had access to additional specimens from southern Texas, and it
appears that the number of intermediates is proportionately high and that there
is no good distinction between L. berlandieri and L. brachypoda. Evidently the
two are but ee segregated races of the same species, and should be
designated as follows

9N. Am. FI. 32A: 50-52. 1943.
10 Am. Midl. Nat. 24: 690-692. 1940.

40 BARTONIA

Lobelia berlandieri A.DC., var. berlandieri McVaugh, nom. nov. Lobelia
berlandiert A.DC. in DC. Prodr. 7(2): 367, as to type. 1839; McVaugh in North
Am. Fl. 32A: 50. 1943. A map of the distribution of this variety and the fol-
lowing and a list of representative specimens, appeared in the American Midland
Naturalist for November, 1940.

Lobelia berlandieri A.DC., var. brachypoda (A. Gray) McVaugh, re
nov. Lobelia cliffortiana var. ‘briihppeda A. Gray, Syn. Fl. N. Am. 2(1):
1878. Lobelia brachypoda “A. DC.” ex Small, Fl. SE. U. 8. 1147. ‘tele
McVaugh in North Am. FI. 32A: 51. 1943.

The type of this variety is Charles Wright’s no. 419, collected on Elm Creek,
Texas, in October, 1849. Gray’s original description stressed the short pedicels
(“2 or at most 3 lines long”), and was based on “ L. Berlandieri, Torr. Mex.
Bound. 107, hardly of ADC.—S. W. Texas, Wright, Parry. Adjacent parts of
Mexico, Berlandier, &.” Gray apparently excluded from var. brachypoda Ber-
landier’s no. 3177, which he said “ may be L. Berlandieri”, and which was said
by him to have long filiform pedicels. In the report on the Mexican Boundary
Survey Torrey cited Berlandier’s no. 3177, and also Wright’s nos. 419 and 1429.
Gray, as shown by sheets now in the Gray Herbarium, had access to these col-
lections of Wright’s and apparently one of them should be selected as the type
of the variety. The Parry collection cited by Gray I have not located, unless
he referred to no. 693 of the Mexican Boundary Survey, from the “ banks of the
Sabinal”, of which there is a sheet at New York. Of Wright’s two collections
I have taken no. 419 to be the type because it is representative of the variety as
here defined and agrees well with Gray’s description (“ cauline leaves from obo-
vate-spatulate to lanceolate”). Some of the sheets of Wright’s no. 1429 are
scarcely distinguishable from typical Lobelia berlandieri.

Division oF PLANT ExpLoRATION AND INTRODUCTION
Piant Inpustry SraTion, BELTsvILLE, MaryLANp

Will the Stowaway, Molinia caerulea, become Naturalized?
W. L. Drx

The chance collection of Molinia caerulea in the northern part of Wayne
County, Pennsylvania, in the summer of 1943 remained unidentified until the
locality was revisited in 1944 with Dr. Henry K. Svenson who recognized it
immediately from its being a familiar sight to him on a trip into Scotland some
years ago. This was the first collection in Pennsylvania since its discovery in
1878 by Isaac Burk in Philadelphia.

Molinia caerulea, or Purple Moor Grass as it is known in the British Isles, is
a plant of bogs, marshes, and heathy places in its native land. It often occupies
miles of heath almost to the exclusion of other grasses. In this respect it is
like some of our Andropogons. Unlike the Andropogons, however, which light
up our winter landscape with their russet foliage, the Purple Moor Grass has
dark bluish leaves and dark purple spikes, and makes a prominent feature in the
heath vegetation. In some fishing villages it is used in making ropes, and else-
where its tall culms are utilized in the manufacture of a poor sort of broom.

In Europe the species has been divided into five or six varieties. A small
form, v. breviramosa, is most frequently the heath form, and v. major, often four
feet high, occurs in bogs and marshes. In the United States apparently no at-
tempt has been made to indicate which variety grows here, or whether more than
one variety occurs in this country.

In the locality where it has been found in Wayne County it covers an area of
some acres with a.rather extensive growth, not however to the exclusion of other
grasses. It grows in large clumps with a very tenacious root, and almost defies
any attempt to collect root material. The culms are from three to four feet high,
and the panicle, though usually appressed with short ascending branches, often
consists of lax spreading branches 5-7 inches long. It was this latter condi-
tion that prevented the writer from properly identifying it, as the manuals sepa-
rate it from its associates by referring to “ narrow panicle, with short appressed
branches ”’.

It apparently made its first trip across the Atlantic as a stowaway, for the
record of its first collection in the United States is as follows: “ Ballast, Phil-
adelphia, Penn., Aug., 1878, No. 2.” Although this record is unsigned, the hand-
writing is that of Isaac Burk, in the opinion of Mrs. Agnes Chase of the United
States National Museum, Washington, D. C. Another specimen bearing his
name was collected at Kaighn’s Point, Camden County, New Jersey, just across
the Delaware River from Philadelphia. This last specimen is undated.

The next collection of Purple Moor Grass in the United States was by Dr.
C. H. Peck, former state botanist of New York, in 1884 at Garoga, Fulton
County, N. Y. How this plant found its way into this remote locality at the

41

42 BARTONIA

southern edge of the Adirondack plateau is something of a mystery. The only
other collections here in the last century were three by E. P. Bicknell in 1897,
at Bar Harbor, Mt. Desert, and York Harbor, all in Maine. Each bears the
same date, August 25. Bar Harbor and Mt. Desert are both on Mt. Desert Is- -
land, but 150 miles from York Harbor.

At present it does not seem likely that the Purple Moor Grass will become
sufficiently established to displace any of the usual meadow or pasture grasses
in the United States. It apparently has not invaded our bogs and swamps, for
it is recorded only from roadsides and uncultivated fields. In Wayne County it
grows in an abandoned field formerly cultivated, and to all appearances it came
there in some imported seed, as it is generally spread over a large area, but is
limited to a single field. Inquiry at Michell’s seed store in Philadelphia pro-
duced the information that it probably was introduced with English Perennial
Rye Grass, Loliwm perenne, which is imported here, and used extensively for
lawns, meadows and pastures.

Its distribution in the United States, as indicated by herbarium specimens
appears in the following account. Herbaria are indicated as follows: AS., The
Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, Pa.; G. Gray Herbarium at Cam-
bridge, Mass.; MBG. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, Mo.; NY. New York
Botanical Ganion: New York City; NYSM. New York State Auenias Albany,
New York; UP, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.; US. United
States National Museum, Washington, D. C.

Mt. Desert, Aug. 25, E. P. Bicknell, US., NY.

Bar Harbor, Aug. 25, 1897, E. P. Bick ll, NY.

York Harbor, Aug. 25, 1897, E. P. Bicknell, NY.

Isle au Haut, 1919 N. T. Kidder, G.
VERMONT:

Rutland, July 19, 1911, G. L. Kirk, US., G

Rutland, July 1 G. L. Kirk MBG
RHODE ISLAND

uth Kingston, 1935, J. F. Collins, G

CONNECTI

New Haven, 1905, R. W. Woodward, US., G.

Chaplin, 1917, C. A. Weatherby #4171 US., G.
NEW a

Gar July 1884, Dr. C. H. Peck, NY., beg

Port Washingt i Sept. 16, 1915, Dr. Homer D. House, NYSM

Brooklyn, (in ates of Botanic

Garden) J. A. Drushel # 9910, US., MBG.

PENNSYLVANIA: *

Philadelphia August, 1878, Isaac Burk, US.

Scott Center, Wave County, 1943-4 W. L. Diz, UP., AS.
NEW JE.

Caign’s Point, Cassich Co. Isaac Burk, UP.

Annandale, Aug. 20, 1908, M. L. Fisher, MBG.

* Dr. David PPLE reports that there is in the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, P:
a specimen of Molinia caerulea collected on the Campus of Duquesne Uhivestity: Pittsburgh,
Pa., in 1943. Without doubt this plant came from a mixture of lawn grass see

How Durand acquired Rafinesque’s Herbarium
Francis W. PENNELL

Just as this issue of Bartonia is going to press there has arrived from Pro-
fessor P. A. Davies of the University of Louisville, who is engaged in preparing
- g life of Charles Wilkins Short, the photostat copy of a letter from Elias Durand
to Dr. Short, dated June 4, 1856, which tells how and when Durand acquired
the herbarium of C. S. Rafinesque. A portion of the letter reads:

“Yes! My dear Sir, I bought Rafinesque[’s] herbarium—or in better words,

it was forced upon me by his executor Dt Mease, who had no money of the
deceased in hands to pay 45 Dollars storage. 45 Dollars... What poor Rafi-
nesque estimated 6000!
' “But it was truly a dunghill, from the circumstance that it had remained
three years in a stable garret, where a numerous colony of rats found it a con-
venient hiding and breading [breeding] place. It required indeed a botanical
zeal equal to mine to consent [to] transfering to a decent house 6 cart-loads of
that prodigious mass of corruption. Happily it was not a season of yellow fever!
Not being fit to place in a room, I removed it to an obscure cellar, where, for a
whole winter, I was occupied, by candle light, to separate the good from the
rotten.

“ Rafinesque’s own specimens were trash, incomplete, good for nothing; He
was the worst collector I ever knew; But I found in Collins’ herbarium, in your
own and D* Buckley’s plants, enough to repay my forty five Dollars, my soap
& cologne water.

“There I saw the wonders he boasted of — The series of what he called his
very rare specimens at 25 cents apiece, and a very small piece too; a disfigured
flower and a few leaves, not spreading but more or less reflexed and rumpled; as
for instance, his 8 or 9 species of Dodecatheon, all made up from the scapes more
or less furnished with flowers of the common species, with leaves belonging to
other genera; his new genera and species from the Apalach- Mountains (a local-
ity he loved above all) which were simply exotic plants well known, but dis-
figured and with addition of parts that did not belong to them... But enough
about that poor insane—Requiescat in pace! Forgive my prolixity and believe
me respectfully yours E. Durand.”

In his letter to Dr. Short Durand reached the subject of Rafinesque by way
of a comment on a plant that Short had sent him for verification, saying of it
“ Hypericum dolabriforme of Raf. is certainly different from yours, and I do not
think that he found it in Kentucky.” Durand suggested that it was actually
gathered by Major LeConte in Georgia, because it matched LeConte’s material

43

. 44 BARTONIA

in the Academy’s herbarium, being “ identical—in the very same state of flor-
escence and everything else.” Since LeConte was “ a correspondent of M* Col-
lins ”, Rafinesque might have acquired a portion with Collins’ herbarium. Short’s
herbarium subsequently came to the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadel-
phia, although Durand’s (and with it this specimen of Rafinesque’s) is no longer
here. But from Schweinitz’ herbarium (and, as always, inscribed only in Sch-
weinitz’ hand) we have what appears to be part of the Rafinesque collection.
Its data read “ Hypericum dolabriforme Kentuck Raff”, and the identification,
as checked by current standards, is correct. We have further Kentucky collec-
tions from C. W. Short and from Charles Schaeffer. These seem quite different
in leaves and sepals from the only LeConte specimen of this group that I now
find here, one of H. opacum T. & G. that was originally named “ Hypericum fas-
ciculatum.” I fail to sustain Durand in his suspicion, nor, since H. dolabriforme
was described not by Rafinesque but in 1800 by Ventenat, in his next remark:

“Tf Rafinesque, in this instance, has really hit upon a new species, it was
not always his case. No writer has ever made more lies than this poor insane
man. I say insane —to justify, in some measure, his most impudent stories!
Depend upon it, he never saw of his pretended thorny Aesculus but the prickly
fruit of your Aesculus glabra.”

This case shows both Durand’s attitude toward Rafinesque and also the fal-
libility of his criticism. Rafinesque may have committed the misdemeanors of
which he is accused, but I wish that we had knowledge of them on other evidence.
Some years ago, in preparing an account of the “ Travels and Scientific Collec-
. tions of Thomas Nuttall”, I had to evaluate Durand’s “ Biographical Notice of
the late Thomas Nuttall”, published by the American Philosophical Society in
1860, and I have little hesitation in pronouncing it the most inaccurate biography
I know. To find Durand at fault now in supposing that Rafinesque had pro-
posed a new species and presumably so in misidentifying Rafinesque’s specimen
as being identical with Le Conte’s from Georgia, does not lend confidence to his
criticisms. Yet, he was doubtless right about the Aesculus, and he is certainly so
in a remark upon a sheet before me now. It displays a specimen that is labeled
by Rafinesque: “ Veronica prostrata Oregon”; the “ Oregon ” is surrounded by
a pencilled line that also encloses Durand’s comment, “ a lie of Rafinesque.” For
the sake not only of poor Rafinesque but of that posterity to which he so hope-
fully appealed, would that his herbarium had fallen into other hands!

Rafinesque’s herbarium had been through various vicissitudes before reaching
Durand. In my account of “ The Life and Work of Rafinesque ” 2 there appears
on page 29 a summary of it, dated January 1, 1824, while he was at Transylvania
University ; then it comprised 37,740 specimens, which were valued at $2,387.00.

1 For this account st Thomas Nuttall see Barronza 18: 1-51, 1936, and for comment upon
Durand’s accuracy various footnotes such as # 46 on page 25.

2 Transylv. Coll. a, 15: 10-70, 1942. Address delivered October 30, 1940.

HOW DURAND ACQUIRED RAFINESQUE’S HERBARIUM 45

On his leaving Kentucky in 1826, the herbarium remained long in storage with
the transportation company, as witnessed (p. 41) by Rafinesque’s letter of Jan-
uary 2, 1832 to Dr. John Torrey, wherein he tells of the resultant damage: “I
find upon an average one tenth of the plants lost or spoiled but not many of the
new or rare ones. The loss will amount to at least 4000 specimens: but I shall
have 36,000 left large and small.” I suppose that by 1840 the herbarium had
greatly increased for Rafinesque to have valued it at $6000.00.

In my account (p. 62) I presumed that Elias Durand was one of those who
would have visited Rafinesque in his last illness, and spoke of his having pur-
chased the herbarium then. Since Thomas Meehan, who had known Durand,
said that he had done this “ charitably ”, I assumed that it had been to help the
sick man in his need. But the letter to Short now quoted shows that Durand
must be acquitted of any such generous act, and the tenor of his remarks leads
me to doubt that he would have ever so visited Rafinesque. Instead of purchas-
ing Rafinesque’s herbarium in 1840, he did so in 1843 or 1844 and only on the
solicitation of Dr. James Mease.*

Not only in this letter but in the statement accompanying his herbarium in
Paris * Durand says candidly that he acquired Rafinesque’s herbarium solely to
obtain the plants of others that were in it—I did not care much for his own
plants. I knew that his specimens were miserable....” We can picture Du-
rand toiling by candle-light in an “ obscure cellar” of Philadelphia just a hun-
dred years ago, and see his eyes brighten with pleasure as he came upon some
collection of Elliott, or Riddell, or Carpenter, that he deemed worth saving.
Meanwhile the trash container was being filled with the undoubtedly poor speci-
mens that bore however the peculiar and strange names that Rafinesque had as-
signed them. At some new generic name attached to something quite familiar
to him—say, Aureolaria for a yellow Gerardia—we can see the impatient thrust
that sent it to oblivion. Durand never dreamed that there would come rules of
priority into nomenclature, or any other rules to supersede the perfect settling
of our botanical problems that he was witnessing in the work of John Torrey and
Asa Gray.’ Besides who would ever think of reviving, or even investigating, the

3 A further assumption of my account proves erroneous. ——— that Dr. Mease, who
also his phy illiam Ash-

acted as Rafinesque’s executor, was physician, but it appears that Dr. W:

mead attended him in his last illness. A ial account of this, entitled “Case of Cancer
of d Liver”, by Dr. Edward owell, was > alabaa ta the Medical Examiner
for September 19, 1840 ly issued in Oct ). On receiving a copy of _ overlooked
hat N man ago, I sent for inserti

eman over a year
a summary it with some comment under the caption, “ The Last ‘faekcaes of

oe eoie ” The satiait received good medical attention.

4“The Durand —— af Agnes Chase in Bartonta 17: 40-45, 1936. Mention of
Rafinesque herbarium on page 42

5 Durand’s confid finali the taxonomic decisions of his time is stressed in
my account of “ ans ge Sie a th the agi 4 of Natural Sciences a
Philadelphia ” in Barronia 17: 33-39, 1936. ee ae on a series of one or two speci-

46 BARTONIA

names suggested by such a madman as Rafinesque?

An occasional specimen that was in relatively good condition was saved, and
So we journey to-day to the Museum d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris (to which, as
a good Frenchman, Durand eventually gave his personal herbarium) to see what
of Rafinesque’s herbarium has survived in the Herbier Durand. As recounted
nine year’s ago in Bartonia both Mrs. Chase and I have done this, but she found
no grasses and I only eight out of sixty species of Scrophulariaceae. Some fifty
specimens or more were given by Durand to Dr. William Darlington and so sur-
vive in Darlington’s herbarium at West Chester, Pa.,° but they are mostly of
European species. Such survival is very little indeed, when we need so much
to interpret Rafinesque’s many propositions.

In my address of 1940 I tried to show that there was vision in the work of
Rafinesque’s later years, even though he was not equipped either by tempera-
ment or in resources to carry out the elaborate program that he had set himself.
Nevertheless his attempt has to be taken seriously, and due effort made to
record and account for his many botanical proposals. In a comprehensive “ In-
dex Rafinesquianus ” Dr. E. D. Merrill is at last bringing together all of Rafi-
nesque’s names, but beyond this bibliographical undertaking botanists will long
be laboring to explain just what was being described. Would that some one of a
century later could have been in the cellar with Durand and told him which
specimens to save! What an incredulous glance such an interloper would have
received!

mens of each species as all that would be needed for convenient consultation oe Such un-

mat erial, Durand — that his verification of the names would o “in some

e instances” ne eed future corre cting. To Gray he gave in 1866 what specimens e could of

Nuttall, as “owing to a herbarium of Dr Gray, which was to be the standard herbarium
of the North Amer. plan

6“ The ‘ Darlington Sitastia? at West Chester”, by Robert B. Gordon in BarToNIa
22: 6-9, 1943, the Rafinesque entry on page 8.

Franklin and Marshall College Herbarium at
Lancaster, Pennsylvania

H. K. Grorr, Curator

Lancaster County and Franklin & Marshall College in particular have been
very fortunate in their botanical associations.

Rev. G. H. E. Muhlenberg, one of America’s foremost early botanists and
first Lancaster County collector was the first President of Franklin College. Un-
fortunately none of his specimens exist in our herbarium.

Thomas Conrad Porter was a professor at Marshall College in Mercersberg
from 1840 until its merger with Franklin College in 1853, and then taught in
Franklin & Marshall College until 1866. He was an assiduous collector in the
County and some of his specimens remain here including a splendid series of
mosses.

John Kunkel Small and A. Arthur Heller were students at the College together
and many of their earlier collections were made here. A few of Small’s Lan-
caster County specimens and a larger collection from the Blue Ridge Mountains
of southwestern Virginia are in our herbarium.

Joel Jackson Carter, co-author with Dr. Small of the “Flora of Lancaster
County ”, gathered a large collection of plants in the southern part of the County,
a small series of which we have.

Dr. Abram P. Garber, a physician from Columbia, left his own large collec-
tion to Franklin & Marshall College. Many local plants and specimens from the
vicinity of Easton, Pa. are represented, but by far the greater number are from
southern Florida where he collected for quite a number of years. He thoroughly
explored the Keys and much of the Everglades and doubtless many of his speci-
mens are from stations which no longer exist.

Many other collectors are represented as the following list will show, but
specimens from such botanists as Canby and Bebb were given to Dr. Garber and
not directly to the College.

It is unfortunate that no original catalogue of the herbarium could be found.
Many persons had at one time or another started to catalogue the collection, but
gave it up before completion and left only partial lists which were of no great
help, as the next person attempting the job had his own system and left only a
jumble of numbers which had no value.

After several years of hard work we have succeeded in completing the cat-
alogue of the entire herbarium and have indexed it as to familie es and genera,
using the Engler & Prantl system.

47

Bausman, J. W. B.

Macoun, John

Porterfield, W. M.
Pringle, C. G.
Reverchon, Julien

BARTONIA

Dates
1872-1874
1867

Locatities AND Notes

Lancaster County, Pa.
Illinois

ada
Maine; New Jersey

Pennsylvania
Florida; North Carolina
rmont
Southern Lancaster Co.
‘Michigans

N
Florida and Pennsylvania
Rocky Mountains
(Algae) Australia and Ceylon
New York (mostly ferns)
Japan (includes 173 mosses)
Pe i

nnsylvania
Pennsylvania and Maryland
Canad.

anada
various localities
New York (Wading River)
Al

abama
Pennsylvania and Maryland
. C. and vicinity

Panama (grasses)
Vermont

exas
Lebanon Co., Pa.
Holly Beach Toland, N. J.
Pennsylvania and Virginia
Lan r County, Pa.
California

Notes

A Variant of the Nodding Trillium. While Trillium cernuum L. varies
considerably in flower-size, and the larger extreme has been segregated as var.
macranthum Eames and Wiegand, it is in general constant in corolla-hue,—white
or faintly cream-color. Recently a well-marked color-form has been discovered
in Pennsylvania by Louise F. A. Tanger (Mrs. C. Y. Tanger) of Lancaster.
This has the petals deep pink, in Maerz & Paul’s “ Dictionary of Color” match-
ing block 42-H-5, “ opera mauve.” It may be known as:

Trillium cernuum L., typicum Wherry, nom. nov., forma tangerae
Wherry, nova. Peduncle 15- ‘is mm. long, strongly recurved; petals 15-20 mm.
long and about 8 mm. wide, deep pink; anthers about 4.5 mm. long. (Pedun-

culus 15-20 mm. longus, valde recurvatus; petala 15-20 mm. ge ca. 8 mm.
lata, intense rosea; antherae ca. 4.5 mm. longae.

Typx in herbarium Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, collected by
Edgar T. Wherry, May 5, 1945, in moist rocky woods near Iron Springs, Adams
County, Pennsylvania. Some plants in the colony had paler pink corollas, but
none were observed to be pure white. No other Trillium occurs in the vicinity,
and there is no indication of hybridization.

The Martindale Herbarium. In the American Journal of Pharmacy for
November, 1944, 116: 420-432, 4 ill., is an account by Dr. Theodor Philipp Haas
of the “ The Martindale Herbarium ”, which has been “ Fifty years in the pos-
session of the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science.” There are repro-
duced a photograph of Isaac C. Martindale (1842-93) and of three sheets of
specimens in the herbarium. Mr. Martindale? collected widely, but is locally
best remembered for his interest in ballast plants. He assembled his large her-
barium both by purchase and exchange. Thus, he bought in 1861 the collection
of Ferdinand Rugel, and in 1874 the Swiss herbarium of J. Brunner. Besides
collections of Edward Palmer and C. G. Pringle from Mexico and of H. H. Rusby
from New Mexico and Arizona, which are evidently duplicates of specimens at
_ the Academy of Natural Sciences, there are various series not otherwise in Phil-
adelphia, such as those of N. J. Andersson from Sweden and elsewhere in northern
Europe, of Ad. Chatin and of J. E. Planchon from France and elsewhere in
western Europe, and of George W. Post from Syria and Palestine. Dr. Haas is
cleaning and reorganizing this large and valuable herbarium, and we join him in
hoping that after the war Martindale’s ornate wooden cabinets may be replaced
by modern metal cases.

‘1See Barronra 22: 16, 1943.
49

50 BARTONIA

Assistance to the Academy’s Herbarium by Members of our Club.
Ever since the founding of the Philadelphia Botanical Club more than fifty years
ago, its members have volunteered their time and interest freely on behalf of the
herbarium of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. To the early
days belong the collaboration of Dr. Ida A. Keller with Stewardson Brown that
resulted in the “ Handbook of the Flora of Philadelphia and Vicinity ” in 1905,
the only book actually published by this Club. From 1903 to 1913 was the
Curatorship of the Club’s Herbarium (the Local Herbarium of the Academy) by
Samuel S. Van Pelt;? who was directly succeeded by the present Curator, Bayard
Long—a happy event of last season was the presentation on March 23, 1944 of
a gift of books and an honorarium by members of our Club to Bayard Long in
appreciation of his thirty years as Curator of the Club’s Herbarium. Since 1922
Dr. Walter M. Benner, author of the “ The Flora of Bucks County, Pennsyl-
vania ” in 1932, has assisted Mr. Long in caring for the Local Herbarium. From
1928 to his death in 1939 Arthur N. Leeds,? who from its commencement had
been Treasurer of our Club, had curatorial oversight of the Academy’s collections
of Pteridophyta and also built up a valuable library about these plants. From
his arrival in Philadelphia in 1930 Dr. Edgar T. Wherry has cared for the Acad-
emy’s collections of Polemoniaceae, and from 1939 of its Pteridophyta also;
on the former he has published extensively in Bartonia and elsewhere, and on
the latter his illustrated ‘ Guide to Eastern Ferns” in 1937 and with a second
edition in 1942. Other members of the Club who have been assisting on special
groups are from about 1920 to 1930 Dr. William Randolph Taylor, then of the
University of Pennsylvania but now of the University of Michigan, on the Algae,
an oversight now being continued by Dr. Ruth Patrick in addition to her curator-
ship of the Academy’s microscopical department; since 1943, W. L. Dix, who
has been renovating the Lichen Herbarium of Dr. John W. Eckfeldt,* an arduous
task that had been commenced by Miss Claire Myers two years earlier; and
since 1944 Leslie D. Stair, who has given Saturdays to work on the Academy’s
collections of Bryophyta, the renovation of which had been zealously undertaken
from 1934 to 1938 by our employed Assistant Curator, Grace M. Tees. There
still remains to mention the many who have aided in arranging the herbarium
specimens geographically within the folders, among whom the most notable was
Dr. Henry Leffman;> and those who have identified collections and distributed
specimens to the cases, such as Dr. Hugh B. Meredith,* Ida K. Langman, and

2 BaRTONIA 17: 1-3, 1935.

3 BarTonia 20: 30-32, pl. 1, 1940.

4Barronia 15: 57-59, 1933. Miss Myers was not a member of our Club.
5 BarTonia 13: 53-54. 1932. ~

6 Barrons 11: 56, 1929.

NOTES 51

many more. Finally, for discriminating service of an historical nature the Acad-
emy’s Herbarium is indebted to Dr. Edward E. Wildman, who since 1942 has
been selecting type specimens from our folders for incorporation in a special ref-
erence series.

Recent Books by Members of our Club.’ “ Penn’s Woops 1682-1932”,
192 pages, by Edward E. Wildman, reprinted by the author Oct., 1944, price
$1.50.—An endeavor to locate and tell of such trees of the Philadelphia territory
(drainage of the Delaware River) as are at least 250 years old, and so date from
the time of William Penn. They have survived from the forest that gave the
name to our state, Pennsylvania. Dr. Wildman gives all credit to the many who
have aided this project. The book has been revised from the original edition
of 1933. It is attractively printed, and many of the trees are shown in the illus-
trations.

A Fora or CHESTER County, PENNSYLVANIA ”, 2 volumes, viii + 1470 pages,
by Hugh E. Stone, published by the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadel-
phia, 1945, price $10.00 (or with some illustrations hand-colored $15.00).—For
many years Mr. Stone has been preparing the drawings and descriptions of Ches-
ter County plants that are now published. Original keys and descriptions are
given for all species, and many of these are delineated in full-page illustrations.
For each species there is a statement of its occurrence within the county, while
for the rarer ones actual localities are cited. Mr. Stone reminds us that we are on
classic ground by referring constantly to Dr. William Darlington’s “ Flora Ces-
trica ” of a century ago.

“Wrerps oF LAWN AND GarpEN. A Handbook for Eastern Temperate North
America ”, vii + 215 pages, by John M. Fogg, Jr., University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1945, price $2.50.—Drawings by Miss Leonie Hagerty serve to identify
our most common weeds, while the text by Dr. Fogg gives information about the
plant’s occurrence and history. An introductory discussion on the nature of
weeds, their origin and control, is of especial interest.

Recently Deceased Members, Epwarp Pennock (1856-1944) was actu-
ally one of the Founders of our Club, although he was later long out of its mem-
bership. His interest lay especially in microscopical botany, and he lived to be
one of the oldest members of the American Microscopical Society. Those of us
who were students at the University of Pennsylvania several decades ago will re-
member him in his shop for scientific books and instruments on Woodland
Avenue.

A. ArTHuR HELLER (1867-1944) became a Corresponding Member of our Club
in 1893, while at Franklin & Marshall College at Lancaster, Pa. He and his
fellow-student John K. Small, had already been collecting together both in Lan-

7 These works may be procured at the Academy of Natural Sciences.

52 BARTONIA

easter County and in North Carolina.’ Heller had received his A. B. in 1892,
and then had spent the summer in northern Idaho. Two years later he was in
Texas and his collections there formed the basis of a special report entitled
“ Botanical Explorations in Southern Texas during the Season of 1894” that was
published in 1895 as Number I of the Contributions from the Herbarium of
Franklin & Marshall College. The College conferred on him in 1897 the degree
of A.M., and in 1911 that of Sc.D. In 1895 Heller collected on the Hawaiian
Islands, and then, after two years as assistant at the University of Minnesota,
was again in the Tropics, collecting in 1898-99 on Puerto Rico. His subsequent
collecting was wholly in the United States. From 1900 to 1915 he published a
botanical journal, Muhlenbergia, and its different places of appearance show us
Heller’s various headquarters during this interval: Lancaster, Pa., 1900-01; Los
Gatos, Calif., 1902-08; Reno, Nev., 1908-12; Chico, Calif., 1913-15. At Reno
he was with the University of Nevada. Throughout these years he collected
vigorously, and his sets of beautiful specimens, especially rich in plants of Cal-
ifornia and Nevada, have been widely distributed. Though he relinquished his
independent journal and collected at a slower pace, his zeal continued through all
his subsequent life. He remained until death at Chico in northern California,
and there my wife and I had the pleasure of visiting him and his daughter in
1940. We drove together up the canyon of the Feather River, and I recall the
ample collections he made of a Lupinus that he subsequently described as a new
species. This was a year or more after the death of Mrs. Heller, who, from the
days when as E. Gertrude Halbach she had shared his early collecting, was of
such vital assistance to him. Few American botanists have ever collected so
extensively as A. Arthur Heller, and the Academy is fortunate in possessing many
series of his specimens.

Stewart H. Burnuam (1870-1943) was made a Corresponding Member of
our Club in 1911. He had a keen knowledge of the plants of New York State,
and his papers were mostly records of species observed in various districts; some
dealt with flowering plants, but most with ferns, mosses, hepatics, and lichens.
In his later years he was associated with the herbarium of Cornell University.

® Because so definitely a report of the herbarium. I h bee i
types of those new species that Heller described in this separ Sake. at Feenk fine Marshall
College, but Dr. Groff’s summary of the herbarium published in this issue of BaRToNIA shows
a they are es pai eg ? i — a fig Small’s influence, Heller’s entire

exas series _ o ew otanical Garden, rised
that no duplicates were left in Lancaster. 5

NOTES 53

J. FuetrcHer Srreer (1880-1944) was an Active Member of our Club from
1918, although he will be chiefly remembered for his popular books on birds and
mammals.

ApoLPH Miiumr (1878-1943) became an Active Member of our Club in 1920.
That summer he made a trip to the mountains of southern Yukon Territory, and
on his return presented to the Academy an interesting collection from the vicinity
of Lake Kluane and Don Jek River. He had a nursery for trees at Norristown,
Pa., and was best known locally for his zealous championship of the flowering
dogwood (Cornus florida) for ornamental planting.

SAMUEL N. Baxter (1881-1945) became an Active Member of our Club in
1918, and from 1926 has been an Honorary Member in recognition of the scien-
tific value of his work for the Park Commission of Philadelphia. A lifelong
resident of our city, he was first associated with the nurserymen, Thomas Meehan
and Sons, but became in 1912 arboriculturist for the Park Commission and in
1923 landscape gardener of Fairmount Park. To readers of Bartonia he will
be remembered as the author of an article in our Bartram Issue of 1931 that
told of the “ Restoration of Plants in Bartram’s Garden by the Fairmount Park
Commission of Philadelphia”. For years he was President of the Germantown
Horticultural Society, and he similarly served as executive or chief officer of
organizations devoted to development of parks through the nation. He died on
September 24th, just as this issue of Bartonia is passing through press.

Program of Meetings during 1943

Subject Speaker Attendance

.. (Meeting en until February 25 on
accoun

GE SHOW. BLOKE): coe ca hae

Feb, 25....Linnaeus ie the Sources of his Knowledge
of our Eastern Flora Francis W. Pennell 27

Mar. 25....The Flora of the West Indies Fairman R. Furness 31
Apr. 22....Various Records of Sex in Plants .......... Conway Zirkle 11
May 27....The Darlington Herbarium “ West Chester Rober B. uti

Some Chester County Plan Hugh E. Sto 25
Sept. 23....Reports by Members on acs Work ...
Oct. 28....More Rare Plants Mrs. J. Norman Henry 32
Nov. 18....Plant Life of the Colombian Andes ....... Francis W. Pennell 40
Dec. 16....Plant Portraits, Wild and Tame ........... Edgar T. Wherry 27

Program of Meetings during 1944
Date Subject Speaker Attendance

Jan. 27....Wild Flowers of the Alleghanies .......... H. P. Sturm 52
Feb. 24....Plants of the Munich Botanical Garden ....Theodore Phillipp Haas 27
Mar. 23....Exploring beyond the Frontier in Wosthern.

British Columbia Mrs. J. Norman Henry 60
Apr. 20....Some Phases of Rafinesque’s Botanical

ork Elmer D. Merrill 34

May 25....A seg deode Kodachrome Photography of

Wild Flowers. ....665585 C. I. Stiteler 34
Sept. 28... Teisicuan aE the Academy’s Herbaria and

Exhibition of Historical Books and Floras 20
Oct. 26....Herbals, and other early Botanical Works..Mrs. Edward M. Cheston 14
Nov. 16....A m8 Flora of Chester County, Penn-

sylvan Hugh E. Stone 32
Dec. 21....From a Smoky ——- Northward to

the New Jersey Pine Barrens ............. John Gill 38

List of Officers and Members, 1943-1945
Francis W. PENNELL, President

Harry W. Trupe.u, Vice-President, 1943

Mrs. J. Norman Henry, Vice-President, 1944
Water M. Benner, Secretary

Lee Sowven, Treasurer

Bayarp Lone, Curator

Francis W. PENNELL, Editor of BARTONIA

54

LIST OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS 55

ACTIVE MEMBERS
(as of August 1, 1945)

Elected
J. W. Apams, 32 Pleasant St., Philadelphia 19, Pa. 1925
Mrs. A. C. Barnes, Latch’s Lane, Merion, Pa. 1942
EpwIn B. Bartram, Bushkill, Pa. 1906
J. Russet Besser, 135 E. Phil Ellena St., Philadelphia 19, Pa. 1919
Dr. Watter M. Benner, 5636 Loretta Ave., Philadelphia 24, Pa. 1912
Jasper T. Bentiey, 7334 Rural Lane, Philadelphia 19, Pa. 1933
Dr. Davm BreRKHEIMER, Ses Elm St., Reading, Pa. 1943
Cart E. Briss, 76 N. Grove St., East Aural. N.Y 1
Cart Borer, Wagner sete 17th St. and Monteouieey Ave., Philadelphia 21, Pa. .... 1926
JoHN Bator, 511 Cheltena Ave., Jenkintown, Pa. .-. 1943
Miss Erne Brusaker, “ The Paiviax: ” 43rd & Liescii Sts., Philadelphia 4, Pa. .......... 1939
Wiu1am C. Brumsacu, Esterly, Pa. 1943
Luoyp G. Carr, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 4, Pa. ........ 1942
Miss Marie CHILuas, 233 Winona Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pa. 1941
RicHarp B. Curmxas, 233 Winona Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pa. 1942
Pror. M. A. Cunvetze, age oe University, New Brunswick, N. J. 1931
F. Van Buren Conn “ Hollybrook”, Brookside Ave., Wayne, Pa. 1924
Parmer DePvue, 4209 paticns: St., Philadalphis 35, Pa. 1939
W. H. Drx, 801 Crown St., Morrisville, Pa. 1942
Rosert T. Dreispacu, 301 Helen St., Midland, Mich. 1922
Leonarp J. Domesmrrsy, 511 Walnut St., Columbia, Pa. 1931
Miss Evizapetu C. Ear.e, 4209 Chester: Ave., Philadelphia 4, Pa. 1935
Howarp W. Exxinton, 6514 Germantown Ave., Philadelphia 19, Pa. ..............+. 1931
Mrs. NeELuie ErisMan, 1821 Mt. Vernon St., Philadelphia 30, Pa. 1945
Mrs. Harotp Evans, « Awbury ”, E. Washington Lane, Philadelphia 38, Pa. ............ 1931
RicHarp Brossom Fartey, “ Rarobts ” Eddington, Pa. 1931
Dr. Joun M. Foae, Jr., University of P csiteny Frail; Philadelphia 4, Pa. 1921
Famman R. Furness, Media, Pa. 1935
Miss Exizasetu A. Gust, R. D. 1, Telford, Pa. 1944
JoHN Gin, 2 Linden Ave., Haddonfield, N. J. -... 1939
Mrs. Joun Gitprn, Sugar Loaf Orchard, Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia 18, Pa. .......... 1943
Dr. Roser: B. Gorpon, 415 Sharpless St., West Chester, Pa. 1942
Miss Léonie Hacerry, 21 W. Pomona St., Philadelphia 44, oo 1944

1

Louis E. Hanp, 8061 Fairview St., Philadelphia 36, Pa. ............--2 +e eee cece eeees 936
Miss ANN Harsison, “The Barclay,” 18th St. and Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia
a, PR. 1944

ArtHur M. Henry, 416 New Post Office, Atlanta, Ga. 1927
Howarp K. Henry, 1464 Grayton sg a3 Wynne, Pa.: 1932
Mrs. J. Norman Henry, Gladwyne, P. 1932
Miss JosEPHINE DE N. Henry, povided 1938
Miss L. K. Herrtne, 444 Queen Lane, a sak MPa iss ie 1942
F. F. Huser, Pennsburg, Pa. 1911
Lee P. Hynes, 36 West End Ave., ‘Haddonfield, N: J. 1939

Miss Nancy E, James, 4043 aliases Ave., Philadelphia 4, Pa. . 1942

56 BARTONIA

Cuar.es F. Jenxrns, Kitchens Lane, Philadelphia 19, Pa. .............-.ececceeceecece 1934
Miss Cuiara Kast, 2004 Spring Garden St., Philadelphia 30, Pa. ................e0000% 1932
Miss Natarie B. Kruper, 538 E. Locust Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pa. ...............00008 1928
Rev. Wru1aM U. Kistter, 118 Main St., Pennsburg, Pa. 1911
Cuartes E. Knorr, 7161 Georgian Road: Philadelphia 38, Pa. 1931
Dr. Henry A. Lassste, 5900 Market St., Philadelphia 39, Pa. .:............eeeeeeeees 1894
Mrs. Ipa K. LaneMan, 2316 Delancy Place, Philadelphia 3, Pa. ............2-.eeeeeees 1937
Morris E. Lens, 1025 Westview St., Philadelphia 19, Pa. Founder
Dr. Hur-Lry Li, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 3, Pa. 1944
Dr. Harry A. Liovp, 200 N. 35th 8t., Philadelphia 4, Pa. ...........ccdescccecesecene® 1931
Bayarp Lone, 250 Ashbourne Road, Elkins Park, Philadelphia 17, Pa. ............-... 1906
Ernest H. Lupwic, Walter Reed General Hospital, Washington, D. C 1938
Georce F. Nicxuas, 400 S. 9th St., Philadelphia 47, Pa. ........0...ececeececcececevces 1944
Mrs. Georce B. Orr, “ Orchard Way ”, Berwyn, Pa. .........cccececceccccceccececcecs 1935
Miss Exvimasero G. OstHermer, Jenkintown, Pa. .........cscccececcccececccccccececs 1933
Dr. Samuet C. Parmer, 26th and Chestnut Sts., Chester, Pa. ...........c0cececeececees 1929
Dr. RurH Patrick, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 3, Pa. .............--++: 1937
Dr. Francis W. Pennetzt, Moylan, Pa. 1910
te. VRE TP Ie, Bathe Pan as acm 25 Bis psi win wiac'S «ous gw kas vce SE cen Ch 1944
secnAnp W. Pout, Box 374, Colorado. City, Texas... «22... - « cubs. 66% cacv occ evnvihe 1940
Harorp W. Prez, 123 S. 17th St., Allentown, Pa. 1909
Georce R. Procror, 140 W. Main St., Newark, Del. .. 1944
Mrs. Kart Rucart, 612 Bryn Mawr Ave., Penn Valley, Pa. .. ; .. 1942
Roeert L. Scuazrrer, Jr., 32 N. 8th St., Allentown, Pa. 1938
Dr. J. R. ScoramM, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 30, Pa... 1937
Miss Hexen B. Surtver, 2004 Spring Garden St., Philadelphia 30, Pa. . 1935
Henry Sxrnner, Morris Arboretum, Chestnut Hill, Pa. 1942
Lee Sowpen, 3823 Oak Road, Philadelphia 29, Pa. ..... 1901
Leste D. Sram, 141 Fern Ave., Collingswood, N. J. 1944
Dr. Warter Steckseck, Dept er Botany, University a Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 4, Pa. 1925
Hucu E. Sronz, 431 Berkley Road, Haverford, Pa. 1892
Dr. Rosert R. Tarnarz, 1100 W. Tenth St., Wilmington, Del. . 1928
Horace E. THompson, 5016 Schuyler St., Philadeiokis We a od So nike eet Os ee 4S 1920
Wo. Tuompson, Jr., Leroy Court Apts. # 403, 1700 S. 60th St., Philadelphia 42, Pa. .... 1936
R. J. Trrueameron , 6317 N. Norwood St., Philadelphia 38, Pa. .. 1942
Harry W. Truett, "303 Highland Ave., ‘Abeta: Pa. ys _ 1915
Miss Heten Vrooman, Ashbridge Read: Rosemont, Pa. . . 1942
Dr. Paut R. Wacner, Ursinus College, Collegeville, Pa. 1935
Warren H. Wacner, 7708 N.W. Morningside Drive, Washington, D. C. ...........--+ 1942
E. Peror Warker, 511 Lynmere Road, Bryn Mawr, Pa. 1939
Mrs. Marouerire L. Warnxe, 142 8. Logan Ave., Audubon, N. J. 1935
Rorert F. Wetsu, 325 Chestnut St., Philadelphia 6, Pa. ..............ecececcccecceve’ 1909
Dr. Encar T. Wuerry, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 4, Pa. 1925
Sranizy D. Wieorr, 2007 Arch St., Philadelphia 3, Pa. .........0cssccucecseccriccccivee 1944
Hans Wrxens, 424 S. 15th St., Hesdine EERE SE 1928
Wuu1am H. Wirt, Riegelsville, Pa., R. D. : 1898
Carrot E. Woon, Jr., 434 High St., Salem, Va. 1942
Howarp Woon, Jr., “ Aloha,” R. D. 1, Conshohocken, Pa. . 1944

Miss Mary F. Waricurt, 538 E. Locust Ave. Philadelphia 44, Pa. ois vnesi sas ocaeostbe’ 1928

LIST OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS 57

HONORARY MEMBERS

Cuartes M, B. Capwaraper, Acade emy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 3, Pa. ........ 1944
Dr. Josepx §. Inuicx, State College of Forestry, Syracuse, N. Y. 1925
Dr. Epwarp E. WitpMan, 4331 Osage Ave., Philadelphia 4, ys ee 1931

CORRESPONDING MEMBERS

Dr. Joun H. Barnuwart, New York ee Garden, New York, N. Y. 1936
Orway H. Brown, Cape May, N. J., R. F. D. #1 1908
Pror. M. L. Fennatb, Gray Herbariam: Soervart University, Cambridge, Mass. ......... 1929
Dr. Harorp Sr. Joun, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, T. H. 1927
Dr. Wrt1am Ranvorpx Taytor, University of Midhishts, Ann Arbor, Mich. ............ 1921
Dr. Campsert E. Waters, Chevy Chase, Washington, D. C. 1904
Dr. Heser W. YouncKEN, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy, Boston, Mass. ......... 1918

RECENTLY DECEASED MEMBERS

Died
Gawcum .N. Baxwie, “Honorary <2... ...2-..c66-0ci, es ee Sept. 24, 1945
Stewart H. Burnuam, Corresponding Sept. 25, 1943
Amos ArTHUR HELLER, orrespon: May 18, 1944
ApDotPH Miitier, Active July 30, 1943
Epwarp Pennock, Honorary Aug. 15, 1944

J. Fiercuer Street, Active Sept. 19, 1944

Index to Species

(Names of new entities in bold-face type; of synonyms in italic type.)

Aesculus alba, 33; arborea, 33; florida(na),
22; glabra, 44; neglecta, 22; parva, 33; pavia,
11, 12, 22, 33; stolonifera, 16; sylvatica, 12,
22, 34; virginiana, 22; virginica, 35

Andromeda formosissima, 22; nitida, 18; plu-
mata, 18; sulcchdenia. 17, 22; viridis, or

Annona ‘athe: 33; grandiflora, 17, 22, 23;
sig 23, 33; obovata, 17, 22, 23; oe

cee
eae pulcherrima, 33
Asclepias carnosa, "33; coccinea, 33; fragrans,

Adis angustifolia, 23; incana, 23; obovata,
2. ea, 23; secundiflora, 23

Aster fruticosus, 33

Asyneuma thoide

Azalea calendulacea, 34; coccinea, 33; flammea,
33, 34; flammula, 33, 34; nuda, 34; rosea,
34; speciosa, 34

Bartramia bracteata, 16, 23
Bignonia bracteata, 16, 23
Cacalia heterophylla, 13, 24
Cam americana, 37-39; lasiocarpa, 37;

prenanthoides, 36; rotundifolia, 38, 39
Cassine yapon,

Citrus limon, 34; verrucosa, 34

Cleome edulis, 25; lupinifolia, 24

Clinopodium coccineum, 25

Conradia fuschioides, 25; lecontei, 25

Convolvulus dissectus, 25

Corypha obliqua, 25; palma, 34; palmetto, 34;
repens, 12, 25

Crinum floridanum, 34

Cucurbita peregrina, 25

Dasystoma saved ma
Ditrysinia ligustrina.

58

Erythronium maculatum, 34
Fagus chinkapin, 25; sylvatica, 11
Filix osmunda, 33, 33
Franklinia alatamaha, 18, 19, 34
Fraxinus aquatica, 34

Garberia fruticosa, 24; heterophylla, 24
Gentiana caerulea, 34

Gerardia flammea, 25, 26

Geum odoratissimum, 26

Gilia rubra, 27

Gymnanthes ligustrina, 32

Hedera carnosa, 26

Heracleum Janatum, 26; maximum, 26

Hydrangea quercifolia, 17, 26

os dea ate 34

H eum, 27; dolabriforme, 43, 44;
A oioaets O

Ipomoea erecta, 11, 13, 27
Ixia caelestina Satotees Aer |

Se go net es - exaltata, 34; hickory,
ra, 11; tica, 34
Fischers ceuapieuia: 34

Kalmia ciliata, 27; hirsuta, 28; spuria, 34
Kalmiella hirsuta, 28

Laurocerasus caroliniana, 31
Laurus borbona, 11
Leptoclinium fruticosum, 24
Leucoth

Liatris fruticosa, 24

Lobelia berlandieri, 39, 40; b. brachypoda, 40;
brachypoda, 39, 40

Lonicera canadensis, 18

ake. breunis, 28; diffusus, 28; filifolius,
34; villosus, 23

Lycium carolinianum, 28; salsum, 28

Lygodium palmatum, 33

INDEX TO

Macranthera flammea, 25, 26; fuchsioides, 25;
lecontei

Marroibereas odorata, 16

Magnolia auriculata, 17
grandiflora, 11;
data, 12, 29

Malachodendron ovatum, 32; pentagynum, 32

Mimosa virgata, 29

Molinia caerulea, 41, 42

Morus rubra, 11

Muscadinia rotundifolia, 32

Mussaenda bracteata, 24

Myrica inodora, 29

28, 29; fraseri, 29;
macrophylla, 29; pyrami-

Nemastylis coelestina, 27
Neptunia lutea, 29
Nyssa oge(e)che, 18, 30; tupilo, 34

Oenothera grandiflora, 30
Operculina dissecta, 25

Ophrys insectifera (insectoria), 34
Orchidocarpum pygmaeum,

Padus caroliniana, 31

Parthenocissus quinquefolia, 26
Passiflora incarnata, 15
Pavia sylvatica, 34
Pepo okeechobensis, 25
Persicaria amphibia, 34
Phlox altissima, 4; bridgesii, 5; carnea, 3, 5,
6; carolina, 1-9; c. turritella, 7, 8, 9; caro-
ana, 3; colydrana, 3; globerriiea, 4, 5, 6,
2; aol. 6, 7; maculata, 4, 6, 9;
nitida, 4; ovata, 3, 9; revoluta, 5; suffruti-
‘5,

Pinckneya bracteata, 24; pubens, 24
Pinus balsamea Nemes’ 34; sgeries IZ:
phoenix, 34; squamosa, 34;
Pityothamnus angustifolius, 23; Wee ve Be
pygmaeus, 23
Porcellia pygmaea, 23
P. caroliniana, 31;
34; — 34; nemoralis, 31
Pteris scandens, 3

Quercus castania, 34; chapmani, 31; cinerea,

59

31; dentata, 34; fammula, 34; glandifer, 34;
hendiaherica, 34; incana, 31; lactniole; 34;
lobata, 34; maritima, 31; myrtifolia, 31;
subivireen 15; tinctoria, 11, 31, 34; velu-
tina, 31

SPECIES

Rhexia pulcherrima, 34

Rhododendron ‘lcadaliiiaieis. 34; speciosum,
34; spurium, 34

Robinia montana, 34; viscosa, 34

Rosa, paniculata, 3

Ruellia infundibuliformis, 35

Russelia flammea, 25

Sabal palmetto, 34
Salix fluvialis, 3
Salpinogostylis coelestina, 27
Salvis graveolens, 35
Sarracenia drummondii, 32; galeata,
; leucophylla, 32; minor, 32
Sebastiania irutictoe: 32
Serenoa repens, 25; serrulata, 25
milax pseudo-china, 12
Staphylea trifolia (trifoliata), 35
eerie Spencer 32; fruticosa, 32; ligus-

35;

tri

Ephied ‘Seer montana, 12, 32; ovata,
32; pentagyna, 3

Styrax latifolius, =

Tillandsia lingulata, 32; monostachya, 35;
utriculata, 32

Tomilix bracteata, 25

Toxopus calycinus, = ymnanthes, 25

Trillium cernuum f. tangerae, 49

Ulmus suberifera, 35; sylvatica, 35

Verbena a 35

Viburnum ca:

Vitis allobrogica, 35: campestris, 32; labrusca,
33; rotundifolia, 32

Wahlenbergia gracilis, 36, 37; marginata, 36,
37
Ximenia americana, 16

Zenobia pulverulenta, 22
Zizyphus scandens, 35

Index to Persons Considered

Anderson, N. J., 49

Bartram, Sogn 10-21; Bausman, J. W. B.,

‘Ae «Pe 53; Bebb, M. S., 48;

Benner, we M., 50; Billings, Braddish, 48;

‘Blake, Joseph, 48; Brown, Stewardson, 50;

apngee J., 49; Burk, Isaac, 48; Burnham,
Re

esl W. M., 48; Prmleiigs oh De a ao
Carter, J. J., 47, 48, 52; Chatin, A., 49;
peeb Daniel, 48; ee A. H., 48

_ Day, D. F., 48; Dix, W. L., 50; Durand, Elias,
43-46

Eaton, D. C., 48; Eckfeldt, J. W., 50
Fogg, J. M., 51; Fowler, James, 48

Garber, A. P., 47, 48

Haas, T. P., 49; Halbach, E. G., 52; Hall,
Elihu, 48; Harvey, W. H.; Heller, A. A.,

47, 51, 52; Hoysradt, L. N., 48

lishiba, Y., 48

Keller, I. A., 50; Knipe, S. W., 48; Knopf,
48 ‘

Land, T. S., 48; Langman, I. K., 50; Leeds,

A. N., 50; Leffman, Henry, 50; Long,
Bayard, 50

Macoun, John, 48; Martindale, I. C., 49; Mell,
. D., 48; Meredith, H. B., 50; Miller, E. 3.
48; Miller, Philip, 35; Mohr, Charles, 48;
Moyer, I. S., 48; Miiller, Adolph, 53;
Muhlenberg, G. H. E., 47; Myers, Claire, 50

Painter, J. H., 48; Palmer, Edward, 49;
arker, C. F, 48; Patrick, Ruth, 50;
Pennock, Edward, 51; Planchon, J. E., 49;
Porter, T. C., 47,48; Porterfield, W. M, 48;
Post, G. W., 49; Pringle, C. G., 48, 49

Rafinesque, ie S., 43-46; Reverchon, Julien,
48; Roddy. ret 48; Rugel, Ferdinand, 49;
Rusby, H. a

Schiedt, : = 48; Small, J. K., 47, 48, 523
.. 50; Stone, H..E., SIs Street,
Fs Pa

Tanger, L. F. A., 49; Taylor, W. R., 50;
50 ;

Tees, G. M
Urban, A. E., 48
Van Pelt, S. S., 50; Vasey, G. R., 48

Wherry, E. T., 7, 50; Wildman, E. E., 51

ef A ee REE a SS a BR She = = Ne ay

OTN SERIE TEy hd Paebe Occ Pe eee ee ae oo

%
NG Ble ta na

No. 24 a | 1946

BARTONIA _

JOURNAL OF THE aoe
PHILADELPHIA BoTaANIcAL CLUB aS

CONTENTS ae

A New Lily from Southern Alabama and Northern Florida ......Mary G. Henny 1 eee
=< A Key to the Eastern North American Lilies ...............Epcan T. Waray 5 |
A Collection of Plants from Yakutat, Alaska .....L. D. Sram and F. W. PENNELL o

Notes on Pennsylvania and New Jersey Grasses ..............Rictarp W. Pont 22

BARTONIA
Journal of the Philadelphia
Botanical Club. i

A journal devoted primarily to the Flora of the mid-eastern and
southeastern United States, especially of eastern Pennsylvania, New

ntributc soo jG Nava Soak caves 60
fifty reprints. _ ional reprints, if ordered in advance,

BARTONIA No. 24 PLATE 1

sg RN cea de eae
Nad Waenae a ni Pea preg rah

Lilium iridollae, grown at Gladwyne, Pa., from seeds gathered at
type locality, and the flower photographed by Josephine Henry.

BARTONIA

JOURNAL OF THE PHILADELPHIA BOTANICAL
CLUB

No. 24 PHILADELPHIA, PA. 1946

A New Lily from Southern Alabama and Northern Florida
Mary G. Henry

On October 15, 1940 I collected herbarium specimens and seeds of a Lilium
that grew in a low meadow along a creek north of Elberta, Baldwin County, near
the Gulf coast in southern Alabama. At that late date the seed capsules were
nearly ripe. All the plants were single-flowered and grew about 10 to 14 deci-
meters (3 to 5 feet) tall. The bulbs were white and amazingly small, being only
about 2 cm. in diameter and slightly more in height. They were buried about 5
to 8 cm. (2 to 3 inches) below the surface of the black muck.

There were about a dozen of these lilies along the edge of the shrubbery
bordering the creek. This shrubbery was composed of Cliftonia monophylla,
Cyrilla racemiflora, Myrica inodora, Rhododendron serrulatum, Clethra alnifolia,
and species of Viburnum and Vaccinium.

Local residents told me that only a few years previously “the meadow was
yellow with lilies ”, and school children added “ The flowers looked like yellow
bells”. It was evident that the meadow was now being heavily grazed by cattle,
and that only those plants which were protected by the shrubs had survived.
The yellow color, as denoted by the phrase “ yellow bells”, and a definite rough-
ness on the lower surface of the leaf-veins, led me to believe that I had discov-
ered an undescribed southern form of Lilium canadense.

On February 2, 1941, I planted seeds of this lily in sandy peat in a 12 X 12
inch box in a cold frame at my home in Gladwyne, Pennsylvania. The resulting
seedlings were small and grew slowly. As the ensuing war years gave me scant
time, these seedling lilies were greatly neglected. However, five of them bloomed
in September, 1945. These lilies have made an autumnal growth of narrow leaves
that are evergreen. Heavy freezing with zero temperatures has not destroyed
either the exposed leaves or the bulbs.

2 BARTONIA

During the season of 1946 I have been four times to southern Alabama and
western Florida in further search of this lily. The visit of early August found
it in full bloom, and produced the plant in suitable meadows from Baldwin
County, Alabama eastward to Walton County, Florida. This field acquaint-
ance has convinced me of the specific distinctness of the plant.

As an ardent lover of lilies, who has searched far for them and grown them
in my wild garden, I have long hoped that I might chance upon some attractive
species which had remained unknown to science. This beautiful and delicately
fragrant lily is all that I could have desired in my fondest anticipations. Be-
cause of the rich yellow color one may liken its flower to a golden treasure, and
because it is the “pot of gold” at the foot of my rainbow, I am calling
this new species “ Lilium iridollae ”.

TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION

Bulb of each season globose, less than 2 cm. in diameter at time of anthesis,
the —— rhizome connecting the several bulbs with a few scattered scales.

Stem 5-20 dm. tall, erect, slightly roughened and rooting near pan proximally
lightly fi flecked and suffused with brown, distally smooth and light green. Leaves
verticillate, or sometimes scattered thronahode the blades Ublahessinte to obo-
vate or rarely elliptic, 5-9 em. long, 1.3-2.5 cm. wide, slightly roughened on the
margins and also beneath proximally on the ere (of ‘which the midrib is promi-
nent and sometimes also a lateral pair). Uppermost leaves so small and remote
that the stem appears to be distally naked.

Flowers usually solitary, but sometimes several (as many as eight have been
noted), nodding and with well-recurved segments as in Liliwm superbum. Bu
6-8 cm. long. Petals 7.5-10 cm. long, 1 5- 35 5 em. wide, the sepals slightly longer
and wider: both sepals and petals “ warm buff-yellow ” 1 to golden-yellow,
deepening slightly along ate line, conspicuously spotted with “ Hessian

red, the perianth-segments externally buff to yellow with green base, and each
internally with a a green nectariferous furrow.? Filaments 4-6 cm.
long, pang widely outcurving, greenish white; anthers at beginning of anthesis
1.7-2 cm. long, but after three days shrinking to 11-14 em. long, the pollen deep
bs oeridek red (“ bright mahogany red es to a yellow. Style 3.3 cm. long,
slender, greenish white; stigmas slightly parted (so whole stigmatic — 3-lobed),
rounded or slightly flattened distally, caeh yellow to darkest bro

Bulbi plures parvi albi rhizomate connexi; caulis 5-20 dm. altns, proxime
asprellus at radicans, distaliter fere crab folia verticillata, sak omnia dispersa,
margine et subtus venis asprella, summa parva et remota; flores plerumque soli-
tarii, raro plures, nutantes, nepali vontrvatis. 7.5-10 cm. liagia: Risin conspicue
brunneo-maculatis; filame nta 4-6 cm. longa, late excurvata, antheris 1-2 cm.
longis; stylus 3.3 em. longus.®

1Colors in quotation-marks are according to Ridgway’s “Color Standards and Color
Nomenclature ”.

pos 2 Hunt vacing ord eel march Sing only ep ew planta wth red shading a0
single one en’ ar, t h ellow-
flowered or pink-stippled on a yellow ground. of the seedlings have been y

3 For the Latin diagnosis I am indebted to the editor.

A NEW LILY FROM SOUTHERN ALABAMA AND NORTHERN FLORIDA 3

Type, growing in sphagnum over black muck along wooded creek, about four
miles north of Elberta, Baldwin County, Alabama, collected in flower August 1,
1946, by Mary G. Henry, no. 4464; deposited in the herbarium of the Academy
of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. This showed well the dark-spotted yellow
perianth-segments.

In meadows near the Gulf Coast, from Baldwin County, Alabama, to Wal-
ton County, Florida. I have now found this at 20 stations, being 7 in Baldwin
and 1 in Escambia counties, Alabama; and 3 in Escambia, 5 in Santa Rosa, 2 in
Okaloosa and 2 in Walton counties, Florida. Flowering in August.

Our illustrations are of the plant growing in its native environment in south-
ern Alabama and western Florida and under cultivation at Gladwyne, Pennsyl-
vania; and also of the Alabama specimen selected for type. [Plates 1-5.]

CoMPARISON WITH RELATED SPECIES

The yellow turkscap flowers of Lilium iridollae can not be mistaken for those
of any other lily of eastern North America. This new species is easily identified
either in or out of bloom. In the swamps of western Florida and southern-
most Alabama it seems to take the place of L. superbum. The latter I have seen
growing in swamps of Butler, Montgomery, and Randolph counties, all farther
inland in Alabama.* I have also seen it in Jackson County, Florida, while there
is at the New York Botanical Garden a specimen of it from Leon County in that
state. But L. iridollae is not of nearest kinship to L. superbum, and could not be
mistaken for it. The yellow coloration and decided, though slight, fragrance of
the flower, as well as the roughness on the veins and along the margins of
the leaves, are all features that separate it from this wide-ranging eastern lily.

The flowers of Lilium canadense, the only other yellow-flowered lily in eastern
North America, are bell-shaped, with spreading or only slightly recurved seg-
ments, very unlike the well-recurved turkscap flowers of L. iridollae. The obo-
vate leaves, too, distinguish the latter from L. canadense. Finally, L. iridollae
occurs only in sandy peat and in sphagnum bogs, whereas L. canadense prefers a
less acid medium.

Lilium iridollae differs, too, from L. michauxii. The remarkably slender stem,
the upper portion of which is nearly naked, and the much greater height of the
plant, distinguish it, nor do the golden-yellow flowers with their slight fragrance
recall the red strongly fragrant ones of that species. Also, the roughened leaves
contrast with the glabrous ones of L. michauxii.

Furthermore, the habitats of these two lilies are different. While I have col-
lected Lilium michauxii many times in the Carolinas, in Georgia, and in Alabama,
as well as several times in Florida and once in Virginia,® I have never seen it in
a swamp or bog. (It would be interesting to learn how it obtained its book-name

_. *Charles Mohr does not inchide Lilium superbum in his “ Plant Life of Alabama”, pub-
lished in 1901. i
5 At its northernmost known station, five miles south of Hopewell, Prince George County.

4 BARTONIA

of “ Southern Swamp Lily ”!) Always it has been growing in a dry well-drained
soil, usually on a hillside, often in a ravine but always well above even the small-
est stream. I have found it in the shade of trees, whereas L. iridollae occurs
naturally in sphagnous meadows and along boggy creeks in sunshine. Occasion-
ally I have seen the latter in semi-shade along the edges of meadows, in which
its main growths had been destroyed by grazing.

Lastly, it differs from Lilium michiganense. This northern species has red
perianth and ovate leaves, while it flowers in early July instead of in August.

Another marked character separates Lilium iridollae from all these other spe-
cies. In August a cluster of narrowly linear leaves begins its growth on the bulb
for the ensuing season. These leaves remain evergreen over winter and often
last for more than a year. (Even seedlings, still in seed flat, make a few such
narrow leaves.)

Present Sratus

Lilium iridollae is now rather a rare lily. In the dry sandy pine lands that
cover its range there is a farm house beside nearly every swamp, for swamps
supply good “ feed”. Cattle are permitted to graze “ at large ”’,® and they roam
freely, doing great damage as they are especially fond of the succulent stems and
leaves of lilies. Hogs, too, which are very plentiful in some localities, are equally
destructive, perhaps even more so, for they easily root up the delicate bulbs in
the soft moist soil. In many of the localities where I found this lily, it was neces-
sary to wander miles, wading through soft muck, rank vegetation and briers, be-
fore a single plant could be found.

After collecting many specimens in seed and in bud over a period of nearly
six years, it was with a tremendous thrill, albeit in pouring rain, that I first saw
Lilium iridollae in bloom in its native home. The sight of its beautiful yellow

flowers, swaying gently on its slender stems, will remain one of the “ high lights ” ©

of my life. °
Alas, that this lovely lily should be vanishing from its native haunts even be-
fore it has become scientifically or horticulturally known!

SIt is to be hoped that botanists, horticulturalists and, indeed, all conservationists will
bend their efforts to put an end to “ cattle at large” before this lily and other choice native
plants are completely destroyed.

si

BARTONIA No. 24 PLATE 2

Lilium iridollae, grown at Gladwyne, Pa., from seeds gathered at
type locality; flat of seedlings photographed by Mary G. Henry. The
slender stems, nearly leafless above, are characteristic.

BARTONIA No. 24 PLATE 3

Lilium iridollae, from type locality, showing (life-sized) the small
bulbs and the narrow basal winter leaves. Photograph by A. Delwin
n.

BARTONIA No, 24 PLATE 4

a
ALABAMA
Baldwin Gounty
Lilium iridelise kG Henry, TYR
phagrum over bleck muck glong

Groving ix ep
wooded creek, about four eiles north of
SLEWRTA.

Mary G. Henry August 1, 7936

Lilium iridollae, from Baldwin County, Alabama. Type specimen
photographed by A. Delwin Warden.

BARTONIA No. 24 PLATE 5

Lilium iridollae, in its native environment. Above, in a sphagnum

bog in Baldwin County, Alabama, where growing with Eriocaulon

decangulare and other plants. Below, on stream-bank in Okaloosa
ounty, Florida. Photographs by Mary G. Henry.

A Key to the Eastern North American Lilies
Epear T. WHERRY

Published keys to our eastern lilies do not cover all the entities now recog-
nized, and fail to allow sufficiently for variation. A new one has accordingly
been constructed, using multiple diagnostic characters and noting cases of vari-
ability. _For brevity, the term tepal is used instead of “ perianth-segment.” The
measurements given refer to average plants at mid-anthesis; immature anthers
are considerably larger than the sizes here assigned.

FLOWER-POSITION erect; tepals clawed; corolla-hue red, or yellow in rare mutants.
LEAF-ARRANGEMENT alternate, ascending; tepals acuminate; SK RRO

esbaet; ssp.:

eS genes A leafy-tipped; leaves linear or rr esiagg my tepal-blade length

3-6 X wid tepals decidedly recurved; capsule 4-8 ¢ F crs somewhat beaked;
range whet far south and at low elevations northw: mo

STEM smooth throughout, with the leaves rather uniformly distributed _ it; range
wide typicum

ee

ae rough and leafless the lower half of its length, with a prominent medi ove ve
w. Fla. to s. Miss b. asprellu

ves; Bap
cimackt thickish, scarcely lafy-tipped; le leaves picid aS Eg acutish; tepal-bad
length a3 > width; tepa ls but slightly re capsul : truncate a
tip; range chiefly northward and at indent slevstions southward ........ c. e
-ARRANGEMENT whorled at one or more nodes, ieee tepals acutish;
northern 2. L. philadelphicum ; goo
WHORLS OF LEAVES tng at but 1 or 2 nodes; leaf-outline linear to elliptic-
lanceolate (f. montanum) ; length 3-8 cm., 7-10 X width; margins roughish to smooth
(f. lanceolatum) ; capsule ag em. long; range midland = andere

WHORLS OF LEAVES present at 3 to 6 nodes; akoctia narrow-elliptic to sublanceo-
sero length 3 (in f. masseyi) to 9 cm., 4-7 X width; margins roughish; capsule 2.5-5
m. long; range eastward b. typicum.
Sy a ea aace declined; tepals not clawed; leaves whorled at many nodes.
SEPAL-MIDRIB low, rounded; petal-midrib laterally r seg or narrowly ridged; anthers
oblong, at maturity 6-12 or ” exceptionally 15 mm. long; stigma shallonty 3-lobed; leaf-
margins and veins more or less ro ned with spicul

gamers Sa oe OF FLOWERS modera Fes ae abruptly apiculate to short-acuminate,

rately divergent; leaf-spicules tendine to be sparse; range, Appalachians, N. C.

to BLOW Vas : . grayt.
DECLINING OF FLOWERS marked; tepals gradually acuminate.

TEP. moderately recurved; leaf-spicules tending to be copious, or sparse in rare
mutants; blooming period late spring; range northeastern U. be = adj. vray sete

LEAF-LENGTH yi che es kssag reflexing of tepals gradual; ci tt nae
red in occasional variants (f. rubrum); range chiefly east of A ppalachians

typicum.
LEAF-LENGTH 25 x width; reflexing of tepals sub-abrupt ; corollas Fd range
chiefly in Appalachians - editorum.

5

6 BARTONIA

TEPALS strongly recurved.

LEAF-SPICULES tending to be onions, sparse or rarely lacking in mutants; out tline

elliptic to sublanceolate, acu to acuminate; corolla-hue red, the tepal-bases

n inconspicuous nies atch: blooming period late spring ; range mid-

5. L. michiganense.

LEAF-SPICULES tending to be sparse; outline oblanceolate to obovate, obtusish, or

elliptic and acutish in variants; corolla -hue yellow, or reddish in rare mutants,

~ a bearing a conspicuous green saree blooming period late summer;

w. Fla. & adj. Ala 6. L. tridollae.

a earns elevated, ‘cart two erect sharp ridges; petal-midrib extended laterally

into prominent ridges; tepals strongly recurved; corolla-hue red, or yellow in rare mu-

tants; mature anthers linear, 12-24 m m. long; leaf-margins oe veins — or re-

portedly st spiculate in rare aa blooming period late sum

LEAF-OUTLINE elliptic-oblanceolate to obovate; base of tepals borat an inconspicu-

ous whitish patch; flowers decidedly fragrant; range, Gulf Coast to s. V

7. L. michauri.

LEAF-OUTLINE linear- to cipeaederg sok leaf-length less than 10 width (or up to
20 < width in a Fla. form) base of tepals bearing a eryags ey green patch; flowers
faintly to moderately fragrant; Ape w. Fla. to s. Ind. & e. Mass. ....8. L. superbum.

The taxonomy and nomenclature of the above key now require brief discus-
sion.

1. Lilium catesbaei Walter, Flora caroliniana: 128, 1788. This ee

uthern lily was long regarded as non-variant, but a “marked va riety ” re-

cently distinguished by Fernald. An equally’ distinct yet intergrading vaeaet
occurring along the Gulf coast remains to be named.

&. SSp. icum, nomen novum pro plantam originariam in stato subspecei.
The original entity of Walter. As it is illogical to contrast a whole object with a
part of itself, the segregation of a ee or subspecies requires a corresponding
designation for the part including the type

b. ssp. longii — apreel stat. nov. L. catesbaei var. longit Fernald in
Rhodora 42: 443, 1940. extent of the differences shown by this entity, and
of its geographic Foie oe would lead the modern taxonomist to assign it sub-
oe eae

rellum, nova. Stem leafless and markedly roughened for the lower

half of ite ev tors with numerous leaves crowded in a conical grouping about the
middle of the stem

Caulis aphyllus et proxime ae foliis ad mediam caulis confertis.*

Type, Biloxi, Harrison Co., Miss., F. W. Pennell 4377, Aug. 28, 1912, in
herbarium University of Penayiennti

Other collections: Elberta, Baldwin Co., Ala., Mary G. Henry 2444; south of
chy Jackson Co., Fla., Henry 3164; and 3 m. nw. of yeh cae Santa

Philadelphia. Intermediates with the bare portion of the stem shorter and
smoother are represented in collections fiom elsewhere in the same regions.

2. L. philadelphicum L. Spec. plant., ed. 2: 435, 1762. In this case two vari
ants have long been recognized, some workers considering them specifically dis-
tinct, othiers uniting them in one way or another.

1 Cadi diagnosis prepared by the editor.

A KEY TO THE EASTERN NORTH AMERICAN LILIES 7

novum pro plantam originariam in stato subspecei.
To Hie soeieice to te origina entity when er ete e under « geconge’ Be-
side the typical form, there is also f. masseyi (H a) Wherry, stat. nov. L.
ms in Bot. Gaz. 28: 431, 1899. This is the: short- Aare pest

found in especially bleak situations.

b. ssp. andinum Ker-Gawler. (symbol 8 used instead of “ssp.”) This entity
was first named L. andinum by Nuttall in a dealer’s catalog washout ee vite
in 1813. A year later Pursh named it L. umbellatum. Then in 1818
validated his epithet by publishing a description (Gen. N. Am “PL 1: 221, 1818).

pon assignment to infra-specific status, Ker-Gawler in Bot. Reg. 7: pl. 594, 1822,
used the Nuttall epithet.

There are several hte named forms: (1) f. montanum (Nelson)
Wherry, stat. nov. L. montanum Nelson, in Bull. Torr. “Bot. Club 28: 6, 1899.
L. philadelphicum ‘montanum Cockecell ex Daniels in Univ. Missouri Stud. 2: 92,
1911. This seems to differ from the typical Nuttall entity in its more robust
habit = broader leaves, corresponding to eas: ae of moister soils. (2) f
lanceolatum (Fitzpatrick) Wherry, stat. L. lanceolatum Fitzpatrick in
Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. 14: 131, 1907, This "differs from the preceding ose in
having the leaf-margins smooth. (3) f. flaviforum Williams in Rhodora 1
217, 1913; the yellow color-form. (4) f. pulchrum Aldrich ex Cockerell in Sci.
Gossip 25: 189, 1889 (as var. under L. philadelp hicum) ; immaculatum Raup in
Contr. Arnold Arb. 6: 138, 1934; both referring to the unspotted mutant of the
western oe

3. L. grayiS. ae in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts & Sci. 14: 256, 1879. While
this lily i is vavintle? egation into subspecies has not as yet proved practic-
able. It grades iyiperoaetibiy into L. canadense.

L. canadense L., Spec. plant.: 303, 1753. The wide-ranging Meadow Lily
is markedly raat and will perhaps ultimately be segregated into a number
of infra-specific entities. The following are noteworthy:

a. ssp. typicum Wherry, nomen novum pro plantam originariam in stato sub-
specei. The corolla-hue varies seg yellow (known as hort.-var. flavum Kunth
designated f. flavum Marie-Victorin in Contr. Lab. Bot. Univ. Montreal 14: 15,
1929) to red, the fate sonstahaling f. rubrum Britton in Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 17:
125, 1890. (Known as hort.-var. coccineum Kunth).

b. outa (Fern.) Wherry, stat. nov. L. canadense var. editorum
Fernald in Rhodora 45: 393, 1943. This variant occurs in dryer situations than
Ssp. typicum ; in Deam’s Flora Indiana: 313, 1940 where it is classed as f. rubrum,
the habitat is well characterized as “ rocky wooded slopes.”” The soil moreover
a, pe — acid, as shown by Deam’s record of its association with Vaccinium
va

. ‘chou Farwell in Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 42: 353, 1915. Long con-
fused with both L. canadense and L. superbum, this lily perhaps deserves segre-
gation. However, the variants named by Farwell are regarded as as connected with
the eas of nourishment available to the bulbs, so should become:

f. peramoenum (Farw.) Stokes in Lily Yr. Bk. 1935; L. peramoenum Far-
well, loc. cit. The variant with especially numerous leaves and flowers, corre-
sponding to growth in rich, moist soil.

8 _ BARTONIA

f. umbelliferum (Farw.) Wherry, stat. nov. L. m. var. wmbelliferum Far-
well, loc. cit. Characterized by having several flowers in a solitary umbel (the
typi ical form bearing about two umbels).

f. uniflorum (Farw.) Wherry, stat. nov. L. m. var. uniflorum Farwell, loc.
cit. The solitary Rowe corresponds to immaturity or to impoverishment of the
substratum.

The Midland Lily differs from the Meadow Lily only in the extent to which
its petals reflex, and could readily be classed as merely another subspecies of the
latter. As it agrees consistently with L. superbum only in this one respect 0 of
reflexed petals, the writer is unable to understand the view of Hull in Rhodora

: 220, 1942, and 45: 512, aay as to their cep His views in this matter
were published i in Rhodora 453, 1942, and may be summarized by stating
that the two differ a dnecauile in pate leaf, fot petal-, and stamen-
characters.
6. L. iridollae. Described by Mrs. Henry on an earlier page. This is similar
to L. canadense in spiculate leaf-surfaces and in the yellow flower-hue, to L
pickioiaans e in recurved tepals, to L. michauzii in cae an ag pk rei and to
L. superbum in the prominent green patch at the base of each tep.
michauxit Poiret in Lamarck’s Encyclopedia, siti a 457, 1813.
(Widely known as L. carolinianum Michaux, 1803 or L. superbum var. ‘caroli-
nanum (Michx.) Chapman, 1860, but not L. a Prcerst a Bosc, 1789, a synonym
of L. catesbaei Walt.) This lily varies moderately in leaf-outline, and inter-
ra ent oa with L. superbum, which may be hybrids, are occasionally found. Two
rstandings about it on the part of many horticultural writers should be
narra outs pnenely that it is a denizen of swamps and that it is characteristic of
the deep The writer has observed dozens of colonies of it from near sea-
level Ag least 2500 feet slevalinr | in the Appalachians, and they were always
on dry slopes, never in any sort of swamp. And it is by no means limited to far
southern lands; Mrs. Henry has found it up to 5 miles south of Hopewell, Prince
George Co. , Virgin inia, thus to 37° 15’ north latitude, and the writer has seen it
or a as far north in the high mountains around Pulaski, so it is obviously
winter
8. L. Widbin L., Spec. plant. ed. 2: 484, 1762. The range assigned to this
lily in manuals is usually rs wide, both L. ‘canadense editorum and L. michi-
ganense being mistakenly included under it. Specimens are preserved in our
larger herbaria only from western Florida to southern Indiana and to eastern
Massachusetts. No variants will here be named, but mention may be made of
a form found in western Florida by Mrs. Henry which has es specially numerous,
long, narrow leaves and blooms in autumn. There are also striking color-forms,
ranging even to pure ella cts purple spotting, which have thus far been
assigned only horticultural na

A Collection of Plants from Yakutat, Alaska
Lesuiig D. Starr AND Francis W. PENNELL

In southeastern Alaska, just where the Pacific coast makes a broad bend from
east to southeast, the St. Elias Range, with the fronting Brabazon and Fair-
weather Ranges, runs so near it that at various places glaciers descend nearly or
quite to the sea. In the middle of this stretch a broad bay extends inland and as
a narrow prolongation penetrates the high ranges, behind and among which a
tortuous fiord extends southeastward for many miles. The broad bay is Yakutat
Bay, its narrow prolongation is Disenchantment Bay, while the fiord is Russell
Fiord.

But, though dominated by mountains, the country is not wholly rugged. On
the southeastern side of Yakutat Bay, in part separating it from the ocean, is a
wedge-shaped belt of flat glacial-outwash plain, that some fifty miles southeast-
ward tapers to its point and disappears where the mountains again touch the sea.
As the base of this wedge is nearly twenty miles wide, this isolated flat-land must
comprise almost 500 square miles. Yakutat village, the only real settlement in
some three hundred miles of coast, is situated on this flat terrain just within the
mouth of Yakutat Bay.

It is natural that such a spot should have been rarely visited by botanists.
Dr. Eric Hultén’s recent record of botanical collectors in Alaska’ mentions but
eight certain visits, most of which were for only a few days or weeks. He lists
the following: from June 27 to July 5, 1791, Thaddeus Haenke and Luis Nee on
Malaspina’s Expedition; in 1880, perhaps William H. Dall in the course of a sur-
vey of the coast from Sitka to Unalaska, although Hultén cites no specimens of
his from Yakutat; from May 19 to September 4, 1892, Frederick Funston, for the
United States Department of Agriculture; from June 18 to 23, 1899, the Harriman
Expedition, which included Frederick V. Coville, Thomas H. Kearney, William
Trelease, and six others; from August 31 to September 2, 1904, Charles V. Piper;
in July, 1907, D. S. Birkett; in August, 1908, Edmund Heller and Mrs. Kate
Stephens; in June, 1909, Albert S. Hitchcock; * in 1913 George B. Rigg, on the
U.S. Kelp Expedition; and in June, 1922, Ernest P. Walker ? of the U.S. Bureau
of Fisheries.

1“

History of botanical explorations in Alaska and ——— territories abe bre og was

discovery to 1940”, in Meddelanden fran Lunds Botaniske , Nr.
part on = ‘ice vibahy sexccuied by — C. Standley.

the evidence of Walker’s visit ee ees such citations, Yakutat ary Beavis among the
Places at which he was reported to have co i eollected.

10 BARTONIA

Of these much the most important work was done by Frederick Funston? He
made an ample collection of flowering plants and ferns, which formed the basis of
a special account of the flora by Frederick V. Coville. This, entitled “ Botany
of Yakutat Bay, Alaska ”,* enumerates, with notes of occurrence, 125 species of
flowering plants, 9 of Pteridophytes, and 25 of Bryophytes. Coville’s “ Botanical
Report ” is prefaced by Funston’s “ Field Report ”, in which Funston tells of his
experiences and gives a general view of the country and its vegetation. He
found Yakutat peopled only by Thlinket Indians whom he considered “ uncivil-
ized ”, but with their help and that of his personal assistant he was able to collect
at various places about the bay and up on the mountain slopes to snow. He
hardly entered the flat lowland, describing it as “ covered with a forest growth
practicably impenetrable”. Specimens were collected in sets of twenty, the task
being exceedingly difficult because of the continual dampness: “ the drying papers
were changed two or three times every day and dried by hand over a fire before
they were returned to the presses”. Funston’s is our best account of the plant-
life, and Coville’s has been our only enumeration of its component species, Coville
remarking that “the specimens collected undoubtedly represent nearly all the
species of vascular plants that occur in the area traversed 5

Later visits, notably those of the Harriman Expedition in 1899 on which Co-
ville himself was present, of Piper in 1904, and of Hitchcock in 1909, have added
occasional species. That of Rigg in 1913 was especially devoted to Bryophytes;
although there has been no actual report of the species obtained, Hultén lists sev-
eral ecological papers by Rigg that deal with the bogs and muskegs of south-
eastern Alaska. His collections are presumably at the University of Washington.

The twenty-five years from the visit of Funston to the outbreak of the First
World War formed a period of keen interest in the study of the Alaskan flora.
This led to the preparation of a Flora of Alaska and Yukon by Paul C. Standley,
a work that lay long shelved at Washington and was later abandoned. Only in
the last decade has the project been taken up again, and now we have two Floras,
each in process of serial publication. Mr. Jacob P. Anderson, who was long
resident at Juneau and has traveled extensively over much of the territory, is

3 It is interesting that this man, who, later, as a soldier, leaped to fame through the

dramatic capture of Aguinaldo in the Philippines and ultimately became general-in-chief of
the United States Army, should have been early in life a botanical collector.

* Contrib. U. S. Nat. Herb. 3: 325-363, 1896.

5 Although Funston evidently attempted to collect all flowering plants, ferns, and mosses,
he seems to have failed to discriminate sufficiently among the , sedges, and rushes, and
among the mosses. Moreover, while he tells of gat ering smaller sets of such plants as were
not sufficiently plentiful, one suspects that he would likely miss some species by passing them
by in expectation of finding them more plentiful elsewhere or later. As Coville’s report con-

i ized plants, one wonders whether weeds were ignored, or if, more probably,
y are

A COLLECTION OF PLANTS FROM YAKUTAT, ALASKA ll

bringing out his “ Flora of Alaska and adjacent parts of Canada ”;® while Dr.
Eric Hultén, who has intimate field-knowledge of the plants of Kamchatka and
the Aleutian Islands (concerning both which areas he has published Floras), is
similarly producing his “ Flora of Alaska and Yukon ”.? Both works follow the
same sequence and both have now either reached or are approaching the Rosaceae,
up to which point we have depended upon them for aid in identifications.
Hultén’s is more thorough in its taxonomy and bibliography, while it has the great
advantage of giving detailed citations of specimens accompanied by maps that
show the occurrence of each species in these territories. On these, each locality
is shown by its appropriate dot. Hultén’s nomenclature is that adopted in our
present report.§

_ With this introduction, we come to the purpose of the present paper. It is to
tell of the visit of one of us to Yakutat Bay in 1945, and to record the flowering
plants and ferns obtained. Of this visit, apparently the first botanical foray to
this bay for more than twenty years, let Mr. Stair speak alone.

“ My own visit to Yakutat, from July 7th to 23rd, 1945, was for the indulg-
ence of my favorite hobby, moss-collecting. I had hoped to search the mountain
meadows, between tree and snow lines, both at the head of Yakutat Bay and
above Disenchantment Bay, but that was impossible because everybody and
every boat was busy salmon-fishing. In a way, that proved fortunate since I
had to give my attention to the virgin forests and the muskegs beyond them.
Earlier collectors had found these areas impenetrable because of the dense spiny
masses of devil’s club (Echinopanaz).

“ But in 1945 I found that the Army Air Corps had bulldozed roads from the
village through the forest to the ocean beach and to the muskeg where an air-
port had been built. They had also cleared sites for camps and housing areas.
These roads now gave access to areas formerly almost inaccessible, so that I could
supplement, rather than repeat, the work of previous collectors.

“The terrain around Yakutat is a glacial plain or flat, fairly level, ranging
up to eighty feet above sea-level. . The soil is a coarse glacial detritus. Much of
this plain between the sea and the mountains is covered by dense coniferous for-
est that is formed by only two species, Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and west-
ern hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). These trees average about two feet in diam-
eter and about seventy feet tall, and they are covered with mosses to their very
tops. The only other trees are small willows and alders from 12 to 15 feet tall

6 Iowa State Coll. Journal of Science 18: 137-175, 1943, and ent numbers. A map
of Anderson’s collecting stations shows us that he was never at Yaku
7 Lunds Universitets Arsskrigt N. F. Avd. Bd. 37, 1941, and abcd numbers.

8 So far as Hultén’s “ Flora of Alaska and Yukon ” has been issued, it Kes bnta Meiple 40
‘. it for our standard, but beyond the Rosaceae our names are less confidently presented.
We have, however, relied upon his previous “Flora of the Aleutian Islands” for all species
that appear therein; while we have been greatly ca Fd a series of Anderson’s spocimans
that is at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelp!

12 BARTONIA

that grow along the creeks and the shores of the bay. The rest of the area is
mostly muskeg interspersed with many creeks and ponds, where the salmon run
to spawn. The thickets along the forest-edges and on banks are very dense, con-
sisting of devil’s club (Echinopanax horridum), elder (Sambucus racemosa
pubens), and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis).

“ There were only two clear days in the sixteen that I spent at Yakutat. On
the other days it rained, though seldom heavily; usually it drizzled, and was
misty rather than foggy. The average rainfall totals about 140 inches a year.

“ At the time of my arrival, daylight was such that one could read for all but
an hour and a half out of a 24-hour day, Yakutat being in the same latitude as
the southern tip of Greenland. Because of the long days, the rate of growth of
many of the flowering plants was astonishing to a checkako, as some plants only
in bud on Monday would be in seed on Saturday! It required daily collecting to
procure specimens in the desired condition.

“The warmest day when there was 63° Fahr. The average temperature
during the day was 56°, and at night it did not fall below 46°. This even range
of temperature was very agreeable. The winters are not severe, for it seldom
drops below 5°, but the snowfalls are heavy. My collecting was done in the rain,
but, if properly dressed, one did not mind that. Specimens were brought in drip-
ping wet, but, as I had been given an empty house that was oil-heated, the prob-
lem of plant-drying was easily solved. Another fortunate circumstance was that
there were no insect pests, as is so often the case in northern latitudes.

“The men of the Air Corps and those of the Civil Aeronautics Administration
‘went out of their way to save steps and time by taking me to and from destina-
tions by car, jeep or truck. Due to such aid, much more ground was covered in
nine actual days of collecting than would have been otherwise possible. This
is evidenced by the following list of 186 species of flowering plants and ferns from
the Yakutat area.

“‘ My original plan of collecting only Bryophytes and such flowering plants as
had been specially requested was changed when I realized the uniqueness of the
opportunity that was mine at Yakutat. That the change was warranted is shown
by the number of plants now reported additional to those found by Funston in
1892. For these come largely from terrain that was impenetrable to him.”

The list of plants collected by Mr. Stair in 1945 contrasts strongly with that
of Coville based upon Funston’s collections of 1892. Pteridophytes are fewer in
number, 9 having been gotten by Funston, whereas Stair found only 6 or 7. Of
course, the Bryophytes gathered by Stair far exceed the 25 procured by Funston;
these plants are not enumerated now, but are to be reported in detail later. But
most surprising is the great increase in the number of flowering plants, since Fun-
ston had also given main attention to them.® Stair found 176 species, an increase

® Checking the identifications of Stair’s plants against Coville’s list involves difficulties

from taxonomic concepts and procedures; however, we think that this has

been safely ai St and on the following list any different names reported by Coville
are added in brackets.

A COLLECTION OF PLANTS FROM YAKUTAT, ALASKA 13

of 51 over the 125 of Coville’s list. Moreover, he failed to find 48 species that
Funston gathered, most being plants of higher levels. Actually, 99 of Stair’s
176 species, nearly 34, are additional to Funston’s findings. These are marked
by asterisk (*) on the following list.

But some of these starred species, 17 to the end of Rosaceae, while not on Co-
ville’s list, are reported by Hultén to have been subsequently gathered by other
botanical visitors to Yakutat. In each of these cases we are now stating to whom
their first collection at Yakutat should be assigned. Allowing for a like propor-
tion in the remaining families, it seems probable that about 30 species have been
found at Yakutat additional to those gathered by Funston in 1892 and previous
to Stair’s visit in 1945. This leaves 70 as a conjectural total of the latter’s addi-
tions to the list of flowering plants known there.

These species are our first real record of the flora of the forest and muskeg
at Yakutat. But from the last figure one should deduct the total of the natural-
ized plants, those with names printed in italics on the following list. It seems
probable that these are nearly or all immigrants since the Army Air Corps com-
menced its activities some five or six years ago. Doubtless certain supposedly
native species have also profited by the new man-made environments, and should
be added to those that are unquestionably introduced. Deducting the figure for
the latter, 11, from 70, leaves 59.

One other species must be counted out. Curiously enough, the single plant
brought to Mr. Stair from Disenchantment Bay, Silene acaulis, was not on Co-
ville’s record. This leaves us about 58 or actually likely about 50, species as
indigenous components of the Yakutat flora, which occur on the flat coastal low-
land, and which are now reported from Yakutat for the first time.

With this last exception, the actual number of indigenous species of flowering
plants gathered in 1945 at Yakutat is 168. Broadly, these pertain to two groups,
those that are widespread over boreal North America, and those that are pecu-
liarly western. The former group, comprising the species designated by dagger
(+) on the list below, numbers 85 species or subspecies, of which some 60 reach
the northeastern United States.

In contrast to them the remaining 84 species or subspecies are wholly western
on this continent. Some occur extensively through coastal or mountain areas
southward to the western United States. Many belong definitely to the pro-
tected Alaskan coastland from the archipelago of southeastern Alaska to the
Aleutian Islands; 1° a few to but a portion of this, the most restricted appearing to
be Rhinanthus arcticus;! so far as known confined to Yakutat. Others again are

10On Hultén’s maps many of these species have been severed into eastern and western
portions that can now be i intereomnected by an intermediate dot for Yakutet. Such species
spread inland to each side, ee et hen ee ee is dominated by the St. Elias Range.

11 Ft hoiina to the Austrian proposer of this name for a new species based upon a collec-
of Funston’s from Yakutat Bay, all Alaska was Arctic!

14 BARTONIA

species of northern Asia that reach their eastern limits in this area. On the fol-
lowing list the wholly western species remain unmarked, except that those whose
known ranges are now being extended northwestward to Yakutat are marked by
“W ”, while those being extended eastward to Yakutat are marked by “

The ecological occurrences of these species may be summarized as follows: in
virgin forest, 16; along edges of forest, 9; on muskeg, 47; in thickets, 7; along
edges of ponds, 6; on creek banks, 13; immersed in creeks and ponds, 6; on pebbly
bay shores, 11; on sandy ocean beaches, 15; on cleared ground, 18; on roadside
banks, 27; in roadside ditches, 7; on railroad right of way, 7.

The specimens, collected at Yakutat in 1945, are deposited in the herbarium
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. They are reported by spe-
cies on the following list, the species being grouped under families in the familiar
sequence of recent manuals as of Anderson’s and Hultén’s Floras. For assistance
in checking and correcting identifications of Pteridophytes, comprising the first
three families, we are indebted to Mr. George R. Proctor, of the Academy’s
Botanical Department.

POLYPODIACEAE :
** Athyrium filix-femina ergs (Rupr.) C. Chr. On ground in virgin forest
ars ay fragilis (L.) B o se ssa ey -
+ Dryop austriaca Jaen) W., S. & T. [D. spinu-
Ags (Retz) Kuntze] f . are :
tT mercy linneana C. Chr. [Phegopteris dryopteris

(
Polypodium vulgare occidentale Hook. [P. vulgare
L.J On trees in virgin forest

EQUISETACEAE
Equisetum ra L. Roadside banks
atum alaskanum (Eaton) Hult.
[E. vatiegutecs Schleich.] Muskeg
LYCOPODIACEAE
Lycopodium annotinum L.12 Edge of woods
PINACEAE
Picea sitchensis (Bong.) C Virgin forest
Tsuga heterophylla (Raf) hae. {[T. mertensiana
(Bong.) Carr.] = ss
POTAMOGETONACEAE
*t Potamogeton perfoliatus richardsonii (Benn.) Hult. Immersed in creek (Piper)
*t Potamogenton pusillus L. - ee aes
SCHEUCHZERIA
** Triglochin maritimum L. Muskeg
POACEAE
** Agrostis alaskana os Muskeg and cleared ground (Piper)
*7 Alopecurus — Sobo. Creek banks (Trelease)
: Calamagrostis cana canadensis ieuicei (Link) Inman
{C. langsdorffii (Link) Trin.] Cleared ground
Calamagrostis neglecta (Ehrh.) M. & uskeg

+ Elymus arenarius mollis (Trin.) Hula On. arenarius

12 Mr. Stair collected also L. a. pungens (Pylaie) Desv., not te Hultén,
who states that it is dominant inland but ‘ion ce the coast. GRP. ly mapped by

A COLLECTION OF PLANTS FROM YAKUTAT, ALASKA 15

L.] Sandy ocean beach
* ee hirsutus Presl Creek banks 13
* Fest bra L. Muskeg
* Glyceria a pauciflora Roadside banks (Coville & Kearney)
t Hierochloe odorata ies Beauv. [Savastana odorata
cribn. uskeg
* * Hordeum brachyantherum Newski Creek banks
jubatum L. Roadside banks
; Phleum BF ees americanum Fourn. [P. alpinum
L.] Sandy ocean beach
* Poa annua L. Roadsides (Hitchcock)
eminens Pres] [P. glumaris Trin.] Pebbly bay beach
Puccinellia nutkaensis (Presl) F. & W. [P. maritima
(Hu Roadside banks __
* Trisetum cernuum Trin. Cleared ground (Piper)
* Vahlodea atropurpurea paramushirensis (Kudo)
Hult. Cleared ground
CYPERACEAE
*+ Carex brunnescens (Pers.) Poir. Cleared ground
*f “ canescens L. Roadside ditches
*t| “ eapillaris L. Muskeg __
°°. Save. (Piper)
es Co Oe cared bifaria isan: .
* * gmelini H. & A Cleared ground
“ ~ hindsii Clark [C. conan Boott] Creek
+t “ macloviana pachystachya (Cham) Hult. [C.
festiva pachystachya Bailey Railroad right of
wre yencennephs la ‘anthericoides (Presl) Halk. Sandy ocean beach h (Walker)
se ertensii Pre wind siti nd
Ww “ paler viridula, <Michx.) Kik.
gets ne uit Boott
a Md et n.1C. & st (Fries) :
% uriflora Hu ‘ mosa es
Bailey - -_ Roadside ditches
at Bxiophoram angustifolium scabriusculum Hult. Muskeg
scheuchzeri Hoppe Cleared ground
+ Scirpus caespitosus austriacus (Palla) A. & G. Muskeg
ARACEAE
* Lysichitum americanum Hult. & St. John Creek banks (Rigg)
JUNCACEAE
oat f Juncus alpinus nodulosus (Wahlenb.) Lindm. Muskeg
oF bufonius L. Pebbly bay shore
. faleatus sitchensis Buchen. [J. f. alaskensis ean
“ mertensian’ Cleared ef
. mertens "sa — Muskeg FCorille & Kearney)
} Luzula perdi Retz.) — [Juncoides cam-
pestre ‘aletionin (Willd.) Coville] Muskeg & virgin forest
* “parviflora divaricata (S. Wats.) Hult. Font & cluaied ground
LILIACEAE
* Majanthemum dilatatum (Wood) N. & M. Virgin forest
Streptopus amplexifolius ( : : Roadside banks
Tofieldia occidentalis S. Wats. [T. glutinosa
enor Pers.] Muskeg
* Veratrum eschscholtzii A. Gray Wet shady swales

13 Type collected in Yakutat Bay by Haenke in 1791.

16

IRIDACEAE
Iris setosa Pall.
ORCHIDACEAE

*W Corallorhiza en Bong.

Mt ad Listera caurina Pipe

cordata narhicaiertia poe gy Hult.
1 Platanthera dilatata (Pursh) Lin

lata

00
Platanther stricta Lindl. [H. hyperborea (L.) R.

SALICACEAE
na a nage tacamahacca

andra lneiolia The Bebb

: . sitehanees
MYRICACEAE

* Myrica gale tomentosa C. DC.

BETULACEAE

Alnus crispa sinuata (Regel) Hult. [A. rubra Bong.]

URTICACEAE
*f Urtica gracilis Ait.
POLYGONACEAE

A Polygonum viviparum L.
lla L.

Rumez = ose

mesticus Hartm.

cmeieeeeieass

* Atriplex gmelini C. A. Meyer
CARYOPHYLLACEAE

* Cerastium caespitosu:

m Gili
—— penloldos bet a (Hook.) Hult. [Are-
naria peploides L.]
t Moehringia lateriflora (L.) Fenzl [Arenaria lateri-
ora

sicaulis S. Wats.

crass:
*¢ Silene acaulis L.

*T = © borat (Fern.) Hult.

fe eRe

Nuphar pepe Engelm. [Nymphaea polyse-
pala (Engelm.) Greene]

RANUNCULACEAE
Aquilegia formosa

Fisch. M
— a asarifolia (DC.) Huth [C. palus-
; Coptis asplenifolia ——

— (L.) Salisb.

Ranunculus bongardii Greene [R. nelsonii (DC.)
ao

14 Only a single tree seen.
15 Gathered by George Nelson.

Muskeg

Virgin forest

Muskeg

Muskeg & creek banks
Sandy ocean beach 14

Creek banks
Roadside banks (Coville & Kearney)

Muskeg
Banks of bay

Roadside banks
Muskeg
Roadside banks

Pebbly bay shore

Cleared ground
Sandy & pebbly shores

Grass at top of sandy ocean beach
Pebbly bay shore
Roc Disenchantment Bay 15
ee bay beach

Cleared — <n & Kearney)
Pebbly —

ared gri

adside banks
Woods at edge of pond
Roadside banks

A COLLECTION OF PLANTS FROM YAKUTAT, ALASKA 17

Tf Ranunculus = arg ag Pursh Creek shore:
T ns L, Running ditch & muskeg

* a peptentnaalle pacificus Hult. Roadside hanks 1 diya
*T oe trichophyllus (Chaix) Schultz Immersed in ¢
* Thalictrum sparsiflorum richardsonii (Gray)
Boivin 16 Creek banks
BRASSICACEAE
Arabis hirsuta eschscholtziana Cha Hult. [A.
irsu -.) Scop Top of eels. mie ‘beach
* Cakile edentula cnliforciek (Heller) Hult. Sandy ocean beac
* Capse ursa-pastoris (L.) Medic. Ro aiidon
* Cochlearia officinalis oblongifolia (DC.) Hult. Pebbly ae beach
* Rorippa palustris (L.) Besser Cleared ground
* Sinapis arvensis L. Sandy ocean beach
DROSERACEAE
*+ Drosera rotundifolia L. Edge of pond
SAXIFRAGACEAE
* Chrysosplenium tetrandrum (Lund) Th. Fries Pen oe
*t Parnassia palustris L. Mus:
be Ribes bracteosum Dougl. Creek banks oun & Kearney)
axiflorum Pursh Roadside b
Tiarella trifoliata L. Cleared fins 4
ROSACEAE
* Aruncus sylvester Kostel. Roadside banks
garia chiloe (L.) Duchesne . %
Geum app Menz. Muskeg
He rophyllum Willd. Roadside banks
Potentilla. ae Howell i iP. anserina L.] Pye ce
is (L.) Sco: Roadside ditches
*tW Rubus — Mocifio 7 Roadside banks
ck sare”
z ctabilis Purs
sera Smi Edge of woods
t Sanguisorba stipulata Rat: [S. latifolia Coville] Muskeg
FABACEAE
T Lath mariti L.) Bigel. Muskeg
Tt * bt cr arog Be rg Sandy ocean beach
Lupinus nootkatensis Donn [L. n. unalaskensis S. : :
ats.] Railroad right of way
“ ees ee uskeg :
* Trifolium repens L. Railroad right of way
EMPETRACEAE
*+ Empetrum nigrum L. Muskeg 19
VIOLACEAE
* Viola adunca Smith Edge of thicket on sandy ocean beach
x epipse eb. Muskeg
“ glabella Nutt. Edge of woods
“ langsdorffii Fisch. Muskeg
pe 16 Listed as T. sparsiflorum Gray by Hultén, but distinguished by Boivin in Rhodora 46:
1944 ;

17 Hulten rave not explain why he adopts this name, dating only from 1828, instead of R.
parviflorus Nutt. of 1818.
18 Near L. panati Lindl., but leaflets only 10 and hairs silvery.
19 In open places condensed and closely branched, but in shelter laxly sprawling or semi-
climbing and reaching 25 dm. tall.

18 BARTONIA

ONAGRACEAE
Circaea alpina L Cleared ground
.f Epilobium angustifolium L. Roadside banks
behringianum Haussk. Roadside ditches
2s ee bongardi Haussk.2°
T = latifolium L. Muskeg
iponar nangumiecegey
*+ Hippuris vulgaris L. Immersed in creek
a | Myroohviunt pao L?1 = Sabai Be
ARALIACBAE
Echinopanax horridum (Smith) D. & P. All thickets and woods
APIACEAE
Coelopleurum gmelini (DC.) Le Roadside ditches
7 Conioselinum gmelini (C. & 8S.) ty ‘& R. [Selinum
gmelini (C. & S.) Kurtz] Roadside banks

Glehnia leiocarpa Mathias [Phellopterus littoralis
Schmidt Sandy ocean beach
+ Heracleum maximum Bartram [H. = Michx.] Wet bank
igusti

ultenii Fern. [L. scothicum Top of sandy ocean beach
* Osmorrhiza purpurea (C. & R.) Suksd. Thickets
CORNACEAE
ft Cornus canadensis L. Edge of woods
PYROLACEAE
t Moneses uniflora (L.) Gra Virgin forest
| Pyrola ssarifolis incarnata (DC) Fern. Willow thicket
L. ge of woods
i “ secunda L. Ks.9
armen
stelleriana (Pall.) DC. Edge of pond
Saenaiata ferruginea Smith Roadside banks
Tt coccus microcarpus Turcz Muskeg
t Vaccinum ovalifolium Smith Edge of woods
* “ by = m Smith “ “ “
*T “ uliginosum L. Muskeg
PRIMULACEAE
* Dodecatheon superbum sp. nov.?2 Muskeg
+ Glaux maritima L. Pebbly bay beach
Trientalis europaea arctica (Fisch.) Ledeb. Edge of
GENTIANACEAE
t Menyanthes trifoliata L. Edge of pond
* Swertia perennis L. Muskeg
POLEMONIACEAE
* Polemonium acutiflorum Willd. Muskeg

20 Here applied to an ally of E. hornemanni Reichb., from which it seems to differ
leaves more acute os to base and apex, by petals but little (rather than much) sali

than sepals, and coma of seed pure white (rather than rusty). This snseig to cape ion eter 7
also Anderson 6320 from Juneau, which would be near Sitka, the assumed so
original specimen. Trelease, in Ann. Rep. Missouri Bot. Gard. 2: 107, 1891, Sa deacibed the

coma of FE. bongardi as “ very dines but Haussknecht (whose specimens Trelease did not
here said nothing about its color.

21 Material sterile, so not decisive between this and exalbescens Fern.
22 See ADDENDUM

A COLLECTION OF PLANTS FROM YAKUTAT, ALASKA 19

BORAGINACEAE
+ Mertensia maritima (L.) S. F. Gray [Pneumaria
iti .) Hill] Pebbly bay shore
SCROPHULARIACEAE
—— unalaschcensis (C. & S.) Malte [C.
ugl.] Sandy ocean beaches 23
Silas sattates Fisch. [M. langsdorffii Donn] Shores of creek
Tt rican eon parviflora Smith [P. palustris wlasso-

Steven) Bunge] Muskeg
Rhinanthus arcticus (Sterneck) Pennell 24 [R.
crista-galli L.] . :
*t Veronica americana (Raf.) Schwein. Wet roadside banks
LENTIBULARIACEAE
*t Pinguicula vulgaris L. Muskeg
PLANTAGINACEAE
Z Plantago juncoides Lam. Pebbly bay shore
macrocarpa C. & §. eg
> * major L.25 Cleared ground
RUBIACEAE
pe Galium a eL. Roadside banks
trifidum columbianum (Rydb.) Hult. Edge of pond
CAPRIFOLIACEAE
+ Sambucus racemosa pubens (Michx.) Hult. [S.
racemosa L. Thickets
+ Viburnum pauciflorum Pylaie Virgin forest
23 My two collections, identified as this by Dr. Pennell, differed markedly it in the field.
One was yellowish green, up to 9 tall, coarse, its leaves congested, broad and with obtuse
tips, and its greenish vos flower-clusters v very closely compact. The other was purplish,
both as to leaves and ste , not so tall (about 4.5 dm. tall) nor so coarse, its leaves Frage con-

ested, narrow and suisuueie to sharp tips, and its flower-heads more yellowish, sligh
with pink o Jaccr L. D. 8.
24 New transfer, based on Alectorolophus arcticus Sterneck, in Zool.-Bot. Gesellsch. Wien
12: 114, 1901, where the source was given as “ Herbar. United States National, Nr. 68! Nord-
eri : Alask : =

wi to R. bor.

but the corolla is larger (10-12 mm., oe — 8-9 mm. ng), with the ula more rounded
at apex, the fruiting calyx larger, and the stem-leaves pie beer late crenat ntate
Sete. than linear. 2 Eee to lanceolate "and wate rply de sagen Hultén, in his Mhede of
the Aleutian Tela” (p. 295), merges bot ese species under

which name he prefers to R. pacificus, both of 1899, because Ostenfeld ‘had —_ heieeindes

these two last-named i It is, however, clear Py of t these pacificus is older, since,
when Chabert vabteied ieez nlandicus on page 515 of the Bulletin de "VHerbier Boissier
(vol. 7) under date of July 25, 1899, he had alread nder date of June 20, 1899

ed the combination FR. borealis based upon the gent earlier Alector us borealis oar
neck. The matter is presumably academic, since the Gree nland plant, with its corolla up t
15 mm, long, is likely neither of 1 these Pacific
25 A small slightly pubescent form, that is presumably what is meant by J. K. Henry in
his “ Flora of Southern British Columbia and Vancouver Island” (p. 276, alge as var. minima
(Lam. & 1 ) form near the sea”. P. mini

20 BARTONIA

ASTERACEAE
+ Achillea borealis Bong. [A. millefolium L.] Muskeg
Ana _ lis fei eg ie 5 Greene [Anten-
margaritacea (L.) Hook.] Roadside banks
ro atifolia “aime 26 Railroad right of way
7 peel ‘atianes Lindl. Muskeg
peregrinus Pursh [Erigeron salsuginosus
" iiebards. ) Gray] 27 #

* ricaria suaveolens (Pursh) B Railroad right of way
Petasites orf absent Rydb. (Teeiievo frigida L.] Cleared groun
Prenanthes lessingi eo [P. alata (Hook.) Gray] Roadside banks

- Senecio peeudoarnica Sa: ney oo“ beaches

ngularis Hook. Mus

* Teisiecots. ‘etilobum DC28 Railroad right of way

ADDENDUM

Dodecatheon Hare Pennell & pier, —— nova Plate 6.

aanty nd ae as the blades , the whole leaves a 10-20 cm. long, 1.5-4 cm.
wide, and about half the length of the scape. Scape stout, becoming 2-4 dm.
tall, bearing a whorl of lanceolate to oblong acute green bracts 5-15 mm. long,
which are much exceeded by the 6 to 13 jak pedicels, the longest of which may
attain 30-60 mm. long. Calyx-lobes lanceolate, green throughout, 4-6 mm. long.
Corolla pale at base, the tae dea lobes 10-17 mm. long, ole tiene (“ pink to
lavender-pink ’’, as ‘noted living by Stair). Filaments united into a yellow
cylinder 1.5-2.5 mm. long, the violet anthers 5-6 mm. long (24 to 34 times the
length of the filaments). Style slender, violet, exceeding the ethecs (usually by
-3mm.). Capsule cylindric, 13-17 mm. long.

26 Leaf-blades pingidinsaare about as described by Maguire (in Brittonia 4: 436, 1943)
for the type which was presumably gathered near Sitka. The plant of inland western Canada
and the United States peat more Ganiy dentate leaf-blades.

27 Concerning this and the preceding, both collected on July 13, Mr. soa comments as
follows. “ Aster peregrinus was very common on the m uskeg, covering large areas. It was
first thought an Engeron because of the many long narrow pink or white rays afte hairy invo-
lucral lesioned = hea being 2 cm. in diameter and over 4 cm. across the rays. In contrast
A. singly or scattered, and its fewer sol wider rays were deep bluish purple, its

involucral ute vigaten ciliolate, while its heads were e and as large as 2.5 cm. in diameter
or - cm. Lah ane The flowering of oliaceus pits starting, when that of A. peregrinus
agdiinaded This : ema seems to explain both the unusually large size 0 of the

heads ag ie oe and their being solitary, the secondary heads of this species developing

28 Well vag Fernald & Long’s (et al.) collections so identified from western New-

foundland (27176, in 1924, from St. Barbe; and 2159, in 1 1929, from Old Port au Choix in

region of St. John Bay) as to stature, pubescence, achenes, and leaves, except that the last are

paler perhaps ev: cous ath) and their segments are m new, inliasttly "a dentate.
hamissonis

This is presumably the cut-leaved extreme of Greene’s shavudeneiiatiol or his T. ¢

from the Pacific coast of Alaska, and we suggest that it may appear an ae uadoseiibad species to
specialists on Tararacum. Its occurrence at Yukutat would also accord with its being a recent
immigran :

BARTONIA No. 24 PLATE 6

reene

Collected by J. P. Anderson

Dodecatheon superbum, from Eklutna, Alaska. Type specimen photo-
graphed by A. Delwin Warden.

A COLLECTION OF PLANTS FROM YAKUTAT, ALASKA 21

Planta omnino glabra aut in inflorescentia parum a folia
spathulato-oblonga, obtusa aut rotundata, integr a aut obscure sinuato-crenata,

cope bie es violaceus, antheris plerumque 2-3 mm. longior; capsula Pe tificncg
nga.

Type, wet meadow, Eklutna,”® Alaska, collected in flower June 26, 1941, by
J. P. Anderson, no. 6962; in herbarium of the Academy of Natural Sheela. of
Philadelphia.

Grassy meadows and muskeg, along the Pacific coast from Kodiak Island,
Alaska, to Puget Sound, Washington. Represented in the Academy’s herbarium
by the following singe ig

ALASKA, Kodiak, A. Kellogg 205; Seward, Anderson 6745; Yakutat, Stair; Eklutna,
Anderson 6962; Juneau, 30 Anderson 6355; Sitka, Chlebnikof,, Peters, & Wrangell.

WASHINGTON. Lummi Rocks, Whatcom Co., W. C. Muenscher orto; Whidby Island,
J. W. Thompson 6096.

This det has been passing as Dodecatheon pauciflorum (Durand) Greene,
which was based upon D. meadia pauciflorum Durand (in Journ. Acad. Nat. nee
Phila. IT, 3: 95, 1855) from “ Ad orientem et occidentem fluminis Missouri us
ad Montes Scopulosos””. The plant first described is evidently that ‘idbaladt in
the mountains around and in the upper Missouri valley, extending from Alberta
and North Dakota to Utah, eastern Washington, and eastern Oregon; this plant
bears smaller flowers than D. superbum, and these have the yellow filament-tube
4 to § the length of the anthers (which are only 4-5 mm. long). Also, the leaves
are much less than half the length of the stem. These characters are well de-
picted on the plate in the Botanical Magazine (pl. 3622 in 1837), although the
flowers are only occasionally so many. Usually, the scapes bear less than six
flowers, and so deserve Durand’s epithet.

It is most natural that the species of the humid northwestern coast should be
different from that of the arid interior of the continent. The former is a stouter
and more impressive plant, and one of the finest of its beautiful genus.

29 Eklutna, a place not in Mar arcus Baker’s “ Geographic Dictionary of Alaska ” (Bull. U.S.
Geol. Surv. 187, 1 902) is located “ nome the head of Knik Arm of Cook Inlet about 18 miles
south of Matantea , ACCO: ormation from J. P. a apa

viro! from the range o that

involved. By the collector it was identified as D. frigidum C. & §&., but that. Arctic saint
has its inflorescence strongly slaudulacaubeiiient and its anthers nearly sessile, the filament-
ring being scarcely developed.

Notes on Pennsylvania and New Jersey Grasses '*
RicHarD W. PoHL

The following records represent extensions of the ranges given by Hitchcock
(Manual of the Grasses of the U. S. 1935) or others. Names of the herbaria in
which the cited specimens are deposited are abbreviated as follows: A.:
Herbarium of the Philadelphia Botanical Club at the Academy of Natural Sci-
ences; P.: Herbarium of the University of Pennsylvania; U. S.: United States
National Herbarium. A number of these records are of ballast waifs, which may
not have persisted until the present time. Absence of recent collections indicates
their probable disappearance from this area.

PSEUDOSASA JAPONICA (Sieb. & Zucc.) Makino (Arundinaria japonica S.
& Z.)

A thriving colony of this species exists on the embankment of the Pennsyl-
vania Railroad at the west end of the South Street Bridge in Philadelphia. It
has persisted there at least thirteen years, being collected there in 1932 by Witte
and in 1945 by me. Several smaller colonies are scattered along the tracks for
about a quarter of a mile from the above colony. The plant has not been known
to bloom here.

PENNSYLVANIA: Philadelphia Co.: perme R. is embankment at 32nd and
South Sts., Philadelphia, October 18, 1982, W. W. Witte (A., P.); Railroad cg reemae at
west end of South St. Bridge, Philadelphia, October 17, 1945, R. W. Pohl 5221 (U

VULPIA ELLIOTEA (Raf.) Fernald (Festuca sciurea Nutt.)

The first report of this species from New Jersey was by Dr. F. J. Hermann (in
Rhodora 37:266-7. 1935), from Gloucester County. Hermann wrote that his
plants were all dwarfs, whereas the present specimen is well developed and nearly
5 dm. tall.

NEW JERSEY: Cape May Co.: Open sand behind dunes n. of Stone Harbor, June 2,
1935, F. S. Fender 559 (P.).

GLYCERIA BOREALIS (Nash) Batchelder
To the first definite report of this species from Pennsylvania, made ey Dr.
H. A. Wahl (in Rhodora 47:42. 1945), may be added the following.

ae Wayne Co.: In water along lake shore, Lake rea July 9, 1945,
W. L. Diz 646 (P.) Susquehanna Co.: Marshy shore of Mud Pond, about 3 e. of Ararat,
July 12, 1936, S. L. Glowenke (P.) Pike Co.: Peck’s Pond, July, 1925, T. R. Brendle (PJ.

TRIODIA CHAPMANI (Small) Bush Ge

Professor Fernald reported (Rhodora 42:410. 1940) that this species appar-
ently reached its northern limit in southeastern Virginia. The present record
gives an extension of about 200 miles to the northeast.

aRileeg pce apg done while the author held a predoctoral fellowship under the National
ouncil.

22

NOTES ON PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY GRASSES 23

NEW JERSEY: Cape May Co.: Anglesea. September, 1907. J. M. Macfarlane (Pi).
AEGILOPS TRIUNCIALIS L.

A European species, listed by Hitchcock only from California. It was accom-
panied at this station by Hordeum murinum and may have been introduced with
it from the West.

PENNSYLVANIA: Chester Co.: West Chester, near Kift’s Greenhouses, June 12, 1925,
Wm. Trimble (A.).

HAYNALDIA VILLOSA (L.) Schur
Waif, introduced from the Mediterranean Region. No recent collections.
Not reported from the United States by Hitchcock.

PENNSYLVANIA: Philadelphia Co.: Centennial Grounds, Philadelphia, June 16, 1877,
Isaac Burk (P.).

HORDEUM PUSILLUM Nutt.
Adventive from the West; not reported from Pennsylvania by Hitchcock.

PENNSYLVANIA: Bucks Co.: Perkasie, June 16, 1896, F. L. Bassett (A.). Bedford Co.:
0.9 mi. w. of Juniata Crossing, May 28, 1942, D. Berkheimer 3052 tP.).

HORDEUM MURINUM L.

Not reported from Pennsylvania by Hitchcock. This occurrence is curiously
coincidental with that of Aegilops triuncialis. These two strays may have been
introduced from the West in seed, packing, or manure.

PENNSYLVANIA: Chester Co.: Near Kift’s Greenhouses, West Chester, June 13, 1925,
Wm. Trimble (A.).

HORDEUM GUSSONEANUM Parl.

Ballast waif at Philadelphia; not reported from Pennsylvania by Hitchcock.
No recent collections.

PENNSYLVANIA: Philadelphia Co.: Girard Point, Philadelphia, on ballast, Herb.
Isaac Burk (P.).

PHOLIURUS INCURVUS (L.) Schinz and Thell.

Ballast waif, Philadelphia; not reported from Pennsylvania by Hitchcock.
No recent collections.

PENNSYLVANIA: cbr te gy Co.: Ballast, Philadelphia. August, 1878, Herb. Isaac
C. Martindale (A.); Old Navy Yard, Philadelphia. Herb. Isaac Burk (P.).
CORYNEPHORUS CANESCENS (L.) Beauv.

This species has been found a number of times on ballast around eastern cities,
and has also apparently become established on Long Island. The following speci-
men affords the first modern record from New Jersey. The plant resembles a
small Festuca but may be quickly recognized by the very unusual awns of the
lemmas. These awns have a straight, brown, spirally-marked lower segment,
surmounted by a minute crown. The upper segment is white and club-shaped.

NEW JERSEY: Ocean Co.: Sandy fill, roadside 3 mi. e. of Lakehurst, July 20, 1935,
J. M. Fogg, Jr. 9132 (A., P.).

24 BARTONIA

ARRHENATHERUM ELATIUS (L.) Mert. & Koch, var. BIARISTATUM
Peterm.

This unusual form of the common tall oatgrass resembles species of Avena in
having the two florets externally similar. Both florets bear well developed awns,
inserted near the bases of the lemmas. It may be distinguished from species of
Avena by its staminate lower floret. The present record is apparently the first
for the United States.

PENNSYLVANIA: Delaware Co.: Grassy roadside, } mi. s.w. of railroad station, Moylan,
June 9, 1946, Elizabeth C. Earle 4270 (P.).

HOLCUS MOLLIS L.
Waif at Philadelphia. No recent collections.

ta au enemas Philadelphia Co.: Greenwich Point, Philadelphia, Charles E. Smith

AMMOPHILA BREVILIGULATA Fernald

Sand beaches of Presque Isle. Not reported from Pennsylvania by Hitch-
cock.

PENNSYLVANIA: Erie Co.: Presque Isle, July 20, 1926, O. E. Jennings (P.).
ALOPECURUS RENDLEI Eig (A. utriculatus (L.) Pers.)

Ballast waif; not reported from the United States by Hitchcock. No recent
collections.

hey tbe Philadelphia Co.: On ballast, Old Navy Yard, Philadelphia, May 28,
1880, Isaac Burk (A., P., U. S.).

HIEROCHLOE snoeare (L.) Beauv.

While not reported by Hitchcock, this species has been collected several times

in Pennsylvania.

sear iph gag y Wayne Co.: Common in seepy meadow near southern base of Sugar-
loaf Mt., 1 mi. w. of Orson, May 18, 1937, S. ae Glowenke 146 (P.). Allegheny Co.: Neville
Island, Ohio Rives May & 1899, J. A. Shafer ?),

The eastern American representatives of this species have been called var.
fragrans (Willd.) Richter, by Professor Fernald (in Rhodora 19:152. 1917).
Willdenow’s description of his Holcus fragrans calls for a plant having the sterile
lemmas not ciliate and the apex of the fertile floret smooth. Our specimens do
not show these characteristics.

ZIZANIA AQUATICA L., var. ANGUSTIFOLIA Hitch.

This is the plant referred to as Z. aquatica by Gress (Grasses of Pennsyl-
vania. 1924). Var. angustifolia was not reported from Pennsylvania by Fas-
sett, who studied the genus (in Rhodora 26: 153-60. 1924), or by Hitchcock.
It is known in the State only from Presque Isle, the wild rice of the Philadelphia
area being typical Z. aquatica.

PENNSYLVANIA: Erie Co.: Presque Isle, August 12, 1911, O. E. & G. K. Jennings (P.);
* Presque Isle, August 17, 1919, E. M. Gress & S.H H. Williams (P.).

NOTES ON PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY GRASSES 25

PASPALUM PUBIFLORUM Rupr., var. GLABRUM Vasey

Waif.

PENNSYLVANIA: Delaware Co.: Grounds of American exe Co., Chester, Sep-
tember 20, 1935, Eva Frank (P., U.S.). Identified by Agnes Chase
PANICUM ACROANTHUM Steud.

Waif, apparently represented from the United States only by the following
nara Introduced from Asia. No recent collections.

NNSYLVANIA: Philadelphia Co.: Japanese Garden, Fairmount — Philadelphia,
Dundee 28, 1877 (P.); Old Navy Yard, Philadelphia (P.). No collector give
SETARIA FABERII Herrm.

Known previously from the Piedmont and Coastal Plain in southeastern Penn-
sylvania, S. faberii now turns up in the mountains. I found it growing in pro-
fusion along the new Pennsylvania Turnpike for about a mile. Here the plant
was rooted in damp, chippy, sterile shale of the road-cut and apparently thriving
on such meager nutrition. Dr. David Berkheimer has also collected it in Bed-
ford County, slightly farther west.2

PENNSYLVANIA: Fulton Co.: Along Pennsylvania ee apa 1 mi. w. of Hustonto
(near milepost 53, west), July 15, 1946, R. WP ohl 5891 (P., U. S.). Bedford Co.: Railroad
siding § mi. w.n.w. of Everett, t, August 13, 1944, D Berkheimer 5390 (P.); 24 mi. n.e. of Breeze-
wood, August 10, 1944, D. Berkheimer 5311 (P.).

BoranicaL LABORATORY
UNIveRSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

sbi umerous new occurrences of this species have been discovered in the local area during
the past season. In addition to those that I am not citing, the plant has been se in 5 the
higher portions of the Piedmont, in the Ridge and Valley icrviten and on the Appalachian
Plateau Front, thous not as yet west of it. Mostly it occurs on the , disturbed soil of
cornfields and’ gardens. These extra-local counties, with the Ciliates datas of my own
specimens therefrom, are as follows: Adams 0} um (6232, 6552),
ae (5891), Juniata (6325, 6551), Lebanon (6553), Lycoming ’ (6049), Perry (6323), and
York (E. T. Moul 2428).

New Plant Names Published by Amos Eaton
Between the Years 1817 and 1840'

ELMER D. MERRILL AND JOHN R. REEDER

Amos Eaton produced the first popular descriptive botanical manual for North
America in 1817, although this was admittedly very incomplete, being almost
wholly a compilation from the works of other authors. He included brief descrip-
tions of the genera, followed by even shorter descriptions of the species that he
arbitrarily selected. The list of species was admittedly limited to the more com-
mon and better known ones, and largely those that occurred in New England and
the Central Atlantic States, although he did include certain southern species,
chiefly those of economic importance, such as the sugar cane, Saccharum offici-
narum Linn., a few species of Citrus, etc. Prior to this time no texts were
available ti students. The relatively few individuals in the United States who
were interested in plants and in plant names, chiefly practising physicians, had to
depend on such more technical works as Walter’s “ Flora Caroliniana” (1788),
Michaux’s “Flora Boreali-Americana” (1803), Pursh’s ‘“ Flora Americae
Septentrionalis ” (1814), and Nuttall’s contemporary “ Genera of North American
Plants ” (1818), supplemented by certain standard European treatises covering
what was then known of the flora of the entire world, such as the several editions
of Linnaeus’ “ Species Plantarum ” and Persoon’s “ Synopsis Plantarum.”

It is true that Bigelow’s pioneer descriptive “ Florula Bostoniensis ” had been
published in 1814, and Barton’s list in his “ Florae Philadelphicae Prodromus ”
had appeared in the same year, to be followed in 1818 and 1824 by his descriptive
“Compendium Florae Philadelphicae,” and Elliott had commenced the publica-
tion of his “ Sketch of the Botany of South Carolina and Georgia ” in 1816, which
was completed in 1824. But these were local floras, and the last, the most pre-
tentious of all of them, was out of range as far as the first edition of Eaton’s
“Manual ” was concerned. Also Muhlenberg’s “ Catalogus Plantarum Americae
Septentrionalis ” had been issued in 1813, to be followed by its second edition in
1818, but this was a list, without descriptions, and hence of little value to other
than the very few more or less professional American botanists of the time.

It is clear that Eaton? was a dynamic individual and an inspiring teacher.
He never claimed to be a botanist, and yet he produced a work that, for its time,
evidently served a useful purpose. Clearly he had in mind the needs of students
and of the man on the street, for all editions were made as simple and non-

‘ ? : : ; :

‘ pang alin Sra is ~~ of the scm ur tds boar toes a for a grant from the
a row McAllister, E. M. Amos Eaton, Scientist and Educator, 1776-1842. i-xiii, 1-587,

26

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 27

technical as possible in order to cater to these needs, and to encourage a wider
popular interest in botany. In order to keep the size of his various editions
within reasonable bounds, and the selling price as low as possible, he not only
kept his descriptions very short, but devised a large number of cryptic abbrevia-
tions, some of which are by no means clear, unless one takes the trouble to look
up his explanations; for somewhere in all of the editions the abbreviations are
explained. Not even the authorities for the accepted names were given in edi-
tions one and two. The very simplicity of all eight editions of his work is doubt-
less one of the reasons why Eaton’s “ Manual” has escaped the critical attention
of many botanists. The almost utter lack of documentation in Eaton’s
“Manual,” as to the new names contained therein, is striking; as is also the extra-
ordinarily high percentage of error in citing authorities for the accepted binomials.

Although making no pretentions to being a professional botanist, Eaton com-
menced, even in the first edition, to publish new names and to prepare descrip-
tions of a limited number of new species, and later even of a few new genera.
Also, perhaps without full appreciation of the fact, he published a very consider-
able number of new names when, of necessity, he transferred species from the
genus in which they were originally described to other generic names. Because of
the obscurity of publication, most of the new Eaton names of this type have been
entirely overlooked by compilers of standard indices and by modern botanists as
well. The latter, of course, depend very largely for the names they have to con-
sider on those included in such publications as “ Index Kewensis ”, and Christen-
sen’s “ Index Filicum ”.

Any botanist who will take the trouble to scan any edition of Eaton’s
“Manual ” will at once realize the difficulties involved in detecting new names.
It is true that the few new generic names published by him and the relatively few
new species that he proposed and described are mostly indicated in the text as
new; usually these have been included in standard indices and have been ac-
counted for by Eaton’s successors. His general practice, in transferring a species
name from one genus to another, was to credit the authority for the new name to
the original author, a practice that shows why most such names have been
hitherto overlooked. There is no evidence that Eaton even realized that in such
cases he was publishing new names. He was, in general, rather violently op-
posed to such changes, even as he was equally opposed to innovations, although
from edition two (1818) to edition eight (1840), he did accept the majority of
the new species published by reputable botanists such as Nuttall, Torrey, Hooker,
and others. Like others of his time he practically ignored the erratic work of
Rafinesque.

His objections to changes in names, no matter for what reason, are expressed
in his observations on Monotropa versus Pterospora, Manual, ed. 3, 414. 1822:
“The present rage for cutting up genera has gained such an ascendancy, that I
am compelled to yield to it, though with pain and regret. Every artificial char-
acter is seized with greadiness (sic!) and applied with great ingenuity in mangling

28 BARTONIA

the Linnean system of genera. I consider it the ephemeral reign of innovators,
which our successors will remember but to despise. And most of these new names
which are founded on artificial characters will soon sleep with their authors.”

A few of Eaton’s own new species, as well as some proposed by Torrey, Aikin,
Drayton, Hall, Beck and Tracy, and others that Eaton published, have been
overlooked, and should be incorporated in some future supplement to ‘“ Index
Kewensis.” In checking the Eaton names it is noted that the entries for those
that are listed are not always correct, for many of them were actually published
in editions of his “ Manual ” earlier than the “ Index Kewensis ” entries indicate.
The total number of unlisted names that we have located in the course of examin-
ing Eaton’s publications and those of his contemporaries and successors is sur-
prisingly large, from all sources unlisted names approximating 250, with about 60
corrections to entries that have previously been made. In this consideration of
Eaton’s new names, as well as a considerable number proposed by others, addi-
tions to standard indices are indicated by an asterisk (*), and corrections by the
sign (7)

It is perhaps to be regretted that those modern botanists who, in the course
of their investigations, have from time to time detected unlisted names, and in
some cases mentioned the fact that they are unlisted, have not, in general, re-
ported these to the editors of “ Index Kewensis.” Had this been done it is prob-
able that many of them would have been checked and included in this or that
supplement to that indispensable work. In the course of our investigations we
note that occasional modern authors have discussed such unlisted names as Salix
obovata Pursh (1814), Peltandra glauca Feay (1861), Polygonum natans Eaton
(1822) , Rumezx hastatulus (Baldw. (1817), Torreya Eaton (1829), Arabts hastata
Torr. (1818), and others. These names, not having been reported as unlisted,
are still not included in the supplements to “ Index Kewensis ” although in some
cases, such as Rumezx hastatulus, the binomials involved are accepted in all
standard works as the proper names for recognized species. The only case that
we have noted where one of our authors did report unlisted new names is to the
credit of the late K. K. Mackenzie, who apparently reported the new Eaton names
in Carer (1929), for they are included in supplement eight to “ Index Kewensis ”
(1933). Particularly exasperating is such a case as Peltandra glauca (Ell.) Feay,
accepted as the proper name for a valid species by the late John K. Small, Man.
Southeast. Fl. 246. 1933, for an examination of Feay’s few published papers failed
to reveal its place of publication. This was supplied by Mr. E. J. Alexander,
who informed us that Alphonso Wood published this Feay binomial in his “ Class-
Book ” in 1861. Here, curiously, its name-bringing synonym Caladium glaucum
Ell. (1824) proved to be unlisted. And yet Dr. Small took the trouble on pages
1503 to 1509 of his work to list the 259 new names proposed by him in the text, as
if such a list were important to others than himself and to about two bibliog-
raphers in the world who are charged with recording new names; yet he did not

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 29

mention either the overlooked Elliott name or the obscurely published and un-
listed Feay name that he accepted!

Our purpose in preparing this consideration of Eaton’s new plant names has
been to list all of those for which he was responsible, even including those that are
correctly entered in Index Kewensis. We realize that in listing these names we
are merely adding to the burden of synonymy, yet this type of botanical bibliog-
raphy is justified in reference to the complete history of all published binomials
whether the names be valid or invalid. It is rather curious to note that these
Eaton names published from a hundred and six to a hundred twenty-nine years
ago scarcely affect names that are generally accepted and widely used today. In
at least two cases the application of the homonym rule will require changes in
the names of one Eastern Asiatic and one Santo Domingo species. In a very few
cases the name of Eaton replaces that of some other author as the authority, be-
cause he actually effected the transfers earlier than the authors to whom the
names are currently accredited. The surprising thing, considering the obscurity
of publication that is characteristic of Eaton’s work, is that so many of his names
(about fifty) have been already detected and listed.

The attention of the senior author was directed to Eaton’s “ Manual ” through
his checking of the very numerous Rafinesque names, a high percentage of which
have been entirely overlooked by the compilers of standard indices, and hence by
botanists in general. A certain amount of random sampling revealed so many
of these unlisted names in Eaton’s work that, over a period of two years, all
entries in all editions of Eaton’s “ Manual ” were compiled, and this list had been
checked on standard indices before the preparation of this paper was initiated.
This list, therefore, is the basis of the present paper. It was a time-consuming
task to prepare the preliminary data, for Eaton used about 1,300 different generic
names and more than 8,000 binomials in the eight editions of his work. Many
of these names appear in all editions, but, some in a few or only in one edition.
We have given no attention to the numerous varieties (about 430) that he recog-
nized, many of which he doubtless accepted from the works of earlier authors,
although it is certain that he was the original proposer of a considerable number
of these.

While we hope that we have detected and listed most of the new Eaton names,
we are not sufficiently optimistic to believe that we may have located all of them.
Our interest has been confined to the new names for the vascular eryptogams and
the flowering plants. We have not listed those for the cellular cryptogams, but
content ourselves with calling attention to the fact that there are a few of these
although we believe that none is tenable. Examples are the new generic name
Morellus Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 324. 1818, to replace Phallus Linn., the change being
made for purely prudish reasons, with Morellus impudicus Eaton and M. escu-
lentus Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 112. 1818; Hypnum cooleyanum H. H. Eaton ex Eaton,
Man. ed. 5, Addenda 3. 1829; and Hydnum chrysorhizum Torr. ex Eaton, Man.
ed. 2, 275. 1818, which was included in editions three to five and then dropped.

30 BARTONIA

The full title of the first edition of Eaton’s work is “A Manual of Botany for
the Northern States, Comprising Generic Descriptions of all Phenogamous and
Cryptogamous Plants to the North of Virginia, Hitherto Described; with Refer-
ences to the Natural Orders of Linneus and Jussieu. Each Genus is Further
Illustrated by Short Descriptions of its Most Common Species.” The authorship
is indicated as: “By the members of the botanical class in Williams College
(Mass.) from a manuscript system compiled by the author of Richard’s botanical
dictionary.” Albany. Printed by Webster and Skinners. 1817, pp. i-vi. 1-161.
The author of the English edition of Richard’s work was Amos Eaton.

. This was immediately reviewed by Rafinesque ® but in spite of its inadequacy
and its manifest imperfections, as compared with the works of other authors, such
as Pursh, whom Rafinesque very severely criticized, the review was remarkably
lenient. Rafinesque could not refrain from expressing his opinion regarding the
merits of the natural system of classification as opposed to the artificial Linnaean
system, stating: “ The genera and species of this manual are of course enumerated
according to the sexual system of Linnaeus. ... This unnatural, incorrect, dif-
ficult, puzzling, indelicate and obsolete system, prevails as yet in the U.S....
[and] will probably be taught and followed for a short period to come . . . when
it will of course be superseded by the natural method.” Rafinesque could not
visualize any botanist persisting in following the Linnaean system, little realizing
that Eaton, last of the Linnaeists, would extend his work through eight editions
up to 1840, without deviating from the artificial system except in reference to the
cellular eryptogams.

The caustic Rafinesque apparently realized that Eaton’s primary interest
was in the popularization of botany, a field which Rafinesque himself attempted
to develop from time to time but without too much success. He states that the
work “ had no higher claim than to the title of a mere compilation [which Eaton
himself admitted]; but compilations are sometimes very useful when properly
and skillfully executed”; that it was “a practical and useful one (but by no
means classical) . . . making allowance for the unavoidable errors in works of
this kind, when undertaken in haste by young botanists [Eaton was then 42 years
old], not perfectly acquainted with the state of the science’; and further, that
such authors “should acquaint themselves thoroughly with the laws, language,
and situation of the science both at home and abroad, before they venture to pub-
lish their lucubrations and observations.” He calls attention to the fact that no
authorities are cited for the technical names used and mentions various other de-
fects. Regarding the lack of abbreviations giving credit to original authors,
Refinesque remarks: “ Let us hope that they [the students] will not be led to be-
lieve that Mr. E. is the author of them! ”

In the first, as in all later editions, the genera are arranged under the Linsess
classes, for Eaton was an ardent Linnaeist, being the last of the American sup-

3 Am. Monthly Mag. Crit. Rev. 1: 426-430. Oct. 1817.

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 31

porters of that artificial system of classification. It is true that in the first edi-
tion he did recognize Jussieu’s natural system of classification to the extent of
adding, after each generic description, the numbers corresponding to both the
Linnaean system and that of Jussieu, and in the second, third and fourth editions
he also included lists of the genera under Jussieu’s group names. This is as far
as he went in relation to the natural system of classification until edition five
(1829) appeared, in which he included an epitome of the latter system; this was
repeated in all later editions of the “ Manual.” His uncompromising attitude is
reflected in the remarkable preface to edition six (1833), quoted in part below,
which, however, he did not repeat in editions seven and eight, although in edition
two, 13. 1818, in his discussion of the natural orders of Jussieu he had realized the
limitations of the Linnaean artificial system and the importance of the natural
arrangement, stating: ‘‘ The Linnaean artificial arrangement is the only system
hitherto brought into use by which we are enabled to find out a plant with which
we are unacquainted. But after we have determined a plant by the aid of that
system, we should proceed to examine its affinities or relations to other plants.”
Beginning with the third edition (1822) he added numbers to the genera in the
alphabetic sequence by which the student could place his material in both sys-
tems explaining on page 152: “ The first number on the left of the generic name
is the number of the artificial class to which it belongs—the second, of the arti-
ficial order. The first on the right, of the natural order of Lineus [sic!]—the
second, of Jussieu.”

In edition two (1818), page six of the preface he states: “ Nothing can be
more interesting, than the study of the natural affinities of plants. But there has
been no natural arrangement yet devised by which we can find out the names
of plants to which we are strangers. We must therefore follow the Linnaean
system, as the only safe guide to direct our steps among strangers in the vegetable
kingdom.” From this there is the following footnote:

“Mr. Rafinesque, and several other learned botanists, consider a natural clas-
sification, alone, adequate to the purpose of-investigating plants. In a letter
which I received from that gentleman, he says: ‘I hope to be able, at some future
period, to convince you, and many more, that you have not a correct idea of the
natural classification.’ I am sure, no botanist will hesitate to receive Mr. R’s
natural classification, when he shall have so far perfected it, that our pupils can
dispense with the artificial arrangement. But I fear, this great desideratum is
very distant.”

Eaton remained unconvinced to the end in spite of the fact that all other
botanists had, by the time the last edition of his Manual appeared, long since
abandoned the artificial Linnaean classification for the natural one. His attitude
is reflected by the following statement quoted from the preface to edition seven
of his “ Manual,” iv. 1836: “The two systems are not in opposition to each
other, and cannot be contrasted with any more propriety, than a part can, in any

32 BARTONIA

case, be compared with the whole; as one is but an auxiliary to the other. The
Natural Method is the grand climacteric in Botanical science, and the Artificial
System is the brightest epoch of its youthful pupilage.” Eaton the amateur ap-
parently preferred to remain among those devotees of the bright epoch of youth-
ful pupilage. On page thirteen of edition six of his “ Manual” (1833) he
weakened somewhat, for there he states: “ Plants are classified upon two distinct
plans; the Artificial and Natural. The object of the Artificial system is merely
to furnish a method for ascertaining the name of a plant. The object of the
Natural system is to bring together into small groups, plants which resemble each
other in their botanical affinities, sensible qualities and medicinal properties. The
Artificial system has been very aptly compared to the dictionary, and the
Natural, to the grammar of a language.” Clearly his chief concern was the names
of plants, not their relationships.

Little can be said in favor of the first edition of the ‘“ Manual ” except that it
was a pioneer work. One is, however, pleasantly surprised by noting here and
there in editions two to four occasional reasonably ample descriptions, and, what
is of greater value, critical notes of one kind or another; from these data one can
occasionally glean important information regarding this or that species. With
edition five the elimination of certain informative data became evident, while in
editions six to eight the very brief descriptions became standardized and stereo-
typed, with most of the notes eliminated in order to save space. One is inclined
to evaluate editions two to four as the best, although in all editions new names
appear here and there.

EDITION ONE

The first edition of Eaton’s “ Manual” is a strange little book of 164 pages,
distinctly amateurish, but for the time apparently useful. In it he included ab-
breviated descriptions of about 592 genera and even more abbreviated descriptions
of nearly 1,400 species, the latter representing an arbitrary selection from among
the more common, better known and widely distributed species chiefly from the
northeastern United States. How incomplete this was for 1817 may be indi-
cated by the fact that in 1813 Muhlenberg had included 863 genera and 3,118
species in his “Catalogus Plantarum Americae Septentrionalis,” although in
fairness to Eaton it should be noted that he attempted to cover only a selection
of the flora of the northern states, while Muhlenberg attempted to include every
species that had been reported from what was then the United States. He in-
cluded at least one new species, Xylosteum solonis Eaton, p. 26, and deliberately
or inadventently proposed a few new names for other species. One new generic
name, Vezillaria Eaton, was proposed to replace Clitoria Linn., here again the
change being made for purely prudish reasons as was the case with Morellus
Eaton, already mentioned.

4

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 33

It is remarkable that this little book should have been published at the expense
of sixty-three members of Eaton’s natural history classes at Williams College,
whose names appear in the dedication “ to the author of Richard’s botanical dic-
tionary ” on pages ii and iii He says in the preface to edition eight of his work,
v. 1840, that he prepared the manuscript in 1816, translating from the works of
Pursh, Persoon, Michaux, and others, and that: “ the first edition was published
in very contracted form by seventy-two [sixty-three names appear in the list]
students of Williams College, Mass., as no bookseller would risk the publication.
A thousand copies were published and ready for use in June; and not a copy was
left in market after six months.” The figure, one thousand copies, is prob-
ably erroneous, as twenty-two years earlier, in the preface to the second edition,
5. 1818, he said: “ The first edition of the Manual was published by the students
of Williams College for their own private use. As they struck off about five
hundred copies, the work became considerably known. Orders were received by
Messrs. Websters and Skinners, in the course of the next season for more than
could be supplied.” What likelihood is there today that the members of any
class in any American college would publish at their own expense any manuscript
that one of their professors might prepare for their use? We can only assume
that this was a tribute to Amos Eaton’s dynamic personality and to his skill as
an inspiring teacher.

Eaton definitely planned to include only the more common and widely dis-
tributed species, for the most part describing from one or two to three or four
Species under each genus. Under Carez, page 102, he says: “ Fifty-five species
of Carex have been examined and described in the Northern States. It is there-
fore very difficult to select the most common, in conformity with our plan. We
have inserted none but those found most common near Yale College by the
author, and near Williams College by Professor Dewey.” Thus in such large
genera as Carer he admitted 17 species, in Quercus 11, in Aster 14, in Ranunculus
8, in Rubus 7, in Solidago 7, and in Panicum 5. How inadequate this first treat-
ment was may be indicated by the statement that in edition eight (1840), the
number of species for these six genera was, Carex 163 (in the Mackenzie treat-
ment, 1931-35, the number of Carex species recognized is 533), Aster 89, Quercus
36, Ranunculus 51, Rubus 29, Solidago 71, and Panicum 46.

EDITION Two

This was published in 1818, and the manuscript was well advanced when the
first edition was published. He says, p. 8, that “a great proportion of this work
was translated two years ago, under the immediate inspection of professor Ives,
of Yale College.” He speaks of the assistance rendered by Dr. James McBride

4¥For the of the ultimate fat Ae te herbarium of one of these students,
or story ate o priva e um a ee

David L. Coe, whose collection included nearly 500 species, see Barnhart, J. -
Old American Herbarium. Jour. N. Y. Bot. roles 35: 241-245. 1934.

34 BARTONIA

of South Carolina, the courtesies extended to him by Dr. Jacob Bigelow of Boston,
and the value of his correspondence with Dr. John Torrey of New York.

This volume consists of 524 pages, and it was in this edition that he adopted
the strange policy of segregating his species descriptions entirely from the generic
ones, and arranging them under a strictly alphabetic sequence of generic names,
with numbers added so that it was relatively easy to turn back to the actual
descriptions of the genera. At times Eaton speaks of this part of his manual as
the catalogue; for it is, in fact, a descriptive catalogue, although the species that
he recognized in the various genera were apparently arranged in relation to their
characters and relationships, and in later editions, also more or less geographic-
ally. In editions two (1818) to five (1829) the alphabetic sequence included all
genera of cellular and vascular cryptogams and those of the flowering plants.
Thus, regardless of relationships, we find in sequence Adonis (Ranunculaceae),
Aecidium (Uredinales), Aeschynomene (Leguminosae), Aesculus (Hippocasta-
neaceae), Agaricus (Agaricaceae), etc., to the end of the alphabet. The added
numbers associated with the generic names refer to the generic descriptions in
another part of the volume. We know of no other descriptive botanical text where
exactly this same scheme was followed, Eaton’s innovation remaining uncopied.

The number of genera and species was considerably increased, with 790 genera
and 2,446 species recognized and described. As in the first edition authorities
for technical names are lacking, and synonyms are not given.

It was manifestly Eaton’s intention, as he issued the succeeding editions of his
“Manual,” to keep it abreast of the then rapid increase in knowledge of the
North American flora, as exploration of the West and South developed. But as
one checks un the admission of this or that genus or species, proposed by this or
that author, one sometimes wonders at the basis of selection. No edition was
complete. In all of them scores of proposed entities are missing. Apparently
Eaton picked and chose, using some system of his own. A statement in edition
seven, 459. 1836, perhaps throws some light on this method or lack of method of
selection: “ My friend and pupil Mr. Riddell, has announced four new species
of Prenanthes, which he names, miamiensis, ovata, parviflora, and proteophylla.
As several other botanists have proposed to me new species in this deceptive
genus, I defer their publication for the present, to aveid interference, and the
increase of doubtful species.” Eaton himself actually proposed only a small
number of new species, but he was not above supporting his claims for his brain
children, as indicated in edition five, 282. 1829, and in all later editions, under
Lonicera hirsuta Eaton: “I published this species in the Manual in the year 1818,
and repeated it in succeeding editions. Afterwards Goldie came to this state, and
also travelled in Canada, where he found it, and examined it with my Manual.
In 1822 he published it as a new discovery, under the name pubescens, in the
Edinburgh Phil. Journal. I do not claim the discovery, for since I published it,
I learned that Le Conte had examined it. But the truth should be told.”

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 35

Clearly no edition was based to any considerable degree on an actual examina-
tion of herbarium material; all editions remained basically in the category of
compilations. The author states, p. 5: ‘“ The reader is not to suppose that I have
seen all the plants described in this Manual. I have in my collection but about
sixteen hundred of them.”® By the time the last edition appeared in 1840 the
coverage had been extended south to Florida and Louisiana, north to the Arctic
regions, and west to the Pacific coast.

It is noteworthy that Eaton was never misled by the erratic work of Ra-
finesque, for he accepted very few of the numerous new generic names proposed
by that strange individual and equally few of his proposed new species, and this
even when other botanists of distinction, here and there, had recognized the pro-
priety of accepting some of them. In the later editions of Eaton’s Manual it is
even more noteworthy how many of the Rafinesque entities that he had accepted
in earlier editions were eliminated. Yet there is evidence of some correspond-
ence between Rafinesque and Eaton. Actually two of Rafinesque’s manuscript
descriptions occur in Eaton’s herbarium together with the corresponding speci-
mens that Rafinesque sent. It is evident that Rafinesque hoped that Eaton might
accept and publish some of his brain children, but in this he was disappointed.
Eaton merely filed the descriptions and the specimens and ignored the proposed
“new ” species, neither of which happened to be new in any sense of the word.

EDITION THREE

Edition three of the “ Manual” appeared in 1822. This is a volume of 536
pages, following the exact style of edition two except that in this issue the author
did commence to add abbreviations for the names of various authorities on a
fairly large scale; but still many names appeared with no indication as to who
proposed them. He did not deem it necessary or even desirable to cite Linnaeus
as an authority, but did rather consistently, although with a remarkably high
percentage of error, render credit to post-Linnaean authorities. He also com-
menced to add certain synonyms in the form of footnotes and became more spe-
cific in relation to geographic distribution. Perhaps slightly nettled by reviews
of his earlier work, most of all by that of Rafinesque, he says: “ The language
throughout this work is strictly my own. I acknowledge there is a kind of
quaintness in the style, calculated to furnish a good subject for our liliputian re-
viewers.” Genera were increased to 864, and species to 3,065.

EDITION FOUR

In edition four (1824) the preface to edition three is repeated, that to edi-
tion four being very short. He admits that there are few alterations in this edi-
tion, but he did add a concise grammar of botany and a vocabulary of technical
terms. It does, however, contain an appendix, dated Feb. 1, 1824, pages 518 to
539, in which Lewis C. Beck, its actual author accepts various additions and cor-
rections from Torrey’s “ Flora of the Northern and Middle States ” (1824) which

5 See the discussion of Eaton’s herbarium below.

36 BARTONIA

had appeared after Eaton’s edition four had passed through the press. The total
number of pages is 539. The chief differences between editions three and four,
as to the included genera and species, appear to be in the appendix above men-
tioned

EDITION FIVE -

Edition five (1829) is much the same as edition four, but as with each preced-
ing issue, includes various added genera and species. In it 1,125 genera and
5,125 species are described. The descriptive part of the text consists of 452 pages,
the “ closing remarks ” which include the errata, index, grammar of botany, and
an innovation in the form of a summary of Jussieu’s natural system of classifica-
tion, comprising 63 additional pages, and to which must be added an unpaged
botanical dictionary (69 pages), making a total of 584 pages. On page one of
the closing remarks he credits the compilation, after Carez, largely to Dr. William
Aikin and H. H. Eaton. This “ closing remarks” page is dated May 13, 1829,
which must be very close to the date of publication, as he said that the first proof-
sheet was received on January 12, and that the book had been four months in
the press.

His ideas regarding the status of descriptive botany, as expressed on page
seven of the introductory part, make rather strange reading today: “ Many vain
botanists are continually in search of new species; and their vanity leads them
into strange absurdities. ... There is not, probably, 50 undescribed species of
Phenogamous plants in the United States—perhaps not one species, east of the
Mississippi.” And this when the United States boundaries had been extended to
Florida and Louisiana in the south, and to Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana in
the west, with vast parts of this new territory as yet unexplored! Most of Tor-
rey’s descriptive work, as well as that of the younger Asa Gray, to say nothing
of that of George Engelmann and many more, was still in the future.

EDITION six

This appeared in 1833, consisting of pages i-x, 33-103, 1-401, 1-138, or a total
of 640 pages. The number of genera is increased to 1,228, and of species to 5,267
One radical change was the amplification of the synopsis of Jussieu’s natural sys-
tem of classification, which had first appeared in edition five. Here for the first
time he segregated the genera of cellular cryptogams from the alphabetic arrange-
ment of all generic names, and distributed them under the major groups of the
natural system, the fungi, algae, lichens, mosses, and hepatiecs.

e interesting item in this edition is Eaton’s remarkable diatribe against
the cated system of classification and its supporters, that forms a part of the
introduction. He apparently could not bring himself to an acceptance of the

natural system as a whole, although by that time all of the productive botanists
in the United States had long since abandoned the Linnaean artificial system of
classification. Not being able to restrain himself, he opens this strange preface
with the following statement:

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 37

“Since Dr. Faustus first exhibited his printed bibles in the year 1463, no
book has, probably, excited such consternation and dismay, as Dr. Torrey’s edi-
tion of Lindley’s Introduction to the Natural System of Botany [1831]. And to
make the horrors of students, as well as of ordinary teachers, still more appalling,
Dr. Torrey’s Catalogue of American Plants at the end of his Lindley, was so
singularly presented, that it would seem to indicate an awful catastrophe to all
previous learning. To relieve all concerned, let me make this pledge: Nothing
new is presented either in the text or in the catalogue, excepting what ought to
have been discovered in this progressive science, since the fifth edition of this
Manual was printed; and not so much of real improvement, has been added, as
between the fourth and fifth editions. A few formidable (and unnecessary) terms
have been introduced, and a fe® new discoveries. Some genera have been split
up with propriety—more from sheer vanity. ... Throughout the whole work I
have been careful to adopt the most current names.

“T shall not give a detailed account of the course I have taken. But I shall
content myself by giving this assurance: I have made myself thoroughly
acquainted with Lindley, Hooker, Loudon, and the four published volumes of
De Candolle. I do not believe that either of these authors has published any im-
provement useful to the student in North American Botany, which he will not
find in this book, excepting the physiological part. . . .

“It may be asked, why I do not follow De Candolle, servilely, since so many
distinguished botanists here have borne testimony to his great merit? Perhaps
no one is a more devoted admirer of his discriminating talents, great learning, and
untiring assiduity, than myself. But he imposes on his readers the labor of learn-
ing a multitude of new names, without even a shadow of pretence. Then to
sustain him in his unnecessary novelties, he flatters his adherents by adopting all
their ridiculous names and whimsies, and by holding them up to the world as
eminent botanists (I cannot be accused of envy, for he has quoted me with the
rest). It is certainly the duty of everyone . . . to oppose the introduction of
an overwhelming host of new and unutterable names, and to load our book-shelves
with a still more frightful terminology. ... As far as I have any influence I
pledge it here, that the embarrassing innovations of De Candolle and others, are
of no possible use to the science of Botany. All new discoveries, however (which
are not a few) should be adopted; and they are adopted in this edition. And the
necessary new names and new nomenclature, are also adopted and fully explained.

“An attempt is made by Lindley (who has given us a condensed view of all
the discoveries of Robert Brown and others) to prove that the Artificial method
of Linneus is unnecessary. In doing this he proposes an Artificial Method of
eleven pages. As those who have not read Torrey’s Lindley, will scarcely believe
this unaccountable absurdity, they are requested to examine, unbiassed, that
work. ... The improvements upon Linneus, which have been made, do not

38 BARTONIA

authorize any change in the science of Botany, other than mere additions and
corrections, like Newton’s Principia.

Comment on this extraordinary statement would seem to be superfluous, other
than to note that Eaton, the amateur, did not hesitate to express his frank opinion
of the greatest professional botanists of the time. It is, however, an excellent
illustration of Eaton’s objections to innovations and improvements, in spite of
his protestation that botany was a progressive science.

EDITION SEVEN

Edition seven appeared in 1836. The descriptive text consists of 672 pages,
the botanical grammar and dictionary consisting of 125 additional pages, a total
of 797. There are no striking innovations. The number of genera was increased
to 1,291, and of species to 5,855. The remarkable preface of the sixth edition is
replaced by a new one in which the author continues to defend the Linnaean
system of classification, querying: “Is it not a faithful guide on journeying to
the Elysian fields of Vegetable Physiology?” His own statement regarding his
work (p. iv) is worthy of note:

“Tt ought to be understood that from the beginning of the Author’s services
in the cause of Botany, he has never aspired to any thing above that of teacher,
translator and compiler. He has made but few new discoveries and constructed
but few species. Hence his Manual has consisted of a series of advertising sheets |
for aspiring botanists, and a repository of their discoveries.”

EDITION EIGHT

The eighth and last edition was issued in 1840 under the joint authorship of
Amos Eaton and John Wright. The volume is of somewhat larger format than
the preceding editions, consisting of xviii plus 625 pages. The number of genera
was increased to 1,325, and of species to 5,986. Other than in the additions of
various genera and species originally described by other authors, and a few pro-
posed by Eaton and Wright de novo, the text is much the same as that of the
seventh edition. Eaton says regarding this volume, preface, p. vi: “ Age, and
declining vision, have admonished the author that he must call in the aid of
youthful zeal, with talented energies, to supply his loss by the waning of years.”
This assistance was provided by the junior author, John Wright, who, doubtless,
was responsible for much of the additional material. The main title was changed
for the first time from “ A Manual of Botany ” to “ North American Botany ”,
the subtitle being: “ Comprising the Native and Common Cultivated Plants,
North of Mexico; Genera Arranged According to the Artificial and Natural
Methods.” In this paper we have used the abbreviation “ Man.” for “ Manual id
for all editions including the eighth and final one, except in those cases where 3
new name appears only in the eighth edition where the citation adopted is to
“Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot.”

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 39

ABBREVIATIONS

Eaton was interested in compactness in order to keep the selling price of the
various editions of his ‘“‘ Manual ” as low as possible. This is the reason for the
very short descriptions, and for his often cryptic abbreviations for author’s
names and geographic areas. His author abbreviations are so different from
those now currently used that it seems to be desirable to cite a few. Thus
A= Aiton; B= Barton; Bl = Bridel; Bw = Bigelow; E = Elliott; G= Grono-
vius; Jn = Jacquin; Lk — Lamarck; M = Muhlenberg; Mr = Murray, etc.

Again, because he did not indicate geographic ranges for species in the first
edition, commencing to do this in the second edition, the abbreviations were also
cryptic. Thus H= Harvard College (Boston and vicinity) ; Y = Yale College
(New Haven and vicinity) ; C— Columbia College (New York City and vicin-
ity); W=— Williams College (Williamstown and vicinity); with others such as
N= Northampton, A= Albany, P = Pennsylvania, and O = omnibus locis. In
later editions as the range of the manual was extended the same system was fol-
lowed and we find various additions such as B = Boston; C = Connecticut; D =
Delaware; D = Detroit and the “N. W. Lakes”; H= Harrisburg “and the
Alleghany range in Virginia and Pennsylvania”; H = Highlands (Catskill and
Green Mountains) ; K = Kentucky; M= Maryland; O= Ontario County, New
York; N==New York; P= Philadelphia and Chester; T= Troy, New York;
V= Rutland County, Vermont; and others. For species from other than eastern
North America he also used A= Arctic and R= Rocky Mountains and west of
that range and as far east as Missouri and Arkansas. In other editions A = Al-
pine, N—Northern, S=Southern, L=littoralibus (seacoast plants), ete.
Somewhere in each edition he did explain the cryptic abbreviations that he used
to save space, but in order to be sure what was intended, particularly when the
same letter was used to indicate different localities or regions, his explanations
should be consulted.

Some EaATONIAN ERRORS

Eaton’s percentage of error in ascribing authorities to various binomials, after
he initiated this practice in edition three, is very high. In a randon sampling
involving somewhat more than 500 names which are accompanied by abbrevia-
tions of the author or supposed author, in 180 cases he credits the authorship to
other than the originator of the combination, his errors being in excess of 25%.
This was largely due to his unfortunate habit of erediting the authority for a
name to the author of the book from which he compiled his descriptions. He
seldom considered it necessary or desirable to cite any author for a Linnaean spe-
cies, but it is noteworthy how frequently he credited a Linnaean name to Willde-
now, Persoon, Pursh, or some other post-Linnaean author who had merely re-
described the Linnaean species; a Michaux binomial may be credited to “ Ph.” =
Pursh merely because Eaton took his description from Pursh rather than from

40 BARTONIA

Michaux’s original work. An extraordinary number of specific names are errone-
ously credited to ‘ W ” = Willdenow, not that the latter author originated them
but merely because Eaton compiled his descriptions from Willdenow’s edition of
the “ Species Plantarum.” He thus automatically credited Willdenow with being
the author of the names when all that the latter did was to redescribe species pro-
posed by earlier authors correctly crediting the names to them. In some cases,
such as in Aspidiwm with a total of twenty-three names he was one hundred per-
cent in error as to the authorities for the binomials.

As noted elsewhere he also had the unfortunate habit, when it became neces-
sary to transfer a specific name from one generic name to another, of crediting
the new combination to the author who originated the species name, when, in
very many cases the author of the new name was actually Eaton himself. In no
case does he indicate that he was publishing a new name, and it is only charitable
to assume that he was unconscious of the fact that for such names he himself was
the author by being the first person to publish the transfers. In some cases the
source of his new name is indicated by a footnote reference; in other cases there
is no indication whatever of the name-bringing synonym, and this can now be
determined only by inference. This inconsistency on the part of Eaton in his
treatment of transferred names, as to their authorities, has confused the issue.
In some cases he accepted botanical usage and cited the authorities properly.
Where he continued to cite the original author as the authority for a new com-
bination he approximated zoological custom, without, however, the use of paren-
theses. Thus, modern botanists would generally utilize the form Prunus emar-
ginata (Dougl.) Eaton, based on Cerasus emarginata Dougl.; but, were this a
zoological name, it would appear as Prunus emarginata (Dougl.).

There are a considerable number of misspelled technical names of plants in
all editions of Eaton’s “ Manual.” He says under the errata, p. 164 of the first
edition: ‘‘ The reader will not be surprised at this [small] list of errors, when he
is told that the author resides 34 miles from the printer, and never saw any of
the proof sheets.” The surprising thing is, perhaps, that errors were not more
numerous, for Eaton’s handwriting was not too clear. In general we have not
listed manifestly misspelled names as “ new” ones except in those cases where
either the initial letter is involved or the name, as misspelled, was correctly
formed; and for such entries we have added the abbreviation sphalm

_ Illustrations of patent errors are Aspidium crucitarium (A. cicutarium Sw.),
Batschia imeling (gmelini), Blechnum surrulatum (B. serrulatum Rich.), Carex
foena (foenea Muhl.), Citrus medeca (medica Linn.), Cucumis anguinis (an-
guinus Linn.), Delphinium staphisagrium (staphisagria Linn.), Diphyllia (Di-
phylleia Michx.), Gentiana pneumonantha (pneumonanthe Linn.), Holcus lat-
nanus (lanatus Linn.) , Ilex cassina (I. cassine Linn., I. cassena Michx.) , Lepidium
menziesia (menziesii DC.), Panasia (Parnassia Lavn:>; Plantago criopoda (erio-
poda Torr.) , P. meadia (media Linn.) , Potentilla leneophylla (leucophylla Torr.),

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 41

Pteris aqualina (P. aquilina Linn.), and Pycnanthemum monardellum (monar-
della Michx.). There are many others. Eaton apparently did not accept the pre-
cept that certain types of specific names are indeclinable, and rather consistently
changed the case endings in such cases as Delphinium staphisagria Linn.,
Gentiana pneumonanthe Linn., and Pycnanthemum monardella Michx., cited
above; there are many others in this category. Furthermore, he objected to the
adjectival form of certain specific names, such as Carex deweyana Schwein., C.
halseyana Dewey, and C. hitchcockiana Dewey, and changed them to the genitive
form in C. deweyi Eaton, C. halseyi Eaton, and C. hitchcockii Eaton. If a spe-
cies name impressed him as unduly long, such as Carex washingtoniana Dewey,
it became C. washingtonia Eaton, in this case commenting: “ Prof. Dewey will
excuse me for shortening some of his personal and geographical names.” Here
apparently Eaton did not realize that he was actually publishing new names.
Again, when he occasionally transferred specific names from one genus to another,
such as from Antennaria to Gnaphalium, he left the specific names as they were
under Antennaria, making no changes in the case endings.

Because Eaton elected to arrange his species under a strictly alphabetic se-
quence of genera, some strange new binomials appear here and there, where a spe-
cies name with its accompanying description was accidentally included under the
wrong genus. Examples are: Apargia orontium Eaton (Compositae) = Antir-
rhinum orontium Linn. (Scrophulariaceae), Crataegus platycarpa Eaton (Rosa-
ceae) = Crotalaria platycarpa Link (Leguminosae), Crotalaria fleruosa Eaton
(Leguminosae) = Crataegus fleruosa (Poir.) DC. (Rosaceae), Decumaria alata
Eaton (Saxifragaceae) == Delesseria alata Lamx. (Algae), Reseda micrantha
Eaton (Resedaceae) = Ranunculus micranthus Nutt. (Ranunculaceae), Sisy-
rinchium humile Eaton (Iridaceae) —Sisymbrium humile Hook. (Cruciferae),
and Sisyrinchium brachycarpum Eaton (Iridaceae) = Sisymbrium brachycarpum
Hook. (Cruciferae).

It was the strange case of Crotalaria fleruosa Eaton, a name that had been
picked up by Rafinesque, that first attracted the attention of the senior author
to the unlisted Eaton names. Occasionally, in order to determine what was in-
tended in cases like these, a considerable amount of botanical detective work was
involved

Eaton’s HERBARIUM

Eaton had some realization of the value and importance of herbarium speci-
mens, yet no edition of his flora was based primarjly on such material. Unlike
the then young botanist John Torrey, and the latter’s early associate, Asa Gray,
he apparently never did build up a general reference herbarium. He says in the
preface to edition two of his work, p. 5. 1818, that he then had specimens of
about sixteen hundred species. These specimens, many of which are still extant,
are mere snips, and are not to be thought of as complete or even reasonably com-
plete specimens. His original herbarium, as mounted by him in four books, is

42 BARTONIA

now the property of his great grandson, Mr. George Eaton, and is actually de-
posited in the Osborn Botanical Laboratory at Yale University. Through the
courtesy of Dr. E. W. Sinnott we have had the opportunity of examining it. From
the material preserved it is clearly the original herbarium because it contains
the original specimens on which a very few of Eaton’s early species were based,
including Xylosteum solonis Eaton which was described in edition one of his
“Manual.” It also contains some specimens representing species that were not
described until 1822, e.g., Sarracenia heterophylla Eaton and Potamogeton natans

aton. Printed on the back of each of the four volumes is the legend “ A. Eaton’s
Herbarium.” On the fly leaf of one volume is the signature of Sara C. Eaton,
followed by the statement “ From Rens. Institute, Troy, N. Y.”

It is suspected that Eaton at first had this material preserved as loose speci-
mens, but probably when the third edition appeared he arranged such of his speci-
mens as he desired to preserve in accordance with the Linnaean classes, following
the sequence of the genera in his “ Manual,” and then mounted these in four books,
crowding several small specimens representing as many species on each sheet.
Nearly all of the specimens are fragmentary, representing only very small parts
of the species involved, sometimes reduced to a single leaf and a flower, or in
some cases to a single leaf only. In many cases the name is written in abbre-
viated form in pencil, and not infrequently the mounted specimen actually covers
a part of the pencilled entry. After the material was mounted the names, in
Eaton’s handwriting, were written in ink near each one. There are no labels, few
dates or other information, and when a date is given it is usually that of the
month of collection only. In general there is no indication of the collector, but
in some cases Torrey’s name appears, and in two cases there are specimens from
Rafinesque accompanied by his manuscript descriptions, neither of which was
ever published. Such localities as are given are in general indicated by letters,
such as N. H.—New Haven, A= Albany, W = Williamstown, etc. In a very
few cases the locality is indicated in full. For the vast majority of cases how-
ever, no locality is given.

This first Eaton herbarium consists of four books of about 90 pages each. It
actually contains 1,237 species (some of the specimens have been lost or de-
stroyed). In most cases the species appear to be correctly named in accordance
with the nomenclature of the time. The books measure nine by eleven inches,
being about two inches thick. There are usually three or four, sometimes six or
more species mounted on each small sheet, and in the case of the cellular erypto-
gams as many as twenty or more on a single sheet.

At the time Eaton mounted the material it seems probable that he found some
of his specimens representing his “ sixteen hundred species ” mentioned in edition
two of his “ Manual,” 5. 1818, to be of such a nature that preservation was not
indicated. On the whole this Eaton herbarium is apparently exactly the type
that he required his students to prepare, if we may judge by the extant herbarium

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 43

of David I. Coe (see below), who was a member of Eaton’s natural history class
at Williams College that published the first edition of the manual; except that in
this extant Coe herbarium, now at the New York Botanical Garden, the specimens
are very much better than are those in the Eaton collection.

Eaton preserved very few of his type specimens, for apparently he little real-
ized the value of such material for subsequent study. It had been anticipated
that we might find in this herbarium representatives of some of the Torrey, Hall,
Aiken, Beck, Tracy, and Le Conte species that Eaton published, but there is
nothing that we can associate with any of these botanists.

There is also a second Eaton herbarium, book one of which is preserved at
Yale University. This covers classes I to X of the Linnaean system, and many
of the species included in it are the same as those in the first Eaton herbarium.
However, these later specimens are much better prepared and much more com-
plete than the mere snips that form the first and larger herbarium. In this book
225 species are represented, but the general technique is little better, other than
in more ample and better prepared specimens, than is the case with the earlier
herbarium. That this Eaton herbarium is of a later vintage than the first is
indicated by the fact that in a few cases actual dates are given, the latest one
being 1834. For the most part only two or three specimens are mounted on the
same page, sometimes only one, and only occasionally as many as four or five.
All are labelled, the label taking the form of a slip of paper on which the name is
written, sometimes with few other data, but always with the figures referring to
the generic names used in the last edition of the Manual pasted over the lower end
of each specimen. Very few localities are indicated. The handwriting is not
that of Eaton, but the labels were probably prepared by John Wright. In the
front of this book, in the form of loose sheets, is an index to both volumes of this
herbarium, and this is in Eaton’s characteristic handwriting. From this index it
is evident that there were in Classes XI to XX, which apparently formed book
two, about 278 specimens. This second book is not at Yale University. We
have found no Eaton types in this second herbarium.

It was suspected at first that the book of Eaton specimens preserved at the
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute at Troy, New York, might form book two of this
second Eaton herbarium, but from Mr. Gustafson’s account ® of it this cannot be
the case. We have not seen this material but it is reported that the labels of the
111 specimens are in Eaton’s handwriting, and that the collection was picked up
by a soldier in a southern farm house during the Civil War. It may well be a
part of another Eaton herbarium. However, in spite of the fact that the names
are said to be in Eaton’s handwriting we suspect that it is more likely that the
collection was made by one of Eaton’s students who took it home with him after
finishing his studies, perhaps a parallel case with the Coe herbarium mentioned
above. The latter was taken to Ohio by Mr. Coe and more than a century later

6 Gustafson, A. H. A Note on Amos Eaton’s Herbarium. Rhodora 39: 153-155. 1937.

44 BARTONIA

was eventually discarded by one of his descendants in Ashland, Oregon. The
method of mounting on coarse paper five by six inches in size, is not that which
Eaton used in the two herbaria that we have examined.

Mr. Gustafson suspects that Amos Eaton may have made very extensive
botanical collections in his wide travels, but we find no evidence of this. Appar-
ently he never was much of a field botanist in the sense that he prepared extensive
collections of herbarium specimens for permanent preservation. Such collecting
as he did was on a relatively small scale, and even for the time this was very
amateurish, if we may judge by what has been preserved. There are almost no
Eaton specimens in the early American herbaria that have survived in Philadel-
phia and in New York.

It is clear from statements made in the introductions to the various editions of
his Manual, especially editions four and six, that various individuals such as
Messrs. Pitcher, Cooley, Clinton, Eights, Aikin, Torrey, Short, Peter, Riddell,
Gibbs, Tully, Beck, Mead, and others sent him collections of botanical specimens,
and we may judge that the aggregate would form a large herbarium had the
specimens been preserved. It is evident from the fact that Eaton preserved only
small scraps of the specimens, largely collected by himself, and that none of the
specific collections that he mentioned as having received from others have been
preserved, that he did not consider that such material was worthy of preservation.
The probabilities are very great that either Eaton himself, or someone following
him, discarded the collections that he had received as valueless. It is noteworthy
that the extant Eaton herbarium actually contains specimens, and these very in-
adequate, representing only five of the forty new species that he described on his
own account or for other authors who sent him specimens. Clearly, he had no
concept of the value of type specimens, apparently considering that once a species
was published it was not necessary to preserve the material on which the descrip-
tions were based.

He apparently did not hold the herbarium botanist in very high esteem, al-
though in edition four of his work p. iv. 1824, where he lists the names of those
who sent him specimens and the regions from which the material came, he admits
that he deprived more benefit from the specimens received by Dr. Torrey than
from those received by himself. Fortunately for later generations of botanists
Torrey realized the value of dried specimens even if Eaton did not, for what was
sent to Torrey was carefully preserved. In the preface to edition seven, IV. 1836,
he says: “‘ He has however, improved the description[s] of more than six hundred
species, by an immediate inspection of the plants while growing in the field. In
doing this, he did not re-describe; but merely changed, added, or expunged a word
or figure, as the case required. And even those trivial improvements were mostly
made in consequence of suggestions, first. made by his pupils during their analyz-
ing exercises.” The modern botanist might hesitate to accept some of Eaton’s
corrections for the simple reason that’no proofs exist as to whether or not his
identifications were correct.

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 45

In 1833, “ Manual,” ed. 6. p. viii, he pays his respects to the herbarium botan-
ists thus: ‘ Great numbers of errors are yearly added to our original stock, by
closet-authors, who rely upon the dried specimens of the herbarium for their new
names and new descriptions,” and while tacitly admitting that such material was
of value in that it “ serves to revive our recollections of growing plants ” he insists
that herbarium specimens are “ far from being a faithful guide in drawing de-
scriptions and making nice distinctions.” Here of course much depends on how
much material is used, for it is apparent that Eaton was so little impressed with
the value of reference material that he made no serious attempt to build up a
comprehensive collection of herbarium specimens, much less to take steps to pre-
serve such material for the benefit of posterity as did his much more distinguished
student John Torrey, or Torrey’s younger associate, Asa Gray. He was appar-
ently ignorant of the fact that probably in excess of ninety to ninety-five percent
of all original descriptions of plants were and still are based solely on herbarium
specimens. Judged by any criterion, in comparison with such men who became
pre-eminent as professional botanists, Amos Eaton was throughout his botanical
career a sort of prince of amateurs, for his work was always amateurish as com-
pared with that of his more professional contemporaries and successors in the field
of plant science.

CoNncCLUSION

From various quotations from Eaton’s work given above one gains the impres-
sion that he was an individual with rather fixed ideas, and whether right or wrong,
he did not hesitate to express what he thought to be the case. A rather amusing
instance in his statement, “‘ Manual,” ed. 3, 506. 1822, under Verbascum thapsus,
and repeated in all later editions: “ When botanists are so infatuated with wild
theory, as to tell us the mullein was introduced, they give our youngest pupils
occasion to sneer at their teachers.” Eaton was positively of the opinion that this
European species was native of North America, of course being wrong in this
assumption, for all species of Verbascum are of Eurasian origin. We may return
to Rafinesque’s review of Eaton’s work, Am. Monthly Mag. Crit. Rev. 1: 426.
1817: “ It may be proper to hint, that students are not in general the best judges
of what is most useful in their pursuits. What they deem such, may often prove
otherwise, and they are but seldom enabled to detect the errors of their teachers,
while they are taught to consider them as doctrines and truths.” Whether Eaton
was right or wrong in his statement as to his beliefs, we can only conclude that he
was eminently dogmatic, and that a statement, once made, even if it be patently
erroneous, was to be maintained regardless of what others might believe.

This paper is not planned as a critique of Eaton’s botanical work, or of his
accomplishments in other fields. All we have in mind is to list his new botanical
names, particularly those that have hitherto been overlooked, with indicated re-
ductions. In this we believe that we have been reasonably successful, for in this
paper about 150 previously unlisted Eaton names are recorded, while at the same

46 BARTONIA

time about 35 corrections of one type or another to the places of publication of his
names have been noted.

When the work was initiated we had no reason to suppose that the totals of
overlooked or erroneously listed names would be so large. The actual listing of
these names at this late date but rarely affects the status of currently accepted
names for this or that species. In a few cases Eaton actually becomes the
authority for certain binomials, because he made the transfers earlier than those
authors to whom they are currently accredited, examples being: Bartonia panicu-
lata (Michx.) Muhl. ex Eaton, 1822; B. L. Robinson, 1908, and Prunus emar-
ginata (Dougl.) Eaton, 1836; Walpers, 1843. We note three cases where the
application of the homonym rule will require new specific names for other than
the species Eaton named. Thus, Cleome erosa Eaton (1836) invalidates the
name C’. erosa Urban (1912) for a species from Santo Domingo; Corydalis rosea
Eaton (1817) that of the eastern Asiatic C. rosea Maxim. (1878) ; and Eupa-
tortum gracile Torr. ex Eaton (1818) that of the South American E. gracile
H. B. K. (1820). Such instances emphasize the importance of at least listing all
early and validly published generic names and binomials, which is, of course, the
objective of such an indispensable work as “ Index Kewensis.”

Although Eaton proposed on his own account, or published for others, eight
new generic names and more than 200 binomials, three fourths of which have
remained unlisted for more than a century, the chief contribution of this paper is
in the form of additions to the burden of synonymy. Very few of the Eaton
proposals have any bearing whatever on the currently accepted names of plants.
He was peculiarly unfortunate in the new generic names that he originated, such
as Chirysocopsis, Morellus, Pickeringa, Torreya, Touterea, and Vezillaria, as well
as Ad sia Raf. and Eatonia Drayton that he also published, for not one stood the
test of time, and, at least under currently accepted rules of procedure, the actual
publication of not a single one of these was justifiable.

On his own account he also proposed and described about twenty new species
and published an equal number for other botanists, such as Torrey, Le Conte,
Aikin, Hall, and others. In addition he here and there deliberately published
some new names for earlier described species where this was considered to be ad-
visable. Only one of his new species holds with the name unchanged, this being
Lonicera hirsuta Eaton. Several others among his new species are widely ac-
cepted as valid, either as species, varieties, or forms, but under generic designa-
tions different from those Eaton used, these being Desmanthus cooleyi (Eaton)
Rydb., Rorippa aquatica (Eaton) Palmer & Steyerm., Besseya bullii (Eaton)

ydb., Sarracenia purpurea Linn. var. heterophylla (Eaton) Torr., Lonicera vil-
losa Roem. & Schult. var. solonis (Eaton) Fernald, and Polygonum amphibium
Linn., var. stipulaceum Colem., forma fluwtans (Eaton) Fernald. Eaton deliber-
ately published about 50 new generic and specific names; the total number that

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 47

he actually published was about 210. The difference is largely due to the trans-
fers that he had to make when here and there generic limits were altered, and he
accepted this or that name for segregated groups. As noted elsewhere in this
paper when such transfers were made he unfortunately credited the authority for
the new name to its original author. It is in this class that most of the new
Eaton binomials have been overlooked by previous bibliographers, for there is no
evident reason for even thinking that this or that name should be considered as a
new one. About 25 of Eaton’s new names were due entirely to errors of one type
or another in transcribing the data or to errors that remained undetected when
the proofs were read.

Of about 210 new names actually published by Eaton between the years 1817
and 1840, slightly in excess of 150 do not appear in any of our standard indices.
Of between the 50 and 60 species that are listed about 35 references need to be
altered, as the entries are not to the first place of publication; only about 20 en-
tries are correct. A few corrections have also been noted in the listed places of
publication of species of other authors, notably Muhlenberg. We further note
about 20 unlisted new binomials in the works of Pursh, Nuttall, Elliott, Muhlen-
berg, Wood, and others appertaining to the North American flora. It was not
expected, however, that in the course of checking the Eaton references we would
locate a considerable number of fugitive names in papers published between the
years 1827 and 1879 appertaining strictly to the European flora. In this extra-
limital field we record 22 unlisted binomials and a dozen cases where the bi-
nomials were published earlier than the entries in Index Kewensis indicate. The
total number of unlisted names noted in this paper is approximately 250, and cor-
rections to entries already made are about sixty.

As to reductions, in spite of Eaton’s always amateurish work, in spite of his
short descriptions, in spite of the fact that exact localities were usually not indi-
cated, in spite of his very sketchy synonymy, and in spite of the fact that he
failed to preserve voucher specimens for most of his new entities, most of his new
names have been safely placed. A very few of the unplaced “ new species ” re-
main that perhaps future specialists may succeed in interpreting, an example be-
ing Helianthus ballii Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 329. 1836, type from “ R” =“ On the
Rocky Mt. or west of it; or between the Mt. and the states of Missouri and
Arkansas.”

The distinctly amateurish type of publication that Eaton initiated in the first
edition of his “ Manual ” persisted through all eight editions. The very fact that
so many editions appeared over a period of twenty-two years indicates that his
labors were appreciated, and that there was a distinct demand for a publication
of the type that he fostered. In the preface to edition eight, vi. 1840, it is stated
that of the preceding five editions 2,000—and of one edition 2,500— copies were
printed. Eaton elsewhere stated regarding the first edition that only about 500
copies of this were printed, but again gave the figure as 1,000. Probably 18,000

48 BARTONIA

copies would be a liberal estimate for the total number of copies printed covering
all eight editions of the Manual.

In the meantime, however, under the leadership of Dr. John Torrey a series
of more technical, authoritative, and more complete destriptive texts had com-
menced to appear, culminating in the Torrey and Gray “ Flora of North Amer-
ica,” 1838-43, to be followed later by the even more comprehensive “ Synoptical
Flora of North America ” by Asa Gray, neither of these ever completed because
of the very magnitude of the projects. Certainly by the time the last Eaton and
Wright edition appeared in 1840, the Eaton method of presentation had long since
been outmoded. The very fact that in this last edition there were included 1,325
genera and 5,986 most inadequately described species, and that they attempted to
include all known species for North America north of Mexico, made the work an
impracticable one even for the amateurs for whom it was prepared. It later be-
came evident that no one author could expect to cover the entire field because of
the very extent of the area and the richness of the flora.

To a very considerable degree these vast undertakings were replaced by re-
stricted local floras such as the various editions of Wood’s “Class-Book of
Botany,” commencing in 1845, Gray’s “ Manual” commencing in 1848, Chap-
man’s “ Flora of the Southern States ” in 1860, and others. Today most parts of
the country are supplied with descriptive floras of one type or another. We
should, however, keep in mind that for the country as a whole, Eaton was the first
American to realize the need of a popular descriptive work covering more than a
local area, no matter what its defects were. He, not a trained botanist, had the
courage of his convictions, for he did produce what was for its time apparently a
useful work, no matter what the imperfections of the various editions may be.

We repeat that in recording the numerous, for the most part unlisted, and
hence currently overlooked Eaton binomials, we are adding chiefly to the burden
of synonymy, but because we do have an approved homonym rule that was in
general insisted upon by American botanists, we feel that these long overlooked
names should be at least listed. Much remains to be done in this field, particu-
larly in reference to the earlier post-Linnaean publications on North American
botany. Even among the more recent publications attention is called to the fact
that various editions of Wood’s “ Class-Book of Botany ” (1845-1877) contain a
considerable number of unlisted new names which it is hoped that some one some
day may detect; or if one wishes to be even more modern, it is reported that there
are unlisted new names published under the aegis of the late Dr. F. V. Coville in
the “Century Dictionary Supplement” (1909)! We extend our sympathy to
those few botanical bibliographers in the world whose duty it is to list all validly
published technical names of plants, whether for the world at large or for the
Americas alone. It is they who suffer from the strange idiosyncrasies of the
taxonomists, some of whom publish their lucubrations, as Rafinesque called them,
in strange places, to the utter confusion of those who labor in the vineyard of re-
cording new names and their places of publication.

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 49

PTERIDOPHYTA

thyrium *atomarium Eaton,? Man. ed. 3, 197. 1822; ed. 4, 225. 1824=—Cystopteris

Tulbifera (Linn.) Bernh.

7 Additions to standard indices are indicated by the sign (*), corrections by the sign (f).

No authority is cited and no synonym is given. Eaton’s specimen was from Pennsylvania.
In editions five to eight it appears as Aspidium atomarium still with no indication of the origin
of the name. eid its basis was Aspidium atomarium Mubhl. ex Willd., Sp. Pl. 5: 379. 1810.
Athyrium *bulbiferum Eaton, Man. 122. soaks ed. 2. 163. 1818; ed. 3, 197. 1822; ed. 4, 224,

1824=C ssp bulbifera (Linn.) Ber

As in the preceding case no authority is nan nor is any synonym cited. It became
Aspidium bulbiferum in ed. 5, 120. 1829, and in succeeding editions, the authority erroneously
indicated as “ W ” = Willdenow; it is Aspidium fone Sw. (1801). The name Athyrium
bulbiferum (Brackenr.) Copel. in Bishop Mus. Bull. 59: 53. 1929, used for a widely distributed
species of the Old World tropics, is invalidated by iton’ 3 earlier use of it for a totally differ-
ent species.

Athyrium *punctilobum Eaton, Man. ed. : Shar 1818; ed. 3, 197. 1822; ed. 4, 225. 1824=—

Dennstaedtia punctilobula (Michx.) Moo

Here again Eaton cited no synonym ‘ads indicated no authority for the name. It became
Aspidium punctilobum in ed. 5, 120. 1829, the “S” here added indicating the southern United
States. Clearly Aspidium punctilobum Willd., Sp. Pl. 5: 279. 1810, was Eaton’s source (Ne-
phrodium serbia dace Michx., 1803; Aspidium punctilobulum Sw., 1806).

Athyrium *rufidulum Eaton, ing 122. ai ed. 2, 163. 1818; ed. 3, 197. 1822; ed. 4, 225.

1824 = Wookie ilvensis (Linn.) R.

There is no indication as Fe the sources of this name. In later editions it became As-
pidium rufidulum, still without citation of authority. It may safely be assumed that its basis
was Nephrodium rufidulum Michx. (1803) = Aspidium rufidulum Sw.= Woodsia ilvensis
(Linn.) R. Br
Athyrium * ton, Man. 122. 1817; fg 2, 163. 1818; 6 3, 197. 1822; ed. 4, 225. 1824—=

Cystopteris fr ragihe (Linn.) Bernh. var. mackayit Law

No authority is given nor is any phi ak. In edition five and all later issues it
became Aspidium tenue, still ee citation of an authority until edition eight appeared,
where it is erroneously credited to “W”= Willdenow. Its basis was clearly Nephrodium
tenue Michx. (1803) — Aspidium seas Sw., 1806 == Cystopteris tenuis Desv. (1827). The re-
duction to Lawson’s variety is by Mr. Weatherby, Lawson having published this in his “ Fern
Flora of Canada” 233. 1889; the case is considered by Weatherby in Rhodora 37: 377. 1935.
Here he cites as a synonym: “ Athyrium tenue Presl Rel. Haenk. i. 39, in obs. (1825) ”, a bi-

not listed in Christensen’s “ Index Filicum.” ‘The Presl entry follows the description
of Athyrium fumaroides, thus: “ Affine A. tenui et fragili; a priore differt pinnulis pinnatifidis,
soris dorso laciniarum insidentibus.” There is no description of Athyrium tenue Presl, and no
indication as to the origin of the specific name though this was undoubtedly Aspidium tenue
Sw. In any case Eaton’s‘use of the same binomial has eight years priority.
Hypopeltis *obtusa h. Mid. States 380. 1826; Eaton, Man. ed. 5,

233, 1 1829; ed. 6, 185. 1893. edo, 347. 1836: ed. 8, 281. 1840 = Woodsia obtusa (Spreng.)

Eaton cited no authority. He apparently did not realize that Torrey had treated the spe-
cies as Hypopeltis three years earlier, merely stating: “ Described under Aspidium obtusum,”
which appears on page 119. In editions six, seven, and eight, he cites “ Aspidium obtusum
5th Ed.” asa synonym. Torrey’s binomial does not appear in Christensen’s “ Index Filicum.”

50 BARTONIA

In earlier editions of Eaton’s work it appears as Aspiditum obtusum, with the authority er-
roneously indicated as “W”= Willdenow. It is Aspidium obtusum Sw., Syn. 420. 1806, the
basis of the latter being Polypodium obtusum Spreng. (1804). Torrey did not cite the name-
bringing synonym in his treatment = 1826 but did provide a description; there is no doubt
as to the source of the specific nam

ycopodium *celago Eaton, ae ed. 6, 215. 1833; ed. 7, 382. 1836; ed. 8, 309. 1840, sphalm.
oy retake selago Lin

Merely an — Rae error; the entry in ed. 5, 286. 1829 is correct as Lyco-
podium selago L

chizaea to sa Pursh ex Muhl., Cat 1813, nomen nudum; ed. 2, 102. 1818, nomen
paces on Man. 123. 1817, Po =: “one-sie fern) pies simple, spikes one-way”

= Schisaea pusilla Pursh, Fl. Am. Sept. 2: 657. 1814.

In all later editions of Eaton’s “ ut ” this appears as Schizaea pusilla Pursh. In
both editions of Muhlenberg’s work the name is credited to Pursh, but is strictly a nomen
nudum. It may be assumed that Schizaea tortuosa was a Purshian manuscript or herbarium
name, which was abandoned when he actually published the species as Schizaea pusilla. This
is a minor correction to the confused entry in Christensen’s “ Index Filicum ” 617. 1906, where
it apears as “ tortuosa Miihl. Cat. 102. 1813 (1818 nomen?) —S. pusilla.”

SPERMATOPHYTA
Acacia jcooleyi Eaton, me ed. 5, 89. 1829; ed. 6, 1. 1833; ed. 7, 139. 1836; ed. 8, 111. 1840
= Desmanthus jame Torr. & Gray (1 840) = Desmanthus cooleyi (Eaton) Rydb.

in Brittonia 1: 90. 1931.

The Index Kewensis reference is to Eaton’s “ Manual” ed. 6, 1. 1833, as is that of Ryd-
berg. The original description was based on that of “ Acacia n. sp. Nutt. mss.” Torr. in Ann.
Lye. Nat. Hist. N. Y. 2: 191. 1827; the type was collected by Dr. James from the sources of
the Canadian River, in what is now Oklahoma.

Acerates *lanceolata Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 90. 1829; ed. 6, 3. 1833; ed. 7, 141. 1836; ed. 8,

112. 1840 = Asclepias viridiflora Raf

This binomial was erroneously ieaiead to Ives, the latter’s name being Asclepias lanceo-
lata Ives in Am. Jour. Sci. 1: 252, pl. 1819, non Walt. (1788). It is a form of Asclepias viridi-
flora Raf. Acerates viridiflora Eaton, var. ivesit Britton in Mem. Torr. Bot. Club 5: 265. 1894,
and Acerates ivesii Wooton & Standley, are synonyms

nuttalliana Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 90. 1829; ae fea F ae a
aks rym Asclepias hitteliane Torr. on monocephala La pham ex A. Gra )-

Eaton credited the binomial to “T”—=Torrey, the source being Asclepias nuttalliana
Torr. in Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist. N. Y. 2: 218. 1827, with type from the sources of the Canadian
River in what is now Oklahoma.

Acerates *obovata Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 3. 1833: ed. 7, 141. 1836; ed. 8, 113. 1840 = Asclepias
obovata Ell.

Eaton erroneously credited the name to “E”= Elliott, citing no synonym. Its basis
manifestly was Asclepias obovata Ell.

*viridiflora Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 90. 1829; ed. 6, 2. 1833; ed. 7, 140. 1836; ed. 8, 112.

1840 = Asclepias viridiflora Raf . (1808).

Eaton credits the binomial to “ Ph.” —Pursh, Asclepias viridiflora Pursh (1814) being the
source of the specific name; but Rafinesque had published the same binomial for the same
species six years earlier. The “ Index Kewensis” entry Acerates viridiflora “ Ell. Sketch 317”
is erroneous for all that Elliott said in 1817 was: “ The Asclepias viridiflora of Pursh appears
to belong to this genus [Acerates] ”.

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 51

Achyranthes *vermicularis Ell., we 1: 310. 1817; Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 91. 1829=—

Philoxerus sn rae (Linn. ) Beau

Eaton cites no authority. The name was undoubtedly taken from Elliott’s binomial, as
yet unlisted, which was based on “ Gomphrena vermicularis, Sp. Pl. 1. p. 1322,” this being the
Willdenow edition of 1798. This, in turn, was based on Jllecebrum vermiculatum Linn., Sp.
Pl. ed. 2, 300. 1762, and the latter, in turn, on Gomphrena vermicularis Linn., Sp. Pl. 224. 1753.
It is currently known as Philozerus vermicularis (Linn.) R. Br., but Robert Brown did not
effect the actual transfer in 1810, merely stating that Cimokwne brasiliensis and vermicularis
belonged in Philozerus. Palisot de Beauvois seems to have been the first botanist to publish
Philozerus *vermicularis (Linn.) eo Fl. Oware Benin 2: 65. 1818, this antedating the con-
siderations by Martius and by Moq

*Adesia Raf. ex Eaton, Man. ed. 3, 499. 1822; ed. 4, 489. 1824; e 430. 1829;
ion: 20. 7. S72. 1836; ed. 8, 465. 1840— Adicea Ree (SiS) Puce Tiedt Gens
nom. conserv.

Adesia *trinerva Raf. ex Eaton, 11.cc.= Adicea trinerva Raf. = Pilea ed (Linn.) A. Gray.
The spelling of the generic name as Adesia was probably due to an err Pp
which remained undetected between 1822 and 1840.. The entry appears abs in the form of

a footnote in synonymy

esculus *monostachya Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 94. 1829, sphalm.= A. macrostachya Michx, =
A. parviflora Walt.
The error was corrected to A. macrostachya in editions six to eight.

Agrostis jlongifolia Torr., Fl. U. S. 1 1824; Eaton, Man. ed. os aia ‘ed ed. 6, 9. 1833;
ed. 7, 147. 1836; ed. 8, 118. 1840 = pe tine ar He asper (Michx.) K
The Index Kewensis entry is to the much later reference, “ Torr. ex : Gray, Man. ed. 1,

575 [1848].” Hitchcock, Man. Grasses U. S. 958. 1935, cites Torrey’s original place of asad

tion correctly.

Allionia *multiflora Eaton, Man. ed. 5, addend. 2. 1829; ed. 6, 11. 1833; ed. 7, a 1836;
ed. 8, 119. 1840 — Mirabilis multiflora A. Gra Sead multiflorum Tor
Authorship was credited to “P [T] & J”=Torrey & James, the basis of the name being

Ozybaphus multiflorus Torr. in Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist. N. Y. 2: 237. 1827, with type collected by

Dr. James at the forks of ihe Platte River (Colorado).

*atamasco Linn., Sp. Pl. ed. 2, 420. 1762; Eaton, Man. 37. 1817; ed. 2, 133. 1818;

os fae 170. 1822; 1 1822, ed. 4, 200. 1824; ed. 5, 103. 1829; ed. 6, 14. 1833; ed. 7, 152. 1836; ed. 8,
121. 1840 = Zephyranthes atamasco (Linn.) Herb

is is a minor variant scarcely worthy. of record, except to indicate that the original

pronarea atamasca Linn., Sp. Pl. 292. 1753 was corrected to A. atamasco by Linnaeus in 1762.

Amaryllis atamasco sensu Blanco (1837) is. a Hippeastrum.
tirrhinum *trianthophorum Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 109. 1829; ed. 6, 22. 1835; ed. 7, 161. 1836;
ed. 8, 128. 1810, Sphalm, = A. triornithophorum Lin
There are other errors in earlier editions in Sahciciiall ed. 3, 176. 1822, and triorno-

at ge in ed. 4, 206. 1824. The only correct entry is in ed. 2, 139. 1818

orontium Eaton, Man. ed. 5. 109. 1829; ed. 6, 22. 1833; ed. 7, 162. 1836; ed. 8,
+) BO Antirrhinum orontium Linn.
This Apargia name was due to an error in Eaton’s placing the entry under the wrong
generic heading, Apargia belonging in the Compositae, Antirrhinum in the Scrophulariaceae.
*hastata T: x Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 141. 1818; ed. 3, 178. 1822; ed. 4, 207. 1824—=
Arabis pre bon ( Mahl) Poir.

52 BARTONIA

“ Found at Fiskill [New York] by Dr. John Torrey—New species.” No authority is cited,
but it is quite certain that the binomial was originated by Portey. rather than by Eaton. In
editions three and four, as a footnote, the synonymy is given as “ pendula, N. Turritis laevi-
gata W.”; nowhere does Eaton cite an authority for Arabis hastata.

Artemisia *absynthium Eaton, Man. ed. 1, 91. 1817; ed. 2, 146. 1818; ed. 3, 182. 1822; ed. 4,

Pag N24 = 5, 115. 1829, sphalm. _= A. absinthiwm Linn.

A minor variant in the spelling of the specific name scarcely worthy of record. The
entries in editions six to eight are correct as A. absinthiu
Artemis Eaton, Man. fe 7. 171. 1836 (pha, douglassii) ; ed. 8, 136. 1840=

A, gp tye. ag Bess. (1834) = tt ss ibiises Nutt. (1818).

A deliberate change in the sbi of Besser’s snecthit name, for Eaton disapproved of the
aT form

walteri Ell., Sketch 2: 631. 1824; Eaton, Man.,ed. 5, 116. 1829; ed. 6, Bh 1833; ed. 7,

073. 1836; ed. 8, 1 138. 1840 = Peltandra walteri Rat. a virginica (Linn) K unth

The basis of Elliott’s hitherto overlooked specific name was Arum sagittifolium Walt., Fi.
Carol. 224. 1788, or at least what he took to represent Walter’s species.

Arundo *conoides Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 147. 1818== Calamagrostis cinnoides (Muhl.) Barton.

This was clearly an error, Arundo cinnoides Muhl. being intended, as in edition 3, 183.
1822, in a footnote from Arundo canadensis Michx. is the entry “ cinnoides, M. Calamagrostis
canadensis, N.

Baptisia jcoerulea Eaton, Man. ed. 3, 201. 1822; ed. 4, 228. 1824; ed. 5, = 1829; ed. 6, 50.

1833; ons . 194, 1836; ed. 8, 154. 1840 —= Baptisia australis (Linn S|

The binomial was credited to Michaux, the footnote reference oe “ “australis, W.”
Its basis was clearly Podalyria caerulea Michx. The Index Kewensis entry is “ Eaton &
— Man, N. Am. Bot. 154 [1840].”

paniculata Muhl., Cat. 16. 1813, nomen nudum; ed. 2, 15. 1818, nomen nudum

mae en. ed. 1, 8. 1817; ed. 2, 170. 1818; ed. 3, 202. "1822; ed. 4, 229. 1824; ed. 5, 132,

1829; ed. 6, 51. 1833.

It is only by inference that Muhlenberg’s original publication of Bartonia paniculata
could be accepted, it being at least a semi-blind transfer, the Michaux synonym not cited.
The entry is: “ Bartonia (centaurella Mx.) 1. verna, 2. paniculata.” Fernald and Weatherby,

in Rhodora 34: 165. 1932, accept this as a valid transfer, Bartonia paniculata (Michx.) Muhl.
Cat. 16. 1813. The Eaton consideration of 1817 consists merely of the statement “ Bartonia,
or Centaurella . . . Paniculata, (screw-stem) stem square. W.” An amplified description = @
peared in sition two, but with no synonymy. In 1822 the authority is given as male ae
Muhlenberg, and the synonymy as given in the footnote is: “tenella, P. Andrewsia eure
lata, B. Centaurella paniculata, Mx. C. autumnalis, Ph. Sagina virginica, W. Ce ntaurium,
P. in another part of his works.” If the Muhlenberg publication of 1813 be unacceptable, then
clearly here Eaton saves the day for him. In the text Eaton mildly chides the taxonomists
thus: “It is thought best to retain this name [Bartonia paniculata Muhl.], until the fancies of
our verbifacient botanists shall become so nearly mabonary, that one or two changes more
may settle upon this little plant a permanent name.” In 1833 he argued further for the
acceptance of Muhlenberg’s name. Bartonia paniculata (Michx.) Muhl., replaces Bartonia
paniculata (Michx.) B. L. Rob., Rhodora 10: 35. 1908
Bignonia *crucifera Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 157. 1840, sphalm.= B. crucigera Linn.

The entry is correct in editions five to seven of Eaton’s Manual. The Linnaean species
is the type of the genus Bignonia; see Sprague in Jour. Bot. 60: 236-238, 1922. Anisostichus
Bur., 1864, and Dorantha K. Schum., 1894, non Miers, 1863, are synonyms.

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 53

Borkhausia *grandiflora Nutt. in Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. ae 7: 69. 1834; Eaton, Man. ed.
7, aig 1836; ed. 8, 159. 1840 Pyrrhopappus grandifiorus Nutt. = P. scaposus DC,
type of Nuttall’s species was collected by Dr. Pitcher in Arkansas. It was trans-
ferred a — to Pyrrhopappus in 1841. The correct spelling of the generic name is Bark-
hausia Moe
Brachyris *sarothrae Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 140. 1829; ed. 6, 58. 1 202. 1836; ed. 8,
160. 1840 — Gutierrezia euthamiae Torr. & Gray = G. fad she: (hoes) Britton & Rusby.
Eaton states “ Taken from Solidago.” He erroneously credits the authorship of the bi-
nomial to “ Ph.”= Pursh; the footnote reference is to Solidago sarothrae Pursh

Bunias * SRT Somer: Man. ed. 5, 142. 1829, sphalm. = B. edentula Bigel. = Cakile edentula

(Bigel.) H
In eit one, three, four, and six the entries are correct as B. edentula Bigel.

Bunias *maritima Eaton, Man. hae: 2, 181. 1818; ed. 5, 142. 1829; ed. 6, 60. 1833; ed. 7, 204.
1836 = Cakile maritima Scop. quoad n nomen, C. edentul a (Bigel.) Hook., cated descr.

No synonyms are cited, the binomial being accredited a Willdenow in the later editions.
The description was in all probability taken from Cakile maritima, sensu Pursh, Fl. Am. Sept.
2: 208. 1814, non Scop.

Caladium ne asia Ell., Sketch 2: 631. 1824; Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 144. 1829; ed. 6, 62. 1833;
ed. 7, 206. 1836; ed. 8, 164. 1840 = Peltandra * glauca (Ell) Feay ex Wood, Class-Book
669. i861 ; Small, Man. Southeast. Fl. 246. 1933.

Eaton correctly cited the authority as Elliott. It is indeed curious that the two binomials
have remained unlisted in any of our standard indices up to this time; see p. 28
Calamagrostis jcoarctata Torr. ex Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 144. 1829; ed. 6, 62. 1833; ed. 7, 206.

1836; ed. 8, 164. 1840=C. cinnoides (Muhl.) Barton.

e Index Kewensis entry is to “Torr. Fl. N. Y. ii. 444. [1843] ” while eeu gives
its se of publication as in Hooker, Fl. Bor. Am. 2: 240. 1840. It was ori

footnote reference being “ cinnoides B.-canadensis, N.-Arundo stricta, Sl. glauca, M.,” these
data certainly being taken from Torrey’s original 1824 consideration of the species.
carltoniana . carltonia Dewey, in Am.
Jour. Sci. 27: 238. 18543 eped Bs. 1836; ie, nee be 7, 219. 1836; ed, 5 174.
840 = C. heleonastes Linn. {,
— “Index Kewensis” name is a correction of Dewey’s original entry, the type being
from Carleton House, Saskatchewan
Carex deweyi Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 150. 1829; ed. 6, 69. 1833; ed. 7, 215. 1836; ed. 8, 171. 1840
= Carex deweyana Schwein. (1824).
was a deliberate change of Schweinitz’s specific name due to Eaton’s objection to
the adjectival i deweyana. He cites the authority as “Sz.” —=Schweinitz. It is correctly
entered in “ Index Kewensis,” Suppl. 8.
Carex halseyi 6, 77. ; ed. 7, 224. 1836; ed. 8, 177.
1840 = C. hal pragma tases Cen ‘imate Mahl (1817).
A deliberate change in the form of the specific name on the part of Eaton. It is cor-
rectly entered in “Index Kewensis,” Suppl. 8.
Carex hitchcockii Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 158. 1829; ed. 6, 78. 1833; ed. 7, 225. 1836; ed. 8, 179.
1840—=C. ee Dew ey (1826).
A deliberate change on the part of Eaton in the form of the specific name. Correctly
entered in “ Index Kewracis.” Suppl. 8.

54 BARTONIA

Carex *oakesii Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 78. 1833; ed. 7, 225. 1836; ed. 8, 178. 1840 = seq.
Carex okesii Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 157. 1829=C. okesiana Dewey (1828) =C. oligosperma
Michx. (1803).
A deliberate change in the oe of the specific name on the part of Eaton. Correctly
entered in “ Index Kewensis,” Suppl. 8.
Carex schweinitzia Eaton, Man. fe 5, 159. 1829; ed. 6, 79. 1833; ed. 7, 226. 1836; ed. 8,
179. 180 c. Shiseioiteld Dew
or change in the form of ih specific name by Eaton. Correctly entered in “ Index
Keesoaia” Suppl. 8.
washingtonia Eaton, Man. ed 156. 1829; ed. 6, 77. 1833; ed. 7, 224. 1836; ed. 8,
177. 1840 = C. washingtoniana onthe (1826) = C. C. concolor R. Br. qd 823 Ys
Eaton says “ Prof. Dewey will excuse me for shortening some of his personal and geo-
graphical names by substituting genitives. In this case, I believe, the adjective may be prop-
erly made Washingtonius, &c.” The name is correctly entered in “ Index Kewensis,” Suppl. 8.

Carya *squamosa Eaton, Man. ed. 3, 225. 1822; ed. 4,250. 1824 = Carya ovata ( Mill.) K. Koch.
This was credited by Eaton to Michaux and his footnote reads “ compressa, W. squamosa,

Mx. arb.” These are Juglans compressa Gaertn. as interpreted by Willdenow and J. squamosa

Poir. (1798).

Cerastium *dichotomum Muhl., Cat. 46. 1813, nomen nudum; ed. 2, 47. 1819, nomen nudum
Eaton, Man, ed. 2, 199. isi; a 3, 232. 1822; ed. 4, 4, 256. 1824; ed. 5, 168. 1829; ed. 6
88. 1833; ed. 7, 235. 1836, non Linn., nec Crantz, nec Schangin.

re is no indication that ‘diet intended this to represent a new species. It is
suspected that he had what he took to be the European (Linnaean) species. However, Eaton
ts the species to “ M ”== Muhlenberg and thus validated the binomial, which at the time

was, of course, untenable.

Cerasus *cerasus Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 189. 1840 = Prunus cerasus Linn.

The basis of this was Prunus cerasus Linn. It is suspected that this publication of a

tautonym, which is the earliest case we have noted in botanical literature, was due to inad-
vertence on the part of the authors.
Cerasus littoralis E & Wright, W. Am. Bot. 189. 1840 Prunus maritima Marsh.

(1785) ; Wangenh. °(1787).

The was Prunus littoralis Bigel. (1824), Eaton and Wright citing the authority as
“BW <a: and at the end of the description “Prunus, littoralis.” In a footnote P.
sphaerocarpa Michx. is given as a doubtful synonym. Correctly entered in “ Index Kewensis.”
Cerasus umbellata Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 190. 1840—=Cerasus umbellata Torr. &

Gray, Fl. N. Am. 1: 409. 1840 (June) = Prunus tr Ae Ell.

The binomial is erroneously credited to “E” = Elliott, and at the end of the short de-
scription is the synonym “Prunus, umbellata”. The date of the introduction of Eaton &
Wright’s volume is April, 1840, but this bn is not the date of publication. The Torrey
& Gray transfer is entered in “ Index Kewensis

Chironia ‘*stellaris Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 204. 1818=— Sabatia stellaris Pursh.

Probably Chironia + stellata Muhl., Cat. ed. 2, 23. 1818, nomen nudum, was intended, but
no eS was cited. The entry for this in “ Index Kewensis” is “ Muhl. Cat. ex A. Gray,
Syn. Fl. N. Am. ii. I. 115 [1878] ” where Muhlenberg’s binomial appears as a synonym of
Sabbatia [Sabatia] stellaris Pursh. In all later editions of Eaton’s work it appears as S. stel-
laris Pursh.

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 55

hironia *venosa Muhl., Cat. 24. 1813, nomen Se ed. 2, 23. 1818, nomen nudum; Eaton,
Man. 24. 1817= ? Sabatia lanceolata (Walt.) T. XG.
All that Muhioubers says regarding this species is that it occurred in New Jersey and in
ennessee, being “ veiny-flowered ” the corolla white. Eaton’s description, more or less vali-
dating Muhlenberg’s name is merely “stem ae decumbent, leaves lanceolate.” It does
not appear in the later editions of Eaton’s w
Chloris *secundus Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 173. gl ed. 6, 93. 1833; ed. 7, 241. 1836; ed. 8, 194.
1840 = Bouteloua seriiadaie (Michx.) Tor
The author is cited as “ Ph.” = Pursh, and in a footnote “ Cynosurus, Ph.” is listed; this
is Cynosurus secundus Pursh (1814).
hrys oides Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 242. 1836; ed. 8, 195. 1840—=Chrysoma
waetietain (Michx.) Greene
No synonym is cited, Eaton aie the name to “N”=Nuttall. This would be
Chrysoma solidaginoides Nutt. (1834) = Solidago pauciflosculosa Michx. (1803) = Chrysoma
pauciflosculosa (Michx.) Greene.
ter emma Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 82. 1836 = Chrysocoptis Nutt. (1834).
On 234, in a footnote from Chrysocoptis, statement is made: “ Erroneously
spelled Puaissonie at page 82; but better, as there spelled.”

Citrus *limella Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 198. oe sphalm. = C. limetta Risso (1813).
Claytonia jspatulata Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 207. 1818; ed. 3, 240. 1822; ed. 4, 263. 1824=
| oF ee Michx.

x Kewensis entry is to edition four of Eaton’s work. In edition five, p. 177, the
footnote cee from C. virginica Linn. var. latifolia Torr. is: “C. caroliniana Mx. spathu-
laefolia, Ph. spatulata, 4th Ed.

Clematis ts 4 Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 208. 1818—Clematis verticillaris DC. (Atragene
americana Sims
“A new species, ‘whk I found two miles west of Williams College.” It was eliminated
in all later editions, and from the short description can scarcely be other than a form of C.
verticillaris DC.
Clematis *virginica Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 208. 1818; ed. 3, 241 1822; ed. 4, 264 1824; ed. 5,
177. 1829; ed. 6, 98. 1833; ed. 7, 547, 1836 = C. vi Lin
This ars in edition one, 62. 1817, by error, as C. aa It appears under its cor-
rect name, C. virginiana Linn., in ed. 8, 199. 1840

Cleome *erosa Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 249. 1836—=Cristatella erosa Nutt.=C. jamesii Nutt.

The authority is cited as “ N ” = Nuttall and the — reference is “ Cristatell, N.” =
Seinkiatatta. erosa Nutt. This is eapietce the same as C. jamesiti Nutt. Eaton’s hitherto un-
listed binomial invalidates Cleome erosa Urb., Symb. Anil. i 224. 1912, of Santo Domingo.

Cnicus *foliosus Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 250. 1836; ed. 8, 202. 1840.

Eaton credits the binomial to “H”==Hooker, but cites no synonym. Its basis was
clearly Carduus foliosus Hook., Fl. Bor. Am. 1: 303. 1833. The “Index Kewensis” entry is
Cnicus foliosus A. Gray, in Proc. Am. Acad. 10: 40. 1874.

Cnicus pitcheri Torr. ex Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 180. a ed. 6, 101. 1833; ed. 7, 250. 1836; ed. 8,

202. 1840 = Cirsium pitcheri (Torr.) Torr. & Gra

This is correctly entered in “ Index Kewensis.” Ciba pitcheri Steud., Nomencl. ed. 2,
1: 284. 1840 is a synonym.

Cnicus *remotifolius Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 250. 1836; ed. 8, 202. 1840.
Eaton credits the authorship of the binomial to “H ” = Hooker, but cites no synonym.

56 BARTONIA

Its basis was agi Carduus remotifolius Hook., Fl. Bor. Am. 1: 302. 1833. The “ Index
Kewensis” entry is Cnicus remottifolius A. Gray, in Proc. Am. Acad. 10: 47. 1874.
Cnicus *undulatus Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 180. 1829; ed. 6, 101. 1833; ed. 7, 250. 1836; ed. 8, 202.

1840 = Cirsium undulatum (Nutt. ) Spreng.

Eaton credits the authority to “N”—= Nuttall, but cites no synonyms. The basis was
clearly Carduus undulatus Nutt. (1818). The “ Mader Kewensis” entry is Cnicus undulatus
A. Gray, in Proc. Am. Acad. 10: 42
Cochlearia aquatica Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 181. 1829; ed. *: 101. 1833; ed. 7, 251. 1836; ed. 8,

203. 1840=—= Rorippa aquatica (Eaton) Palmer & Steyermark.

The “Index Kewensis” entry is correct. Eaton walled this the water horseradish and
— it from Pittsfield, Mass., and from the Oswego River, ye York, stating that it was

“manifestly indigenous; but perhaps a variety of armoracia.” Synonyms are Nasturtium
lacustre A. Gray, Armoracia aquatica hig Neobeckia aquatica Greene, Radicula aquatica
B. L. Rob., and Roripa americana Brit
Cochlearia *greenlandica Eaton & cae N. Am. Bot. 203. 1840, sphalm.—=C. groenlandica

Linn. = C. officinalis Linn
Convallaria *umbellata Ea sion n, Man. 1829; ed. 6, 104. 1833; ed. 7, 254. 1836;

ed. 8, 205. 1840 = Clintonia liieetilie (aie yoke

Eaton credits the oo gate to Michaux. It is Convallaria wmbellulata Michx. = Clintonia
umbellulata oe
mae olvulus *cates on, Man. = 5, 1829; ed. 6, 105. 1833 (catesbyanus) ;

d. 7, 256. 1836 nf sae ng ed. 8, 206 * i840 ie titer hora

ook authority is given as “ Ph.” ions Parle: no synonym om Its basis was clearly
Calyetenia catesbeiana Pursh, Fl. Am. Sept. 2: 729. 1814, with type from Carolina.
Corallorhiza *hyemalis Eaton, _ ed. 3, 250. 1822; ed. 4, 272. 1824; ed. 5, 186. 1829=

Aplectrum eee (Muhl.) T

i ited to “N 2asdatlh and Aplectrum hiemale Nutt. is cited in the foot-
note. Nuttall, Gen. 2: 197. 1818, proposed: ‘Aplectrum as a subgenus of Corallorhiza, with one
species “3. hiemalis. Cymbidium hiemale.” This was Cymbidium hyemale Muhl. ex Willd.
(1805).

Eaton, Man. a. 7, 260. 1836; ed. 8, 210. 1840, sphalm.—=C. emerus Linn.

In edition five and six the entry is correct as C. emerus Linn
Corydalis *rosea Eaton, Man. 79. 1817 = C. sempervirens rae Pers

This name does not appear in other editions of Eaton’s work. The very short description
is: “1-spurred, leaves pinnate-pinnatifid, silique one and a half longer than peduncle. 4. r.
fred] y. [yellow].” The name C. rosea Maxim. (1878), for an eastern Asiastic species, is in-

by Eaton’s earlier use of the same name.
pager 7 bay *platycarpa Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 112. 1833; ed. 7, 263. 1836= Crotalaria sagittalis
nn

What was intended here was Crotalaria platycarpa Link, Eaton’s description, which is of
a Crotalaria, not of a Crataegus, having been entered under the wrong generic name, an error
readily explainable by Eaton’s strictly alphabetic arrangement of the genera regardless of their
botanical relationships.

*flexuosa Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 113. 1833; ed. 7, 264. 1836; ed. 8, 213. 1840=

gastos * flexuosa (Pir) fo | a Prodr. 2: 627. 1825.

This strange entry was the one that first attracted the senior author’s attention to nomen-
clatural problems posed by Eaton’s work, through Rafinesque’s having accepted Crotalaria
fleruosa Eaton in his New Fl. N. Am. 2: 56. 1836 [1837]. The description is clearly that of a

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 57

Crataegus, the entry having been erroneously placed under Crotalaria. Eaton’s description is
an exact translation of the Latin diagnosis of Crataegus flexuosa DC., but the errors do not
end here; the entry in “ Index Kewensis” is Crataegus fleruosa “ Poir. Encyc. Suppl. IV. 73==
tomentosa.” It should be changed to Crataegus *fleruosa DC., Prodr. 2: 627. 1825, for the
original description was as Mespilus vial Poir. in Lam. | Bncyel. Suppl. 4: 73. 1816, correctly
entered in “ Index Kewensis.” The type was a Bosc specimen from Carolina and the species
has been strangely overlooked by all Pid ipa who have concerned themselves with a
study of this difficult genus within the present century.

Cucubalus jdouglassii Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 114. 1833; ed. 7, 266. 1836 = Silene douglasii Hook.

The authority is given as “ H ”== Hooker, and presumably the incomplete footnote refer-
ence “ (4) Silene, Hk.” belongs with this entry (there is no corresponding number in the text).
In ed. 8, 427. 1840 it appears as Silene douglasii Hook. The “Index Kewensis” entry is to
“Eaton, Man. ed. vii, ex ej. ed. viii, 427.”

Cucubalus *nivens Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 192. 1829; ed. 6, 114, 1833; ed. 7, 266, 1836 = Silene
nivea (Nutt.) Otth.

This was credited to “M”== Muhlenberg, no synonym cited. What was intended was
Cucubalus niveus Nutt., Gen. 2: 287. 1818 (Silene nivea Otth in DC., Prodr. 1: 377. 1824
where in both cases the reference is to Muhlenberg’s catalogue but without page references.
Neither name appears in either edition of Muhlenberg’s work, but on page 45 of both editions
there is the entry Silene alba as a nomen nudum. Torrey & Gray, Fl. N. Am. 1: 190. 1838,
noted this, stating under Silene nivea Otth: “ Silene alba (not, as Nuttall writes, S. nivea).”

Cyperus *aestuarius Torr. ex Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 227. 1818=C. filicinus Vahl.

The description is care and closes with the statement “ discovered and described by Dr.
John T orrey. Grows in salt marshes.” C= Columbia College, i.e., the vicinity of New York
City. It is certainly ite species described by Torrey, as Cyperus *caespitosus Torr. Cat. Pl.
City N. Y. 89. 1819, non Poir. “borders of salt marshes ...on the banks of ditches in
Hoboken meadows,” which Torrey himself renamed Cyperus nuttallii Torr. in Am. Lye. Nat.

. N. Y. 3: 252. 1836—=C. nuttallii Eddy in Spreng., Neue Entd. 1: 240. 1820=C. filicinus
Vahl (1806).

Cyperus jdiandrus Torr. ex Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 226. 1818; Torr., Cat. Pl. City N. Y. 90. 1819.
The ample description in Eaton’s work closes with this statement: “A new species, dis-
covered by 2 LeConte, Esq. on the borders of salt marshes.” Torrey a year later mys “ Grow-
ing in salt marshes . . . in Hoboken.” A valid species. The “Index Kewensis” entry is to
Torrey’s sae of 1819.
Cyperus ly gg Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 217. 1840, sphalm, = oat Ngecon agg
sensu Pur. Fl. Am. Sept. 1: 50. 1814, non Vahl = Cyperus filiculmis Vahl, var.
re i Big (Bicknell) Fernal

fre entry in editions five to seven of Eaton’s work is as C. kyllingaeoides, in all, following
Pursh, credited to Vahl; but Vahl’s species is the very different South African C. dubius
Rottb. (1773).

Dalea jornata Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 120. 1833; ed. 7, 272. 1836; ed. 8, 219. 1840 = Petalostemum
ornatum Dougl. ex Hook.

Eaton credits the name to Douglas, the footnote reference being to “ Petalostemum Hk.”
that is, Petalostemum ornatum Dougl. ex Hook., Fl. Bor. Am. 1: 138. 1830. The “Index
Kewensis” reference is to “ Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 219 [1840].”

*alata Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 122. 1833; ed. 7, 275. 1836; ed. 8, 221. 1840, sphalm. =

Ddtenie alata Lamx. (Algae).

58 BARTONIA

a curious error. The description is word for word the same as that of Delesseria
alata FOS: in edition five, p. 199. 1829. In the three last editions it was placed, by error,
under the suxifragaceous genus Decumaria, although Delesseria alata also occurs in these three
last editions.

*Deweya Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 234. 1833; ed. 7, 403. 1836; ed. 8, 327. 1840 = Nemopanthus

Raf. (1819).

x is Eaton, ll.cc.= Nemopanthus mucronatus (Linn.) Trelease.

One suspects that here Eaton indicates his dislike of Rafinesque and for the type of
botanical work that he sponsored. No botanist, however, has ever questioned the propriety
of acceptance of Nemopanthus Raf. as a distinct genus. Eaton says: “ The separation of this
species from the genus Ilex, was suggested by Professor Dewey of Williams College, in 1818;
and he wrote a generic description. I proposed publishing it in my 3d Ed, under the name
Deweya canadensis; but M. Rafinesque was before me.” The entry in Eaton’s “ Manual,” ed.
3, 317. 1822 is in the form of a footnote from Ilex canadensis Michaux: “ Nemophanthus fasci-
cularis, R. This species certainly differs much in habit from the opaca, and perhaps it ought
to form a new genus. Prof. Dewey of Williams college proposes the following renin dese for
a new genus, but does not propose any name. Cal. 0: petals 4, lanceolate, . . te. These
data are repeated in editions four and five, but it was not until 1833 that Baton actually ac-
cepted Rafinesque’s genus. Clearly Ilex canadensis Michx. was the source of Eaton’s specific
name, which, with its generic epithet, was presented only in synonymy.

Dioscorea {glauca Muhl., Cat. 92. 1813, poner nudum; ed. 2, 97. 1818, nomen nudum; Eaton,

an. ed. 2, 233. 1818; ed. 3, 267. 1822; d. 4, 287. 1824.

Eaton’s brief description is the first Sais of Muhlenberg’s ees which we have
noted. The entry in Index Kewensis is to “ Muhl. ex Beck, Bot. U. St. 355 [1833]” where
the name appears only in synonymy. nner in 1910 (in Bull. Bur. - ei 189: 10, 13)
recognized Muhlenberg’s species as a valid on
Dolichos *phaseolus Eaton, Man. 82. 1817 = Phaseolus vulgaris Linn

The binomial does not appear in any of the later editions of Eaton’s work. The very
short description was “stem erect, seeds globular with coloured hilums,” probably referring to
one of the erect forms of the common garden bean.

Donia *pubescens Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 281. 1836; ed. 8, 227. 1840 == Grindelia inuloides Willd.

Eaton gives “ N ”= Nuttall as = authority but cites no synonym. The basis was un-
questionably Grindelia pubescens Nutt. in Jour. Acad. Sci. Phila. 7: 74. 1834, which is a
synonym of G. inuloides Willd. (1807).

*unalaschiana Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 283. 1836; ed. 8, 228. 1840, sphalm. =D. unalasch-
kiana DC., Syst. 2: 350. 1821 =D incana sensu Hook., n non Linn. = D. borealis DC.
*Eatonia Drayton ex Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 528. 1836 == Silene Linn
This appears in a footnote from Silene baldwinii Nutt. Dr. Charles Drayton of Charles-
ton, se Carolina, proposed the generic name and Eaton actually ands a part of his
on. thus validating the name, although Eatonia Raf. (1819) == Panicum Linn. is much
SU The descriptive note also appears in ed. 8, 428. 1840, but without a name, the author's
name here indicated as Dr. S. Drayton. Eaton did not recognize the genus because, a3 he
states, that he had “often committed himself in opposition to the separation of kindred
species on account of a technical difference.”
i Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 237, sphalm.=—= E. vaginatum Linn.
vel E. virginicum Linn.
In editions three and four E. virginicum Linn. is admitted, but in five to seven E. vagina-
tum Linn.

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 59

Erysimum *amphibium Eaton _— ed. 5, 213. 1829; ed. 6, 139. 1833; ed. 7, 296. 1836=
Rorippa amphibia (Linn.) B
The authority i is Ce Sy mal fealiiel to “W ” = Willdenow, the footnote reference being

to “ Nasturtium, T.” The basis of the name is clearly Sisymbrium amphibium Linn. Nas-

turtium ee R. Br. is a synonym.

m Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 213. 1829; ed. 6, 139. 1833; ed. 7, 295. 1836—=
eedels nasturtium-aquaticum Britton & Re ndle — Rorippa *nasturtium-aquaticum
(Linn.) Schinz 1 "Thell, Fl. Schweiz, ed. 3, 1: 240. 1909 = Nasturtium officinale R. Br.
Eaton erroneously credited this to Linnaeus, the footnote being Nasturtium officinale

“T.” = Torrey, but R. Brown first published that combination. The base synonym is Sisym-

brium nasturtium-aquaticum Linn. Eaton gave the common name as “ english water-cress”

thus clearly indicating that he had in mind the common and very widely distributed water-
Schinz & Thellung cite Beck as the author of the accepted binomial, but Beck appar-
ently published it merely as R. nasturtium. According to an entry in Hegi, Ill. Fl. Mittel-

Europa 4(1): 319. 1918, sub Nasturtium officinale R. Br., von Hayek ladepennently published

the same transfer (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum (Lint) von Hayek) but no reference is

given, and we have not located his treatment of the name. Nasturtium nasturtium-aquaticum

(Linn.) Karst. is the oldest name under Nasturtium but is especially excluded ‘dite illustra-

tions in Article 68 of the International rules.

Erysimum ‘palustre Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 1829; ed. . 139. vay ed. ff rig 1836 =
Radicula palustris Moench = Rorippa i eae (Linn.) Besser = R. *islandi a (Oder e ex
rales Bagi Balaton Novényfoldrajza 392. 1900; Schinz & Thell, Fl. Seeds ed.
Eaton erroneously indiented the authority as Linnaeus, the footnote reference being “ ter-

stre, s. Nasturtium, T.” The basis of the specific name was Sisymbrium amphibium Linn.
var. palustre Linn. N asturtium palustre DC. is a synonym. For critical notes on the ac-

cepted name Rorippa islandica (Oder ex Murr.) Borbas, see Butters and Abbe in Rhodora 42:
25, 1940 (footnote), and Fernald, op. cit. 30: 132. 1928, 31: 17-18. 1929.
Erysimum Man. ed. 5, 213. 1829; ed. 6, 139. 1833; ed. 7, 296. 1836 =

*vulgare E.

Rorippa sylvestris (Linn.) Besser

The authority is erroneously ‘eslitnied as “ P” = Persoon, no —_ cited. The basis
of Eaton’s name was clearly Sisymbrium vulgare Pers., which in turn was a new name for S.
eeenetee Linn. Nasturtium sylvestre R. Br. and Redicula ic as a trek are synonyms.

*walteri Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 213. 1829; ed. 6, 139. 1833; ed. 7, 286. 1836 —Rorippa

cade (Ell.) Mohr.8

The authority is erroneously gi as “EB” = Elliott, no synonym being cited. The basis
of the name was clearly ambos eiies EIl., Sketch. 2: 146. 1822, which in turn was a new
name for E. tanacetaefolium sensu Walter, non Linn. Radicula walteri Small is a synonym.
Esula *corollata Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 242. 1818 = Euphorbia corollata Linn.

No authority or synonymy is cited, but Eaton states that he took his species of Esula
out of Euphorbia: “See Persoon. This division is very eg Every one has observed the

unnatural union of the spotted spurge and the garden cape
Esula *lathyrus Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 242. 1818 = Euphorbia ee Linn.

Similar to the prece case
Esula *mercurialina Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 242. 1818 = Euphorbia mecurialina Michx.

Similar to the preceding cases.
Eupatorium *gracile Torr. ex Eaton, Man. ed. 2, a Ee non H.B.K. (1820), nec D. Don

(1835). Ex descr. = Eedaie ‘um altissimum Lin

8 See Appendix A.

60 BARTONIA

No authority is cited and no locality is given, but at the end of the description is the
statement: “ A new species by Dr. John Torrey.” Apparently Torrey withdrew this species,
for we find no reference to it elsewhere. His material was certainly from the vicinity of New
York City. Under the homonym rule the name for a South American species, E. gracile
H.B.K. (1820), non Torr. (1818), should be chang
Eupatorium paevien Pa ee ex Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 245. 1818; ed. 3, 278. 1822; ed. 4,

296. 1824; Torr., Cat. City N. v. "64. 92. 1819, non Lam. —Eupetorium iathcs

Barratt, Eupat. V ecticil "No. 1, 1841; Wood, Class- Book, ed. 2, 314. 1847.

Eaton says: “ A new species by Dr. John Torrey ” and actually oublisticd an English de-
scription of it one year before Torrey published his own Latin diagnosis. For the reduction
of this to Barratt’s obscurely published species see Wiegand & Weatherby, in Rhodora 39:
306. 1937. Torrey and Gray, FI. N. Am. 2: 82. 1841, placed it as a synonym of Eupatorium

purpureum Linn. var. tifolum Torr. & Gray. Torrey’ S specimen was from a cedar swamp
at New Durham, neighborhood of New York City.
Evolvulus *nummularis Eaton, br ed. Ke 1829; ed. 6, 145. 1833; ed. 7, 302. 1836; ed. 8,

244. 1840, gate = E. num
edia {coerulea Aikin ex eg Man. om 7, 578. 1836; ed. 8, 469. 1840 = Valerianella
locusta (Linn.) ‘Bettke.

This name appears in. a footnote from Valerianella coerulea Eaton as “ Fedia coerula,
MSS. of Aikin.” His specimen was from Maryland. The Index Kewensis entry is “ caerulea,
Aikin, ex Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 469 [1840].”

Saari “fragilis Eaton, Man. 100. 1817; ed. 2, 248. 1818 = Najas guadalupensis (Spreng.)
oron

No pete Nt or synonymy is given but what Eaton had in mind was clearly Caulinia

sensu Pursh (1814), non Willd., for his short description is an exact translation of
Pursh’s diagnosis. This we judge to be the same as Najas guadalupensis (Spreng.) Morong,
rigiigsvos original description having been published in 1825. N. microdon A. Braun (1868)
a synonym. Eaton’s specific name is invalid in Najas.
Fuirena *squamosa Eaton, Man. ed. 3, 284. 1822, sphalm.= F. squarrosa Michx.

The entries in editions four to eight of Eaton’s work are correct, Fuirena squarrosa Michx.,

and the above error was corrected on page 522 of edition three
fvillosa Eaton, Man. = 6, 150. 1833; ed. 7, 308. 1836; ed. 8, 248. 1840 = Tephrosia

Spicata (Walt.) Torr. & Gra

Eaton cites the authority as e “N ” == Nuttall, and gives no synonym. Clearly what he
had in mind was Tephrosia prostrata Nutt. which had been published as a new name for T-
villosa Michx. (1805), non Pers. (1807). The entry in “Index Kewensis” is to “Eaton &
Wright, N. Ane: Bot. 248. [1840].”

= Lag psn Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 223. 1829; ed. 6, 151. 1833 = Tephrosia spicata (Walt.)

orr

The authority is given as “ N ”= Nuttall and the footnote reference is to “ villosa, Mx.
spicata, Wr. [=Walter].” Tephrosia paucifolia Nutt. was unquestionably the source of
Eaton’s specific name. The entry in Index Kewensis is M. A. Curtis in Bost. Jour. Nat. Hist.
1: 122. 1837, but Eaton antedated Curtis by eight years.

Gaultheria hispidula Muhl., Cat. 44. 1813, nomen nudum; ed. 2, 44. 1819, nomen nudum ;

Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 255. 1818—=Chiogenes hisp hispidula (Linn.) Tort. & Gray

No authority is actually indicated in edition two of Eaton’s work, but és name, with
description, appears in all succeeding editions, with the synonyms given in a footnote as “ ser-
pillifolia, Ph. Vaccinium hispidulum, L. Oxycoccus hispidulus, P. Arbutus thymifolius, A. fili-

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 61

formis, Lk.” The basis of Muhlenberg’s name was probably Vaccinium hispidulum Linn. The
“Index Kewensis” entry is correct as to Muhlenberg’s strictly nomen nudum which Eaton
validated by first providing a brief description, and later adding various synonyms.

Glechoma *cordata Eat Man. ed. 2, 259. 1818; at 3, 292. 1822; ed. 4, 309. 1824—=

Glechoma hederacea Tina, (Nepeta glechoma Benth.).

In edition three, Eaton credits the authority to “.M”== Muhlenberg, but Muhlenberg
published no such binomial but rather Glechoma *cordifolia Muhl., Cat. 55. 1813. In editions
five to eight of Eaton’s work the entry appears as Glechoma hederacea Linn. var. cordata
Eaton.

Glycine *helvata Eaton, Man. ed 2. 1822; ed. 4, 309. 1824, sphalm.—= Phaseolus helvola

Linn. = Strophostyles helvola Winn} Ell.

Eaton cites the authority as “E” = Elliott who published it as Glycine helvola Ell. in
Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1: 326. 1818, and in his Sketch 2: 230. 1822 as Strophostyles helvola
EIl., its basis being Phaseolus helvolus Linn. as described by Willdenow. Eaton’s footnote
reference is “ Phaseolus helvolus, W.”

Gordonia *franklinia Eaton, Man. 78. 1817—=G. frankliniit L’Hérit.= Franklinia alatamaha

Bartr. ex Marsh. (Gordonia alatamaha Sargent).

tiola *pubescens Torr. ex. Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 262. 1818, non R. Br. (1810) = Gratiola
pro Torr.

Eaton notes that this grew in wet places near New York City and that it was discovered
and described by Dr. John Torrey. It is clearly the species actually described one year later
as Gratiola neglecta Torr., Cat. Pl. City N. Y. 10, 89. 1819. For full synonymy and range see
Pennell, in Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. Monog. 1: 84-92. 1935.

*bullii Eaton in Eaton & Wright, N. —- Bot. 259. 1840—Besseya bullii

sre Rydb. in Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 30: 280. 1903.

Eaton’s type was from Michigan. The species is a universally accepted one extending
from Michigan and Minnesota to Ohio and Iowa. Synonyms are Wulfenia bullii Barnh, and
Synthyris bullii Heller
Habenaria *fuscescens Torr., Compend. Fl. N. Mid. States 318: Line Eaton, Man. ed. 5,

234. 1829; ed. 6, 163. 1833: ed. 7, 322. 1836; ed. 8, 260. 1840 = Habenaria flava (Linn.) R. Br.

Torrey cites no name-bringing synonym, but this ciecllinnabele was Orchis fuscescens
Pursh (1814). Eaton erroneously indicates the authority as “ W.” = Willdenow and also cited
no synonym,

Habenaria *quinqueseta (Michx.) Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 253. 1829; ed. 6, 164. 1833; ed. 7, 323.

1836; ed. 8, 260. 1840; Swartz, Adnot. Bot. 46. 1829.9

Both Eaton and Swartz published the transfer in the same year but the evidence is sand
Eaton’s treatment antedates that of Swartz; neither is listed in Index Kewensis. The in

® The locati ion of this unlisted but not overlooked Swartzian transfer caused us to scan

the other ent: _Validly p blished but as yet unlisted
T entries in Swartz’ a Boteag of 1 = mt publi te cWeat sagen

62 BARTONIA

duct part of edition five of Eaton’s Manual is dated Jan. 12. 1829, as is the registration
of eas notice; the preface to Swartz’ work is dated = ~ 1829. aan erroneously cited
the consid as Michaux, the footnote synonymy being “ michauxii, N. Orchis, Mx.” Its
as Orchis quinqueseta Michx. Habenaria cheat Nutt. and simpsonitt Small are

aa
Hedysarum faikinii Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 236. 1829; ed. 6, 166. 1833; ed. 7, 325. 1836; ed. 8,

262. 1840 —= Desmodium canescens (Linn -) DC.

This was proposed as a new name for Hedysarum Hinata sensu Pursh, non Linn.
The “ Index Weweans ” entry is to edition six of Eaton’s “ Manua
Helianthus *ballii Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 329. 1836; ed. 8, 265. 1840.

The description was based on a specimen from the west, indicated as “R” which meant
the Rocky Mountain region. It was dedicated to the British traveller, John Ball. We have
not been able to place the species satintaatovify from the short description alone.

Helianthus *decapetalus Linn., Sp. Pl. 905. 1753.

The entry in Index Kewensis is, by error, “ decapitatus, Linn. Sp. Pl. 905” our attention
being called to this through checking the entries in all editions of Eaton’s “ Manual” and find-
ing the Helianthus decapetalus one = of 1826 in Index Kewensis distinctly later
than Eaton’s first and correct use of the
Helleborus *trifoliatus Eaton, Man. 62. 1817=H. trifolius —— = Coptis trifolia Salisb.,

quoad nomen = C. groenla ndica (Oeder) Fernald, quoad des,

For a discussion of the proper name for the North American oe see Fernald, in Rhodora
31: 142. 1929

Hemianthus *micranthus Eaton, Man. ed. 1829; ed. 6, 171. 1833; ed. 7, 332. 1836;
cota 8, ad 1840 = Lindernia dubia iin’ Peomelt subsp. major Pennell, var. inundata

The se is indicated as “ Ph.” = Pursh, and the footnote reference is “ micranthe-
moides, N. Herpestis Ph.” Its basis is hence Herpestis micrantha Pursh (1814) ; thus Eaton’s
transfer antedates that of Pennell, Torreya 19: 150. 1919. However, the form that Pursh de-
scribed proves to be a Lindernia; see Pennell in Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. Monog. 1: 151. 1935.

erpestis *brownei Nutt., Gen. N. Am. Pl. 2: 42, 1818; Steud., Nom. Phan. 402, 1821;
© Wated. Man. ed. 5, 342. 1829; ed 6, 172. 1833; ed. z 333. 1836; ed. 8, 268. 1848 =

Bacopa monnieri (Linn.) Pennell.

Eaton credits the name to “ Ph.” = Pursh, citing no synonym; apparently “ P ” = Pers.
was intended for the name involved was Monniera brownei Pers., Syn. 2: 166. 1807, proposed
as a new name for Gratiola monnieri Linn
Heteranthera *ovalis Eaton, Man. ed. 5, a ee! ed. 6, 173. 1833; ed. 7, 333. 1836; ed. 8,

268. ee Heteranthera limosa (Sw.) W

The name was credited to Michaux, the eee reference being “limosa, Vahl. Leptan-
thus, Mx.”; taken’ $ specific name is thus derived from Leptanthus ovalis Michx.

is *spongiosa Eaton, 1829; ed. 6, 179. 1833; ed. 7, 342. 1836;

ed. 8, , 1840 = Hydrocharis ‘oe ~ tie (1807).

is erroneously cited as the authority for this new name, the footnote reference being
“ [Hydrocharis] cordifolia, N.”= Nuttall. Clearly H. spongia Bose was intended.
tbulbosa Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 342. 1836; ed. 8, 277. 1840 = Erigenia bulbosa Nutt.

The binomial was credited to “ N ” = Nuttall, the species being placed under the subgenus
Erigenia; Nuttall published this as a genus in 1818. The “Index Kewensis” entry is to
“Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 277 [1840].”

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 63

Ilex *dakoon Eaton, pe be 6, “tg 1833; ed. 7, 349. 1836; ed. 8, 282. 1840, sphalm.—=
I. dahoon Walt. =I. ne Lin
lonidium seeaubhas Eaton, sles 1829; ed. 6, 188. 1833; ed. 1, oe 1836; ed. 8,
283. 1840 = Hy anthers ceainler Cee) Spreng. (Cubelium concolor R
The authority is erroneously cited as Forster, the footnote reference ee “viola, Fost,
Ph. &c.”, the name-bringing synonym thus being Viola concolor Forst. The “Index Kewensis”
entry for J. concolor is “ Benth. & Hook.f. ex 8. Wats. Bibliog. Ind. N. Am. Bot. 81 [1878].”
eye) Rig: ares Hall ex Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 353. 1836; ed. 8, 285. 1840 = Rotala ramosior
(Linn.) Koe
The author = re was James Hall, an associate of Amos = and the type from the
vicinity of Albany, New York. The entry in “ Index Kewensis” is “ Hall, ex Eaton & Wright,
Man. ed. VIII. 283. [1840].” See Svenson, in Torreya 35: 122. 1986, for a note on the probable
identity of Hall’s species.
Juglans *. sa Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 288. 1818, sphalm.=J. squamosa Michx.=Carya
ovata (MIL) K Koch.
ae reriffithii Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 360. 1836; ed. 8, 290. 1840 = Cynthia virginica (Linn.)
. Don.

Authorship of the binomial is erroneously credited to “ N ” = Nuttall, the footnote refer-
ence being to “ Cynthia”; this would be Cynthia griffithii Nutt. (1824).

Krigia *lyrata Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 360. 1836; ed. 8, 291. 1840 = Cynthia dandelion (Linn.) DC.
Erroneously credited to “ N ”=Nuttall, the footnote reference being merely “ Cynthia ”;
this would be Cynthia lyrata Nutt. (1884).

Lathyrus wi Aikin ex Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 198. 1833; ed. 7, 362. 1836=L. ochroleucus
Hook. (1833
No locality is 'tedicaiad. but as Aikin was associated with Eaton in the preparation of the
copy for edition six of the “ Manual” it may be assumed that the specimen came from the
Vicinity of Albany, New York. In edition seven it was placed in the vicinity of Lathyrus
ochroleucus Hook., which Eaton then accepted, but in edition eight the latter was retained and
L. albidus Aikin was eliminated. The “Index Kewensis” entry is correct.
Lathyrus jstipulaceus Le Conte ex Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 294. 1818; se %, 362. 1836; Le Conte
ex Torr., Cat. Pl. City N. Y. 60. 92. 1819 — Lathyrus palustris Li
At the end of the description Eaton states “Torrey. A new species, discovered by J.
Le Conte, Esq.” Le Conte’s specimen was from Greenwich [Connecticut] and Torrey pub-
lished the species one year later than did Eaton. It appears in only two of the eight editions
of Eaton’s “ Manual,” for some eae reason being reinstated in edition seven.

Laurus *albida Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 269. 1829; ed. 6, 199. 1833; ed. 7, 364. 1836; ed. 8, 294

1840 = Sassafras albidum fNlutt Nees

The authority is indicated as “N »— Nuttall who actually published it as Euosmus
albida Nutt., Gen. 1:259. 1818. Euosmus was characterized by Nuttall as a subgenus of
Laurus Linn., but he published eight binomials under it rather than under This
Eaton name replaces the “Index Kewensis” entry Laurus “albida Loud. ex Meissn. in DC.
Prodr. xv. I. 513, 516 [1864].”

*camphorata 1818; ed. 3, 328. 1822; ed. 4, 340. 1824; ed. 5,

269. 1829, all as eeBoerren Heel ate a om Prt Bo camphora (Linn.) Nees & Eberm.

This was indicated as from Japan. What Eaton had in mind was the camphor tree,
Laurus camphora as it appears in the later editions of his work. L. camphorata fies
Ham. (1831) is a totally different species.

64 BARTONIA

Lavandula *spicata Eaton, Man. 65. 1817=L. vera DC.

This entry was apparently an inadvertent one, L. spica Loisel. being intended. It w:
corrected to L. spica in all later editions, in some of these the authority being soma
stated as Willdenow.

Leiophyllum *thymifolium Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 298. get ed. 3, 332. 1822; ed. 4, 344. 1824=
gi ope tc (Berg.) Ell. (Dendrium buxifolium D sv.)

The authority is erroneously given as “P”—= Porat: but Ledum thymifolium Lam. was
clearly the source of the specific name, the footnote reference being “ buxifolium, A. Amyrsine
buxifolia, Ph. Ledum thymifolium, Lk.” The “Index Kewensis” entry is to Steudel, Nomencl.
ed. 1, 469. 1821.

Lepto *fimbriata Eaton, mee. se 5, 275. 1829; ed. 6, 202. 1833; ed. 7, 367. 1836; ed. 8,

297. 1840 = Helenium vernale

Eaton erroneously credited — ies to Willdenow, but in a footnote indicated the

onymy as “ puberula, Macbride, Galardia Mx.”, the name-bringing synonym thus being
Galardia fimbriata Michx., Fl. Bor. Am. 2: 142. 1803. The Leptopoda fimbriata Torr. & Gray,
N. Am. FI. 2: 387. 1842, description, as entered in Index Kewensis, was based on Texan mate-
rial probably representing a species distinct from the one Michaux described.

Limnetis *glomerata Eaton, Man. 14. 1817 = Dactylis glomerata Linn
The generic entry is “ Limnetis, or Dactylis” and at the end of the description is the entry

“glomerata, (orchard grass) ” with its very brief description. We believe that this entry can
be interpreted only as a new combination under Limnetis, even if this was a serious error on
the part of the then inexperienced botanical author. Rafinesque in his review of Eaton’s
Manual in Am. Monthly Mag. Crit. Rev. 1: 429. 1817, noted this strange procedure, stating:
“He has two genera with double names! which is an a blunder, viz. Limnetis or
Dactylis! and Bartonia or Centaurella! In the first instance, Dactylis is the real name, Lim-
netis being of a different genus.” = Spartina Schreber.

micera hirsuta Eaton, Man. e

riage ed. 6, 210. 1933; ed. 738. a 8. evi io pile Seetes IA 0A IT

valid species extending from western New England to Pennsylvania, Michigan and

ae the type from near Williamstown, Mass. This specimen, the locality not indicated,
is in Eaton’s herbarium at Yale University. The “Index Kewensis” entry is correct.

gee riser Hite a Eaton, Man. 22. 1817, sphalm.=L. thyrsiflora Linn. (Naumbergia

The error was detected by Eaton and was corrected in the later editions of his work.
Macrotys *cordifolia Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 288. 1829 = Cimicifuga americana Michx.

The authority is erroneously given as Pursh, the footnote being “ Actea, De. Cimicifuga,
sol this would be Cimicifuga cordifolia Pursh which is a synonym of the earlier C. americana

chx.

erg : Hap a i coos otf 288. 1829; ed. 6, 218. 1833; ed. 7, 285. 1836; ed.
The authority is erroneously given as Willdenow, no synonyms cited, the range indicated
as “W”== Western N Ameri e name-bringing synonym would be Cimicifuga

joctida Linn., a Eurasian not an American species; but the basis of the description was prob-

ably Cimicifuga foetida sensu Pursh, Fl. Am. Sept. 2: 373. 1814 (from the north western

hana States), non Linn.=C. elata Nutt. The entries in editions six to eight are as Macro-
8 foetida

siete Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 288. 1829 = Trautvetteria carolinensis (Walt.) a
The authority is erroneously indicated as Michaux, the footnote reference being “ Actea,

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 65

De. Cimicifuga, E.” The name-bringing synonym would be Cimicifuga palmata Michx., FI.
Bor. Am. 1: 316. 1803, which is the same as Hydrastis carolinensis Walt. = Trautvetteria caro-
Vail.

Macrotys *podocarpa Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 288. 1820 = Cimicifuga racemosa (Linn.) Nutt.

The authority is erroneously indicated as de Candolle, the footnote reference being “ Cimi-
cifuga serpentaria Ph. Actaea, L.”. Eaton took his specific name from Cimicifuga podocarpa
DC.

tys *racemosa, Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 288. 1829 = Cimicifuga racemosa (Linn.) Nutt.
No authority is indicated, the footnote reference being “Cimicifuga serpentaria, Ph.
Actaea, L.”
Macrotys *serpentaria Eaton, Man. ed. 3, 347. 1822; ed. 4, 356. 1824= Cimicifuga racemosa
(Line.) Nutt.
No authority is indicated. The footnote reference is “ Cimicifuga serpentara, Ph. race-
mosa, N. Actaea L.”. The name-bringing synonym would be Cimicifuga serpentaria Pursh,
Fl. Am. Sept. 2: 372. 1814.

Melia *triflora Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 317. 1818 = Trisetum spicatum (Linn.) Richt.

The description is of a grass from the “ Whitehills” — White Mountains of New Hamp-
shire: “ A new species discovered by Dr. Bigelow.” This is Melica triflora Bigelow, the entry
being erroneously entered under Melia which immediately precedes Melica in Eaton’s work.
The error was corrected in editions three and four, after which the species was dropped.
Micropetalon *longifolium Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 295. ; ed. 6, < 1833; ed. 7, 394. 1836;

ed. 8. 319. 1840 (as Micropetalum) = Stellaria Tonsifolia Muh

Eaton cited the authority as “M ”== Muhlenberg, giving a filets reference to “ gra-
mineum, Ph, Stellaria, M.”, the specific name thus being taken from Stellaria longifolia Muhl.
ex Willd., Enum. Hort. Berol. 479. 1809. This is a valid species, Alsine longifolia Britton being
a synonym
*Microstlie ae Eaton, Man. ed. 4, 362. 1824; ed. 5, 295. 1829; ed. 6, 226. 1833; ed. 7,

d. 8, 319. 1840 = Malaxis Soland. ex Sw . (1778).

— Pte ene Pe in nomenclature, to record this i is suggestive of the proverbial saying
“to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” At most only the authority for the generic name
is involved. In general Nuttall is indicated as the author of the generic name Microstylis,
but in his Genera 2: 196. 1818 he clearly published it as a subgenus of Malazis; and the third
species of the latter genus, placed under Microstylis, was published as Malazis ophioglossoides,
not as Microstylis ophioglossoides Nutt. as listed. Ames, Enum. Orch. U. S. 116. 1924, cites
it as Microstylis (Nutt.) Lindl., but we find no record of a treatment by Lindley anterior to

1826; Robinson and Fernald in Gray’s Manual, ed. 7, 318. 1907 correctly cite it as Microstylis
(Nutt.) Eaton.
Mimosa *brachyloba Eaton, Man. 77. 1817 = Desmanthus brachylobus Benth. =D. illinoensis
Michx.) MacM.
The key to this entry is found in Eaton’s Manual, ed. 5, 89, 1829, where it appears as
cacia brachyloba Willd., with a footnote reference to Mimosa is Michx. try
“Index Kewensis” is Mimosa “brachyloba Muhl. ex Steud. Nom. ed. II. ii. 147” [1841].
Muhlenberg, Cat. 96. 1813, lists it merely as Acacia Po ak
Monarda beckii Eaton, . ed. 5, 298. 1829; ed. 6, 229 ef cites ed. 8, 322.

1840 = Blephilia Nie (Purch) Benth. vel B. ciliata (lin. 1.) Rat

This is correctly entered in “ Index Kewensis” Suppl. 8, the original entry being to edition
six, It was based on material collected by L. C. Beck near St. Louis as having been di
by Dr. Torrey in the Annals of the N. Y. Lyceum of Natural History. In that periodical 2:

66 BARTONIA

233. 1827, this was apparently Monarda ciliata Pursh “ var. 8?” for at the end of the descrip-
tion is a statement “ Dr. L. C. Beck seems to have found the same plant near St. Louis on the
Missouri, and supposes it may be a new sees Blephilia becki Raf. (1832) was actually
based on hota s description and is hence the same as Monarda becku Eaton.

ilosa Torr. ex Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 323. ta Blephilia ciliata (Linn.) Raf.

The see description closes with the statement: “ Torrey, A new species discovered by
Mr. Le Conte.” The locality “ C” — Columbia College, i.e., vicinity of New York City. Ap-
parently Torrey discovered that his species was not a new one and withdrew it, for we have
found no other consideration of it.

Mon pea Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 323. 1840 = Monotropa hypopithys Linn.
py rrebrenes Cocimom Raf., H. americana all).

The brief description closes with the statement: “ Hypopithys europea of the 7th edition,”
this being erroneously credited to “N ”= Nuttall, Gen. 1: 271. 1818, the footnote reference
being to “ hypopithys, L.”.
ee procera Torr. ex Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 324. 1818 = Pterospora andromedea Nutt.
“Found at Greenbush, by Mr. Edwin James; named and described by Dr. John Torrey.”
This is cited as a synonym of Pterospora andromedea Nutt. (1818) by Britton & Brown, Ill. Fl.
North. U.S. ed. 2, 2: 673. 1913, and the statement is there made that while the two works in-
volved were both printed in 1818, Nuttall’s Genera appeared earlier than this edition of
Eaton’s Manual.

Myrrhis *dulcis Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 326. 1818 = Osmorhiza claytoni (Michx.) C. B. Clarke.
The origin of the name is not indicated, but in edition three, p. 498, Uraspermum clay-

tont ennee it and the footnote states “ Myrrhis dulcis, 2nd. ed. Scandix dulcis, M. Scandix

oni, Mx. (see N.) Chaerophyllum claytoni, Ph.” Thus Scandir dulcis Muhl., Cat. 31.

1813, was published as a new name for Myrrhis [Claytoni], Michx. and is the source of Eaton’s

specific name. Myrrhis *dulcis Raf., Good Book 53. 1840, in syn., was probably also taken

from Muhlenberg.

Nyssa “triflora Eaton, Man. 116. 1817 = N. sylvatica Marsh. var. biflora (Walt.) Sarg.

The description is “ (sour noe rsh oval, peduncle about 3-flowered.” Certainly only

a minor variant of Nyssa biflora W.

Oenanthe “longifolia Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 305.18 i OF is rigidi
(Linn) Raf e 29; ed. 6, 237. 1833= Owypolis rigidior
The authority is erroneously indicated as Pursh, the footnote reference being to “ Pasti-

naca, T. Sium, Ph.”, the name-bringing synonym thus being Sium longifolium P

Oenothera *longifolia Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 332. 1840 =? O. longtflora Linn.

No authority is given, and no Synonyms are cited. The species is indicated as “ exotic”.

It is suspected that this was a typographical error, O. longiflora Linn. being intended.

Panicum jangustifolium Le Conte ex Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 342. 1818; ed. 3, 374. 1

380. 1824; Le Conte T Ca
Pieicins dichotomum ix Torr Cat. Pl. City N.Y. 18, 91. 1819, non a ar nie) =

the short stele was: “Le Conte. A new species.” ith edition five of the

Beginning w:
Toc eg angustifolium Le Conte was was dropped, and the different P. angustifolium Ell.

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 67

Panicum *barbatum [eee ex Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 342. age ed. 3, 374. 1822: ed. 4,
380. 1824, non ies (1791) = ? Panicum mattamuskeetense Ashe.

At the end of the short dooetiiitine: Eaton states: “Le Conte. A new species.” The
specimen was undoubtedly from the vicinity of New York City, and Le Conte (or Torrey)
= bing abandoned the species, although Torrey in 1824 treated it as Panicum nitidum
Lam. var. barbatum Torr. The ~— reduction is that of Hitchcock in 1935.

Panicum jmacrocarpon Le Conte ex Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 341. 1818; ed. 3, 374. 1822; ed. 4,
380. 1824; ed. 5, 313. 1829; oa 6, 247. 1833; ed. 7, 419, 1836 ; ed. 8, 340. 1840; Le Conte
ex Torr. Cat. Pl. City N. Y. 17. 91. 1819 = Panicum latifolium Linn.

This record is merely a reference to a slightly earlier place of publication than that cur-
rently indicated, although Hitchcock in 1935 had noted this. Eaton treatment. Following the
description Eaton merely says “Le Conte”; oe says: “In moist shady situations,” an
the locality would be in or near New York City
Panicum jumbrosum Le Conte ex Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 342. 1818; ed. 3, 372. 1822; ed. 4, 380.

ore amt Conte ex Torr., Cat. Pl. City N. Y. 18. 91. 1819, non Retz. (1786) = Panicum

ashei

Another slight change in the place and time of publication, also noted by Hitchcock in
1935. Le Conte’s specimen was from Bloomingdale, Manhattan Island, New York City.
Phaca ‘*latiflora Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 349. 1840, sphalm. = Phaca lotiflora (Hook.)

Nutt. (Batophac lotiflora Rydb. x.

The binomial is credited to Hooker, no synonym being cited. Its origin is clearly
Atitigalan? (an Phaca?) lotiflorus Hook., Fl. Bor. Am. 1: 152. 1834.

Phaca triphylla patra. i Maz, ed. 5, 325. 1829 (triphyllus) ; ed. 6, 257. 1833; ed. 7, 430, 1836;
ed. 8, 351. 1840 = aespitosa Nutt. (Orophaca caespitosa Britton).

Pursh is ae indicated as the authority, the footnote reference being “ caespitosa,
N. Astragalus, Ph.” ; the name-bringing synonym would be Astragalus triphyllus Pursh (1814),
non Pall. (1800). The “Index Kewensis” reference is to the Eaton and Wright edition of
1840.

Phaseolus caribaeus Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 259. 1833; ed. 7, 433. 1836; ed. 8, 353. 1840=

Rhynchosia minima (Linn.) DC.

This was placed under Phaseolus subgenus Rhynchosia, but no authority or synonymy
indicated. Its basis was clearly Rhynchosia caribaea DC. as various authors have interpre
that. It is entered in “Index Kewensis” as “Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. ed. VIII. 353
[1840].”

Phaseolus *difformis Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 259. 1833; ed. 7, 432. 1836==_Rhynchosia tomentosa

(Linn.) Hook. & Arn

This was ¢ 'aced by Baton under the subgenus Rhynchosia, but no authority or synonymy
cited. Its basis was clearly Rhynchosia difformis DC. (Glycine tomentosa Linn. var. voli
Michx.).

Phaseolus *erectus Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 259. 1833 (erecta); ed. 7, 432. 1836 = Rhynchosia
erecta (Walt.) DC.

No authority cited and no synonyms indicated. It was placed under Phaseolus,
Rhynchosia, and like other names in this category it was perhaps not Eaton’s intent to trans-
fer the species to Phaseolus. The name-bri ringing synonym was clearly Rhynchosia erecta
(Walt.) DC.

tfrutescens Ea’ Mas, ed. 6, 259. 1833; ed. 7, 433. 1836; ed. 8, 354. 1840 =

Wisteria frutescens (lien) Poi

This was placed under the genus iain subgenus Wistaria, no authority given. The
footnote reference is “ Thyrsanthus, Glycine.” Thus the name-bringing synonym would be

68 BARTONIA

Glycine frutescens Linn. The “Index Kewensis” entry is “ Eaton & Wright, Bot. N. Am. ed
VIII. 354. [1840].”
lus latifolius Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 353. 1840 (latifolia) = Rhynchosia
latifolia Nutt.
The entry in Index Kewensis is correct. Eaton indicates the authority as “ N ” = Nuttall,
placing it in <s Sygate Rhynchosia; this would be R. latifolia Nutt. ex Torr. & Gray., Fl.

lus menispermoideus Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 353. 1840 (menispermoidea) =
eiaachann menispermoidea DC.
The authority i is erroneously given as de Candolle, no synonym cited; its basis was clearly
Rhynchosia menispermoidea DC. It is correctly entered in “ Index Kewensis.
Phaseolus }monoicus Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 259. =e (monoica) ; ed. 7, 432. 1836; ed. 8, 353.
1840 = Amphicarpaea bracteata (Linn.) Fernal
The authority is indicated as Elliott, the species a placed in the subgenus Amphicarp
The name-bringing synonym, not cited, would be Amphicarpaea monoica Ell. The - index
Kewensis” entry is to the 1840 edition.
ne Gray. pitcheri Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 353. 1840 = Amphicarpaea pitcheri Torr.
was placed under Phaseolus, subgenus Amphicarpa, no reheat es Its basis was
clearly 2 pitcheri Torr. & Gray. The entry in “ Index Kewensis” is
Phaseolus jreniformis Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 259. 1833; ed. 7, 432. 1836; ed. 8, 353.
Rhynchosia reniformis (Pursh) DC. (R. simplicifolia Wood, 1861, non n Walp., nec 100).
No authority is a and no synonym is cited. The name originated with Rhynchosia
reniformis (Pursh) DC. The “Index Kewensis” entry is to the edition of 1840.
*sarmento Man. val > 259. 1833; ed. 7, 432. 1836 (sarmentosa) =
" Amphicarpaea eaety (Linn) Fern
No authority is indicated and no mae are listed. It was placed in the subgenus
mphicarpa, its basis hence being A. sarmentos
Philoxerus a (Linn.) Beauv., Fl. Oware Benin 2: 65. 1818; Eaton, Man. ed. 5,
27. 1829; ed. 6, 260. 1833; ed. 7, 433. 1836; ed. 8, 354. 1840; Mart. ex Mog. in DC.
Prodr. 13(2): 340. 1864.
For a discussion of the somewhat confused situation in reference to the authority for the
binomial see above under Achyranthes vermicularis Eaton. Eaton, in a footnote, indicated
“Tilecebrum L.” as the basis of his name.

doors frevoluta Aikin ex Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 435. 1836; ed. 8, 355. 1840 Phlox carolina
nn,

Aikin’s description is ample. His type was from Maryland. The “Index Kewensis “6
reference is “ Aikin, ex A. Gray, Syn. Fl. N. Am. ii. I. 130 [1878] ” where it appears as &
synonym of P. glaberrima Linn. Wherry in Bartonia ee 36. 1932, cites it in synonymy of
P. carolina triflora (Michx.) Wherry (P. triflora Michx.)

*Pickeringa Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 438. 1836; ed. 8, 357. 1840=— Pick Nutt. (1834) =

Ardisia Sw. (1788). >
een eee Eaton ll.cc.= Pickeringia paniculata Nutt== Ardisia escallonioides

Eaton’s naive explanation of the slight change in spelling of Nuttall’s generic name is:
“ Mr. Nuttall spells this name Pickeringia; changing the sound of the letter G. unnecessarily.”

*racemosum Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 331. 1829; — 1833; ed. 7, 441. 1836;
ed. 8, 359. 1840 = Oryzopsis racemosa (J. E. Smith) Ricker. :

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 69

Eaton credits this to “S”—=J. E. Smith, the footnote references being “nigrum, T.
Milium, Ee eae melanocarpa, M.” The name-bringing synonym is thus Milium race-
osum J. E, Smith. Synonyms are Oryzopsis melanocarpa Muhl. and Piptatherum nigrum
orr.).
Poa *festucoides Torr. ex Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 367. 1818, non Lam. — Festuca obtusa Spreng.
“Torrey. A new species, discovered by J. Le Conte, esq.” The letter “C” indicates
Columbia College, ie., vicinity of New York City. We find no other published record of
Torrey’s binomial.
musa were Barton, Compend. FI. Phila. Ms say 1818; Eaton Man. ed. 3, 396. 1822;
4, 400. 1824 = Eragrostis cilianensis (AIL) L
~~ biecaadad was correctly credited to “B. sth the footnote reference being “ ob-
tusa N.”, ie., Poa obtusa Nutt., for which Barton’s name was proposed as a new one, Hitch-
cock, Man. Grasses U. S. 848. 1935, correctly cites Barton’s original place of publication.

Polygala *viridi-alba Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 446. 1836 = P. viridescens Lin
No authority is given. The footnote is “viridescens, a doubtful ‘ieliais of W[illdenow]
as applied by Ph [Pursh].”

Polygonum jfluitans Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 338. 1829; ed. 6, 274. 1833; ed. 7, 460. 1836; ed. 8,
368. 1840 = P. ocak Baton =P. amphibium Linn., var. stipulaceum Colem., forma
fluitans (Eaton) F

The description is ‘conan pag: same as that of the earlier P. natans Eaton and was
based on the same material. The footnote is: “amphibium, var. natans, 3d ed. Manual, and
var. aquaticum T.” Regarding it he also says: “I have watched this and the two preceding
species [P. amphibium Linn., P. coccineum Muhl.] several years, and am satisfied that t they
are distinct. Finding this to be a new one, not var. natans of Mx. I give it a new name.” It
is the same form as that described as P. natans Eaton in 1822 and 1824. For the latest
consideration of this form see Fernald, in Rhodora 48: 49-53. 1946. The “Index Kewensis”
entry is “ fluitans, Eaton, Man. ed. VI. 274 [1833].”

Polygonum *natans Eaton, Man. ed. 3. 400. 1 Ee a eS Stanford, in Rhodora

159. 1925, cum. syn =P, filuitans Eaton = P. amphibium Linn, var. stipulaceum Cotes

forma fluitans (Eaton) Fernal

The type was from Whiting’s Dend. and Eaton’s specimen is in book two of his herbarium
at Yale University labelled: “ Polygonum coccineum? I found great growths of this species
in Whiting’s Pond, Canaan, N. Y. Is not this a new species, which ought to be called P.
natans?” His description is an unusually ample one. Later under P. fluitans Eaton he re-
corded it also from Botany Pond, three miles east of Albany, N. Y. Following the description
he states: “It is the P. amphibium. Var. natans of Mx. and a variety of the coccineum of
Willdenow. But it appears sufficiently distinct for a Siaonrye ” In editions five (1829) to
eight (1840) of the Manual it appears as P. fluitans Eat

oe. virginicum Eaton, Man. 45. 1817 =P. virginianum Linn. (Tovara virginiana
af.).

Correctly entered as P. virginianum Linn. in all later editions of Eaton’s work.

Prunus * emarginata Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 463. 1836.

This name antedates Prunus emarginata (Dougl.) Walp., Repert. 2: 9. by seven
years. It was erroneously credited to Douglas, the letter “R” indicating that its range was
the Rocky Mountains or beyond. No synonym was given, but in nee eight at the end of
the description of Cerasus emarginata Dougl. is the entry “ emarginata.” Thus the
basis of Eaton’s binomial was Cerasus emarginata Dougl. ex Hook. Fl. Bor. Am. 1: 169.
1834 = Prunus emarginata (Dougl.) Eaton

70 : BARTONIA

argyrocoma Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 357. 1829; ed. 6, 295. 1833; ed. 7, 475. 1836 =

Paronychia argyrocoma (Michx.) Nutt.

The authority is erroneously indicated as “ M ”—= Muhlenberg, the footnote being
“ Anychia, Mx. Paronychia, Ju.” The name-bringing synonym is thus Anychia argyrocoma
Michz. (1803), this being the name that Muhlenberg used (Cat. 27. 1818). In edition eight of
Eaton’s work it appears as Paronychia argyrocoma Nutt. The “Index Kewensis” entry is
“Baton, N. Am. Bot. ed. VII, ex Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. ed. VIII. 343. [1840].”
Queria *hernarioides Eat Man. ed. 5, 357. 1829; ed. 6, 295. 1833; ed. 7, 475. 1836 =

Paronychia ae (Mic hx.) Nut

This is erroneously credited to pactaics the footnote reference being “ Anychia, Mx.
pices fein Ju.” Its basis was Anychia hernarioides Michx. (1803). Synonyms are Anychias-

m hernarioides Small and Gastronychia hernarioides Small.

;sessiliflora Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 357. 1829; ed. 6, 295. 1833; ed. 7, 475. 1836=
Poona sessiliflora Nut
is name was anna credited to Nuttall, the footnote reference being “ Paronychia,
N.” The “Index Kewensis” entry is “Eaton, N. Am. Bot. ed. VII; ex Eaton & Wright,
N. Am. Bot. ed. VIII. 343 [1840].”

gee TN +delphinifolius Torr. ex Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 395. 1818; ed. 3, 424. 1822; ed. 4,
“ A new species by Dr. Torrey; though he suspects it may be a variety of the fluviatilis”.
The type was from the vicinity of New York City, “C”== Columbia College. The “ Index
Kewensis” entry is “Torr. in Eaton, Man. Bot. ed. IV. 424 [1824],” corrected in the Addenda
to Suppl. 1, to ed. 2, p. 395. A valid species of wide distribution in Eastern North America.
unculus intermedius Eaton, Man. ed. 3, 424. 1822; ed. 4, 424. 1824— Ranunculus
repens Linn.
Eaton’ 3 specimen was from the vicinity of Albany, N. Y. In edition four the authority is
indicated as “8 ” — J. E. Smith, which probably means that Eaton thought he had R. inter-
medius Poir. in Lam., Encycl. 6: 116. 1804 as interpreted by J. E. Smith in Rees Cyclop. 29:
no. 56. 1814. The entry in Index Kewensis is correct.

flacustris ee nes ee eS 1822; in N. Y, Med

ys. Jour. 2: Le — ap ores Albany Inst. 1: 148. 1830; Beck,-Bot. N. Mid.

riod 9. 1833; Eaton, d. 4, 424. 1824; ed. 5, 359. 1829; ed. 6, 298. 1833; ed. 7,
477. 1836 = R. ‘ selphinttoline a (181 8).

This was from a small lake east of Lansingburgh, near Albany, N. Y. The footnote in
edition three of Eaton’s “ Manual” is “multifidus ? Bradbury, fluviatilis? Bw. [Bigelow].
See his [Bigelow’s] enlarged de. a Cd p. 139. Boston Flora.” The original “Index Ke-
wensis”’ entry is to the Transactions of the Albany Institute reference; the second entry ap-
pears in the Addenda to Suppl. 1

teen Man ct 2 oe wf ed. 3, 428: 1822; ed 4, 2S G4 ed's, 309" 1809 ed. 6, 29.
an. e€ 4, 42 Js 9. d
1833; ed. 7, 478. 1836; ed. 8, 388. 1840 = rR repens ote Ae

The en entry in “Index K ewensis” is to “ Muhl. Cat. ed. ea a“ the name being validated
by Eaton’s description of 1818. All that Muhlenberg says about the species is that it was from
Carolina, and “an varietas repentis?” Clearly what he thought he had was Ranunculus
nitidus Walt., Fl. Carol. 159. 1788, but here, as in most other cases, he cited no authority. In
nie ons three and four Eaton credited the species to “ Wr.” = Walter, but in later editions to
“M rune “not Wr.” and it may be significant that he placed the species among

southern ones.

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 71

Ranunculus jsaniculaeformis Muhl., Cat. 54. 1813, nomen nudum; ed. 2, 56. 1818, nomen
nudum; Eaton, Man. ed vd a 307. 1818; ed. 3, 425, 1822; ed. 4, 425. 1824 = Ranunculus
recurvatus apis (1804
Eaton says: “ Muhl. ee this plant to Delaware only. Last summer Dr. Torrey found

it near New York, and drew this description from living specimens. Dr. Beck found it also
growing near Albany.” Here Eaton apparently published the first description of Muhlenberg’s
species, thus validating what was up to that time a nomen nudum. The Index Kewensis entry
is “ Muhl. ex DC. Prodr. I. 40 [1824],” where the name appears, on the authority of Rafinesque,
as a synonym of Ranunculus recurvatus Poir.

Reseda *micrantha goa & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 389. 1840 (micranthus), sphalm. = Ranun-
culus pce Nut
Another of those curious errors where the author inadvertently made the entry under the

wrong generic name. The specis was credited to Nuttall, ~ Tange given as Missouri and
Arkansas. The basis was clearly Ranunculus micranthus Nut
Rhynchospora *teres Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 364. 1 6, 304. 1833; ed. 7, 484. 1836; ed. 8,

394. 1840= R. 9 sent: Ell. == NK: glomerata Tien) Vahl: see com in Rhodora 46:

113. 246-248. 1

The authority is pies given as “ Ea”= Eaton in editions five to seven, but errone-
ously as “E” = Elliott in edition eight. The footnote reference is “cymosa, E. As Elliott’s
plant differs essentially from the cymosa of M[uhlenberg] it becomes necessary to give it
another name.” Elliott, Sketch 1: 58. 1816, credits the name Rhynchospora cymosa to “ Muhl.
Cat.”. But Muhlenberg apparently never published such a binomial, but rather Schoenus
cymosus Muhl., Cat. 6. 1813, ed. 2, 5. 1818, strictly a nomen nudum; Descr. Gram. 8. 1817,
descr., non Wi ld. This is Rhynchosphora globularis (Chapm.) Small, var. recognita Gale, in
Rhee 46: 245. 1944, a species distinct from R. teres Eaton=R. glomerata (Linn.) Vahl.
The original ea: of the heey name was Rynchospora.

Rhynchospora ton, Man. ed. 5, 363. 1829; ed. 1833; ed. 7, 484. 1836,
Sphalm. ; ed. he: o3. 1840 ¢ toerthores = ee Rhynchospora pli i (Miche) Ell.

The a pisthoetiy is erroneously indicated as Michaux, the origin of the specific name being
clearly Schoenus rariflorus Michx., Fl. Bor. Am. 1: 35. 1803; the footnote reference is “ micran-

, Vahl.”

Rosa *sabifolia potty & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 397. 1840, sphalm.= R. rubifolia R. Br.=

R. setigera Mic
The entry in Lee one to seven is as R. rubifolia R. Br. On p. IV this statement ap-
“Rosa sabifolia should be Rosa rubiginosa,” but the latter is a Linnaean species of the

Old 1 World, so that this “ correction ” is probably an error.

Rumex *hastatulus Baldw. ex Ell. Sketch 1: 416. poe Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 372. 1829; ed. 6,
314. 1833; ed. 7, 497. 1836; ed. 8, 404. 1840; Robins. . Fernald in Gray, Man. ed. 7,
357. fig. 704. 1908 ; Small, Man. Southeast. Fl. 447. fig. 1933. .
The “ Index Kewensis” entry is Rumer hastulatus “ Baldw. ex Meissn. in DC. Prodr. xiv.

64 [1856] ” in syn. sub R. engelmanni Ledeb. It is a valid species, extending from Massachu-

setts to 2K and Texas, and inland north to Illinois.

Salix *obovata Pursh, Fl. Am. oer = 611. 1814. Prob. =S. cordifolia Pursh, var. callicarpaea
(Trautv.) Anat sethe Rhodor: 184. 1926.

Our attention was called to rag nalietad name through Eaton’s inclusion of the species
in his Manual, edition five (1829) to eight (1840). Pursh says: “In Labrador Colmaster,
Northwest coast, Ne

an. 18. 1817, sphalm.=S. media sensu Hook. (1834), non
ane ing paver am 24 Hah, Ref. 47, 1833 (S. sitchensis C. A. Mey., 1856; S. latifolia

Coville, 1896); see Fernald i in Rhodora 48: 12. 1946.

72 BARTONIA

Eaton corrected his error in the spelling of the specific name to S. media in all the later
editions of his Manual.
arracenia theterophylla Eaton, Man. ed. 3, 447. 1822; ed. 4, 445. 1824; ed. 5, 380.
ed. a 324. 1833; ed. 7, 508. 1836; ed. 8, 412, 1840—S. pui rpurea Linn. var. hieaeobaoiis
Eaton) Torr., Fl. N. Y. 1: 41, 1843.

The “Index Kewensis” entry is to edition four (1824). Eaton’s original specimen is in
book three of his herbarium at Yale University. “Found in a swamp near Northampton
(Mass.) by Dr. David Hunt in the summer of 1818. I suspect it to be a new species, which
should be called S. heterophylla.” This is one of the few specimens in the herbarium where
any data are given other than the name.

chrankia *sensitiva Eaton, Man. en 5. 383. 1829; ed. 6, 328, 1833; ed. 7, 514. 1836; ed. 8,

416. 1840 = Mimosa sensitiva Lin

The footnote reference is to nies [sensitiva] of earlier editions. It was placed among
the exotic species,

ee LeConte ex Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 427. 1818 = Eleocharis parvula (R. & S.)

“ A new species discovered by J. Le Conte, Esq.” The habitat is indicated as the borders
of salt marshes and the locality (“C”— Columbia College) in the Mounted of New York City.
The habitat and locality limits the identity of this to four possible s and Dr. Svenson,
to whom the problem of eget was submitted, states that Eaton's Seesiition applies to
Eleocharis parvula (R. & S.

Scirpus *ferrugineus Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 428. Weg ed. 3. 452. 1822; ed. 4, 449. 1824, non
Linn. ST bentylnes puberulus (Michx.) Vah
Eaton credited the species to Muhlenberg bat the only entry we fea found in the latter’s

works is in his Catalogue 7. 1813, where S. ferrugineus Linn. appears as a synonym o

erulus Michx. In edition three when Eaton commenced to cite cathodic for the binomials,

S. puberulus Michx. is added in a footnote.

Scirpus jglaucus Ponts SS Ete aS. 62. 2; SO 188 Ne ike Fl. North, Mid. U. S. 1: 44.
1824, non sherun = Eleocharis calva Torr. (1843) ; e Svenson in Rhodora 31: 68. #1929.
Eaton says: “ This was one of Muhlenberg’s session bel species. Dr. Torrey found the

same near New York, and gave it this name.” Torrey says that it was “Scirpus No. 7

(anonymos) Muhl. Gram. p. 29,” and that it occurred along the borders of salt marshes near

New York City. The “Index Kewensis” entry is “Torr. Fl. U. St. 44 [1824].” Eaton

dropped the species in editions three (1822) to five (1829), but reinstated it with a greatly

ae description in editions six to eight.

gee rs 8 Torr. ex Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 431. 1818, non aliorum=—= Eleocharis tenuis

The letter “C” indicated Columbia College, i. e., that Torrey’s specimen was from the
vicinity of New oe City. Regarding it Eaton says: “On the borders of salt marshes.

than in this second edition of Eaton’s “Manual.” The identification is by Dr. H. K. Svenson.
*reticulata Eaton, Man. =. 5, 486. 1829; ed. 6, 331. . ; ed. 8,

as one a or ed. 6, 1833; ed. 7, 518. 1836; e

The binomial was credited to atic the error being in the transcription of the specific

name, or perhaps a deliberate change was made.

Scutellaria a olia Muhl., Cat. 56, 1813, nomen nudum ; ed. 2, 59. 1819, nomen nudum;
Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 433. 1 1818; ed. 3, 456, 1822; ed. 4, 452. 1824: ed. 5, 387, 1829; ed. 6,
fon 4 a wa 1836; ed. 8, 420. 1840; Ell. Sketch 2: 91. 1821=—S. versicolor Nutt.,

.

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 73

Britton is the authority for the statement, Britton & Brown, Ill. Fl. North. U. S. ed. 2,
673. 1913, that Nuttall’s work appeared before edition two of Eaton’s Manual, both seme
in 1818. Nuttall cites “S. cordifolia ? Muhl. Cat.” as a synonym of his species. Eaton cites
Muhlenberg as the author of S. cordifolia with S. versicolor Nutt. listed in the footnote as a
synonym. Elliott’s description of Muhlenberg’s species is much more complete than is that
of Eaton. The “Index Kewensis” entry is “ Muhl. Cat. ex Benth. in DC. Prodr. xii, 422.

1848].”

Scutellaria *laevigata Aikin ex Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 333. 1833; ed. 7, 519. 1836; ed. 8, 420.
1840 = S. rersate Andr. (1809).

The “M” following the description indicates Maryland. Dr. Willia ;
associate of H. H. Eaton, son of Amos pe in preparing the text of the afth edition of the
Manual; see p. vi of the introduction to editio
Sedum *nuttallii Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 334. 1833; ed. 7, 520. 1836; ed. 8, 421. 1840=S. nuttal-

pte Raf. (1832).

This was credited to “T. & J.” and clearly refers to the species no. 171, characterized by
Torrey, but not named, in his report on the James collection, in Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist. N. Y. 2:
205. 1827, where the entry is “S. n. sp. Nutt. Near the Rocky Mountains. Leaves roundish,
flat, entire, scattered ; cymes terminal, aie ene ” This short description was also the basis
of Sedum nuttallianum Raf., Atl. Jour. 1: 146. 1832, Rafinesque citing “S. anon. T. 171.”
Sedum torreyi G. Don (1834) is a synonym.

Serpicula jcanadensis Eaton, Man. ed. 5, ; ed. 6, 336. 1833; ed. 7, 523. 1836;
ed. g 423. 1840 = Anacharis canadensis Mich} Pian ch.

Eaton erroneously credits this to Michaux, his footnote being “ occidentalis, Ph. Verticil-
lata, M. Elodea, Mx. Udora, N.” The basis of the name is therefore Elodea canadensis
Michx. Philotria canadensis Britton is a synonym.

a oo Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 394. 1829; ed. 6, 341. 1833= Ptilimnium costatum (EIl.)

Eaton erroneously credits the authority to “E”=Elliott. The footnote reference is
“Ammi, E.” and thus Ammi costatum Ell. provided the name.

Sison {majus Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 529. 1836; ed. 8, 429. 1840 = Ammi majus Linn.

The authority is indicated as de Candolle. The footnote reference from the generic name
is: “These species should have been described under Ammi.” The “Index Kewensis” entry

is “ Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. ed. VIII. 429. [1840].”
Sison jrubricaule Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 530. 1836; ed. 8, 429. 1840—Ptilimnium capillacewm

(Michx.) Raf.

The authority is indicated as de Candolle; see note under the preceding species. The
“Index Kewensis” entry is to the Eaton & Wright edition of 1840.

Sisymbrium jcheiranthoides Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 395. 1829; ed. 6, 342. 1833; ed. 7, 530. 1836;
ed. 8, 829. 1840 = Erysimum cheiranthoides Linn. (Cheirinia cheiranthoides Link).

The authority is not indicated. The footnote reference is to “ parviflora, se ie. Erysi-
mum parviflorum Pers. The “Index Kewensis” entry is“ Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. ed.
VIII. 429 [1840]; Trautv. in Act. Hort. Petrop. V (1877) 27.”

Sisymbrium jlyratum Eaton, Man. ed. 7. 530. 1836; ed. 8, 430. 1840 (lyrata) = Arabis
hitaia © Linn.

In the footnote Eaton states: “arabidoides, Hk. see p. 164, where Hooker misled me
Alrabis] lyrata must be struck out under the species, petrea; as this is the true A. lyrata.”
The basis of maar s binomial hence was A. lyrata Linn. :

74 BARTONIA

Sisyrinchium *brachycarpum Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 342. 1833; ed. 7, 531. 1836=—= Descurainia
richardii (Sweet) O. E. Schulz.

A new binomial due to Eaton’s inadvertent entry of a Sisymbrium description under the
iridaceous genus Sisyrinchium for the description is of a cruciferous plant. The authority is
indicated as Hooker, S. brachycarpum as interpreted by Hooker, Fl. Bor. Am. 1: 62. 1830—S.
brachycarpon. Richards. in Frankl. Narr. First Journ. App. 744. 1823; ed. 2, 27. 1823 (brachy-
carpum), these names being the basis of Eaton’s binomial.

becaa ar gae *humile Eaton, Man. ed. 6, 342. 1833; ed. 7, 531. 1836= Sisymbrium humile
k

other erroneous entry, Sisymbrium being intended. The ee is indicated as
Hooker, the description being of Sisymbrium humile Hook., Fl. Bor. Am. 1: 8

Smilax *cincidifolia Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 396. ; ed. 6, 343. 1833; ed. 7, 532. 1836; ed. 8,
431. 1840, sphalm, = 5. cerci difolia Pursh, TL Am . Sept. 2: 733. 1814 Ccircidifotie).

Pursh’s diagnosis. e entry in “ Index Kewensis” is as cercidifolia Pursh, a correction of his
original spelling.
Specularia *amplexicaulis Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 54. 1836; ed. 8, 439. 1840—S. perfoliata
a A DG

entry is merely “amplexicaulis, O[=all authors] & speculum. Exotic, described
under Caaparaie This is Campanula amplezicaulis Michx. as entered in these two editions
of Eaton’s Manual, p. 209 and 167. The footnote reference is “ perfoliata, L.”, that is, Cam-
panula perfoliata Linn.

Starkea *spinulosa (“ rayor ye *) Eaton, Man. ed 1829; ed. 6, 356. 1833; ed. 7,
546. 1836; ed. 8, 442. 1840 = Haplopappus re ran Sei: preriies (Pursh) DC. (Si ider-
anthus spinulosus Soce t).

Eaton erroneously indicated the authority as “ Ph.” = Pursh, the footnote reference being

“ Amellus, Ph.”, that is, Amellus spinulosus P

Streptanthus ‘ovalifolius Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 549. 1836; ed. 8, 444. 1840—=S. obtusifolius
Hook. (1834) = S. maculatus Nutt. (1825).

is practically a nomen nudum. All that Eaton says is “ (Arkansas cabbage). I have
received no description of this species other than what is implied by the name—leaves oval.

Grows in Arkansas.” The name that Hooker actually published for the “ Arkansas cabbage ”

hone seta obtusifolius Hook. in Bot. Mag. 61: pl. 3317. 1834. Eaton credits the author-

ity to Hooker.

Thapsia *acaulis Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 416. 1829; ed. 6, 363. 1833—=Cymopterus acaulis
— Raf.
troneously credited to “ Ph.” = Pursh, the footnote reference in edition six being
io * aaa N. Selinum, Ph., Cymopteris Raf. in DC.” Its basis is hence Selinum acaule
Pursh. :

illaea jascendens Eaton ee ae 1818; ed. 3, 487. 1822; ed. 4, 479. 1824; a
419, 1829. ed. 6, 265, "1833. d. 7, 558. 1836; ’ed. 8, 453. 1840— Tillaea aquatica Lin
(Tillaeastrum aquaticum Brit to n).

The basis of Eaton’s species was a specimen collected by Prof. Ives on the Housatonic
River, Sam na later it was recorded from Peekskill, New York. The “Index Kewensis
to edition five (1829) of Eaton’s “ Manual.”

*prinifolia Eaton. Man. ed. 6, 366. 1833; 3 7, 559. 1836; ed. 8, 453. 1840, sphalm.
— pinifolia Le conatleyg juncea (R. & P.) P

The entry in ed. 5, 419. 1829, is correct as Pilate’ a Le Conte.

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 75

*Torreya Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 420. 1829; ed. 6, 64, 367. 1833; ed. 7, 77, 560. 1836, non Raf.,
1818, nec ok 1819, nec Spreng. 1821 — Nuttallia Re (1818) — Mentzelia Linn.

i oposed as a new name for Bartonia Nutt. (1818), non Bartonia ap (1801),
and is thus the aah use of the same generic name for six different groups of plants, Torreya
Arn. (1838) being officially conserved. Synonyms of Torreya Eaton are Nuttallia ny (1818),
Touterea Eaton & Wright (1840), and Hesperaster Cockerell (1901), Rydberg recognized the

distinct genus in 1917, 1923, and 1932. Eaton’s explanation (as phrased in edition 7)
of his selection of the generic name Torreya is as follows: “ Another plant has long since re-
ceived the name Bartonia. Several plants of doubtful character have been named in honor
of Dr. Torrey. But, I believe, all American botanists will consent to give his name to a
definite genus. I received Mr. Nuttall’s assent to this name, at his garden in Cambridge,

saodeen Linneus 19 [John Torrey] the very name of calyx, corol and stamen, at his early ae?
of fourteen, Mr. Nuttall was willing to permit me to give this name to a plant o

ery [Bartonia ornata Pursh; Bartonia Sims, 1804, non Bartonia Muhl., 1801]. Dr. Torrey was
not consulted; but about twenty of our be st American botanists were consulted.” But as
Eaton consistently ignored Rafinesque’s erratic work, he failed to realize that Nuttallia Raf.
had been proposed in 1818 for the same group.

‘Torreya *nuda Eat Man. ed. 5, 420. 1829; ed. 6, 367. 1833; ed. 7, 560. 1836—= Mentzelia

nuda (Pursh) Tor, & Gray (Nuttallia nuda Ry ‘db rb

The authority was erroneously indicated as Nuttall, no synonym cited. From the foot-
note regarding the generic name this was pe from Bartonia nuda Pursh as interpreted by
Nuttall, Gen. 1: 299. 1818.

ton, Man. ed. 5, 421. weet vig age Somer ed. 7, 560. 1836 = Mentszelia
ge ont rg (Punk) Urban & Gilg. (M. Torr. & Gray; Nuttallia decapetata Ryab.).

This species was also erroneously els me Nuttall, no synon, i
clearly Bartonia ornata Pursh as interpreted by Nuttall. ee Nuttall’s long footnote
on Pursh is worthy of perusal; see Nuttall, Gen. 1: 298. 1
*Touterea Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. 454. 1840— Hesperaster Cockerell (1901) =

Nuttallia Raf. CED seins Linn.

This was proposed asa new generic name for Torreya Eaton (1829), non Raf. (1818,
1819), nec Spreng. Cues). nec Arn. (1838). Eaton & Wright say “Touterea Gr. ¢ ouigroe,
another. A temporary name given from its having been published as Bartonia and Torreya
and been driven from both hy ener applications of both names. The word ‘another’ may
stand as a name for this edition.

Touterea *nuda Eaton & Wright, lc. Mentzelia nuda (Pursh) Torr. & Gray (Nuttallia
nuda Rydb.)
Eaton & Wright, I.c.=Mentzelia decapetala (Pursh) Urban & Gilg
haiatiee den decapetala Rydb.).
*perenneum Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 423. 1829; eS haga ed. 7, 562. 1836;
ed. 8, wos 1840 = Aeroaie. perennans (Walt.) Tuckerm
The Re is erroneously given as “ Wr.” = Walte we however, originated the name
in Corn rennans Walt., Fl. Carol. 74. 1788. The footnote reference is “ decumbens,
Mx. Sinusitis Wr

10 In edition 5 Eaton had said, in part: “I feel confident, that every American botanist,

as well as the discoverer, will cordially uni te with me in giving to this splendid genus, a name

which seems to be almost identified with he science, on this side of the See Dr. Torrey

osed Nuttallia for th the generic name. But that name is already given to a well defined
genus.”

76 BARTONIA

Trichophorum *eriophorum Eaton, Man. 11. 1817 = ? Eriophorum virginicum Linn.

The very short description is “ (light-hair) culm leafy; spike crowded.”

aa Rr aepeine MuhL, Cat. 67. 1813, nomen nudum; ed. 2, 70. nomen nudum
n, Man. ed. 2, 468. 1818: ed. 3, 491. 1822; ed. 4, 483. 1824; ed. 3, 424.1 1829; ed. 6

370. °1833 ; “Ty 7, "564. 1836; ed. 8, 457. 1840; Beck, Bot. N. Mid. States 80. 1833.

This is an sees eg species, bik Muhlenberg’s original entry does not eonetitute _
publication. He says “running buffaloe clover”, that the corolla was white and t
occurred in Ohio, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. Eat aton says: “ This description I drew ke
a dried specimen in the herbarium of T. R. Beck; being unable to procure any other.” This
was from Westetn 1 New York where Muhlenberg’s species is not now known to occur. Beck
says “N.Y. Penn. W. to the Miss.” Eaton later, Manual ed. 5, 424. 1829, repeated sae state-
ment regarding his description having been based on a Beck specimen and adds: “ Pursh
{Beck ?] had drawn one [a description] from the same specimen. As I have not seen any
improved description of this plant in the floras of those who have examined Muhlenberg’s
herbarium, I retain this for the present.” We suspect that Beck was the name that Eaton
should have used rather than Pursh, for Pursh never published a description of 7’. stoloni-
ferum Muhl. at least under that name. The plant is known to occur in ches tafe 350
West Virginia, and probably did formerly grow in western New York. In any ca
men Eaton had would be the type, although it does not appear to be still endty
Trigonella jsericea Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 424, hd ed. 6, 371. 1833; ed. 7, 565. 1836; ed. 8,

459. 1840 = Hosackia americana (Nutt.) P

The authority is erroneously indicated as “ Ph. ere the footnote seo ofl americana,
N. Lotus, Ph.” These are Trigonella americana Nutt. and Lotus sericeus se su Pursh, non
DC. The “Index Kewensis” entry is “Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. ed. VIL. 459 [1840].”

um *canadense Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 430. 1829 = Cryptotaenia canadensis (Linn.) DC.
The footnote reference is “Sison, L. Myrrhis, 4th Ed. Chaerophyllum, P.” The basic
synonym is hence Sison canadense Linn.
ocumbens Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 430. 1829; ed. 6, 377. 1833; ed. 7, 572. 1836=
sg abst procumbens (Linn.) Crantz
No authority is cited, the footnote iene being “Scandix, L. Chaerophyllum, Lk.
Myrrhis, Sl. [Spreng.]” the basic synonym thus being Scandiz procumbens Linn.
Vaginaria *scirpoides Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 435. 1829; ed. : ; ed 8
very i= Faroe pit sectonn ye, ed. 6, 382. 1833; ed. 7, 577. 1836; ed.’ 8,
h thority is dcvcmailidy indicated as Michaux, the footnote being “richardi, P.
Fuirena, Mx: and the name-bringing synonym being Fuirena scirpoidea Michx.
——a feoerulea Eaton, Man. ed. 7, 578. 1836; ed. 8, 469. 1840—=V’. locusta (Linn.)
description is a reasonably ample one. It was based on a Maryland specimen re-
ceived from Dr. Aikin as Fedia coerulea Aikin as indicated in the footnote. The “Index
Kewensis” reference is “Eaton & Wright, N. Am. Bot. ed. VIII. 469 [1840].”
gar onthe g-ogr _ a utt. in a Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 2: 123. 1821; Perry in Ann.
Our attention was a a pa ae through the entries in Eaton’s “ Manual,” editions five
(1829) . yen apse the binomial is properly credited to Nuttall; the entry in
to Schauer in DC. Prodr. 11: 553. 1847. Nuttall’s 8 generic entry is
«Verbena, — Glandularia.) Genus Glandularia, Gmelin”, and under this is the entry
_ o natifida.” Here the dash clearly indicates Nuttall’s intention to publish this
as a ahana not as a Glandularia; he did not publish the Glandularia combination until
sixteen years later, as G. tbipinnatifide Nutt. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. II. 5: 184. 1837.

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 77

*Vexillaria Eaton, Man. 82. 1817; ed. 2, 488. 1818; ed. + oo 1822; ed. Fy —_ 1824; ed. 5,

439. 1829; ed. 6, 386. 1833; ed. 7, 582. 836; ed. 8, 473. 1840 = Clitoria

The footnote in edition one is: “ This name is given as a “i ghutti 7 “the 1712th genus
of Persoon, which is so severely censured by Dr. Smith in Rees’ Cyclopaedia.” This is Chtona
Linn. Eaton’s publication of Vezillaria antedates Vezillaria Raf. by one year, both being
proposed as new names for Clitoria Linn.

exillaria *mariana Eaton, Man. 83. 1817; ed. 2, 489. 1818; Beg Big F ed. 4, 498.

1824; big ec: 439. 1829; ed. 6, 386. 1833; ed. 7, 582, 1836; ed. 8, 473. 1840 = Clitoria

mariana Linn.

synonym is cited, but clearly Clitoria mariana Linn. was the basis of the name.

Eaton’s use of the binomial antedates that of Rafinesque by one year.

Vexillaria *plumieri Eaton, Man. ed. 5, 439. 1829; ed. 6, 386. 1833 geeomnsiteed = af 582. 1836
pr tor An ed. 8, 473. 1840 (plumiera) = Centr osema plumieri (Turp.) B
The authority is erroneously indicated as “P”==Persoon. No aemagne is | cited but

Clitoria plumieri Turp. is clearly the basis of Eaton’s binomial.

en eee Man. 83. 1817; ed. 2, 488. 1818; ed. 3, 509. 1822; nal Sr

1824; ed. 5, 439. 1829; gr 6, 386. 1833; ed. 7, 582. 1836; ed. 8, 473. 1840 = ppt

virginiana (Linn.) Benth. (Bradburya virginiana O. Kuntze).

' In edition five “W ” = Willdenow is cited as the authority, but Clitoria virginiana of
Willdenow is C. virginiana Linn. No synonym is cited by Eaton
Viburnum ‘linus Eaton, Man. ed. 3. 509. 1822; ed. 4, 498. 1824; ig 5, 440. 1829; ed. 6, 387.

1833; ed. 7, 583. 1836; ed. 8, 474. 1840, sphaim. = = V. tinus Lin

The entry in edition two, p. 489, is correct as Viburnum tinus.

Vicia *mitchilla Eaton, Man. 81. 1817; ed. 2, 491. 1818=Vicia mitchelli Raf. (1814) =

V. hirsuta (Linn.) S. F. Gray (1821); K. Roe h (1837).

Re this Eaton says: “This species was found last summer by professor Mitchill of
New York, and sent to the Italian nevaraliss, C. S. Rafinesque; who, discovering it to be a
new species, gave it this specific name.” Rafinesque, Précis Découv. Somiol. 37. 1814, says:
“Cette plante m’a été comuniquée par le Doct. Mitchell de New York, ses semences sont
édules; elle croit sur les bords de la mer en Connecticut, dans 1’Isle longue, &e.” Introduced
from Europe and more or less naturalized.

indsoria *seslerioides Eaton, Man. ed. 1829; ed. 6, 398. at ed. 7, 593. 1836;

ed. 8, 481. 1840 = Triodia flava (Linn.) aah (Tridens flava Hitch ¢.).

The authority is erroneously given as Michaux. The footnote entry is “ poaeformis, N.
Poa, Mx. gumauitie, Ph. flava, L. sub-verticillata, P,” hence the basis of Eaton’s name
was Poa seslerioides M
Xylosteum jsolonis Eaton, Man. 26. 1817; ed. 2, 498. 1818; ed. 3, 518. 1822; ed. 4, 505. 1824;

- 5, 449. 1829; ed. 6, 398. 1833; ed. 7, 595. 1836; ed. 8, 483. 1840= — Lonicera villosa

R. & S. var. solonis (Eaton) Fernald in Rhodora 27: 6. 1925.
type was from New Hampshire, and later Eaton recorded it from Williamstown and
Pittsfield, Massachusetts. One of these specimens is in book one of the Eaton herbarium at
Yale University. The entry in “Index Kewensis” is Xylosteon solonis Eaton “ Man. Bot.
N. Am. ed. VI. 398 [1833], ed. VIT. 518 [1836].”
Yucca *alnifolia Eato sectrgere ht Sy = 1829; ed. 6, 399. 1833; ed. 7, 397. 1836; ed. 8, 484.

1840, sphalm. = V1 ucca aloifolia Li

The synonym cid inthe fotnote “reo ie., Yucca draconis sensu Ell. which
is Y. aloifolia Linn

78 BARTONIA
APPENDIX A
An Overlooked Paper on Roripa.

8 In scanning the literature appertaining to the genus Rorippa or Roripa, we
located an apparently overlooked monographic treatment of the European species
by Borbas, who used the form Roripa; at least many of the new binomials pub-
lished by him in 1879 are either not listed in “ Index Kewensis ” and its nine sup-
plements, or are entered as having been published by Borbas or other authors
later than 1879. All of the new Borbds names in this paper appertain to Euro-
pean species. This paper forms part fifteen of volume nine of the “ Ertekezések
a természettudomanyok koérébél,” published by the Magyar Academy, Budapest
1 (1867)—31 (1913); see “ Union List of Periodicals ” ed. 2, 1651. 1943. The
author, title and reference is Borbas Vincze, “ Floristicai adatok kiilénds tekin-
tettel a Roripakra ” [Botanical caren’ with special reference to Roripa],
in Ertek. Termész. Kérébol 9(15): 1-64. 1879. This part contains two papers by
Borbas, and the cover carries the statement “ (Eloterjesztetett a III. osztaky.
ulésén, 1879. april 21) ”. The Roripa paper has its own title, “ Ujabb adatok a
hazai Roripak ismertetésches, ” and occupies pages 10 to 64 of this part. The
introduction is in Hungarian, the ample keys, descriptions and discussions in
Latin. Examination of this paper led us to one published a year earlier by
Borbas entitled “ Arabisek és egyéb cruciferak kériil” which contains certain
Roripa transfers. This paper appeared in volume fifteen of the “ Mathematikai
és természettu domanyi Kézlemények vonatkozdélag a hazai viszonyorka,” 1878.
It is the volume for 1877-78, but all the signatures are dated 1878. References
to this earlier paper are added in this note.

Rorip[p]a janceps Reichb., Ic. Fl. Germ. 2: 15. 1837-38. This replaces the later Fuss
transfer, Fl. Transillv. a 866).

R. *astylis Reichb. 1. c.

R. feapillipes Borbas, in Ertek. Termész. Kérébél ake a 19, 28, descr. in clavis, 31,
descr., 1879. This replaces the later Simonkai name, m. F. Transsilv. (1886).

R. *danubialis Borbas, Mathem at. Termész. Kozlem. 15: +8 1878, nom.; Ertek. Termész.
Korébél 9(15): 20; 30, eect in clavis, 64, descr., 1879.

R. ulis Borb4s, in Ertek. Termész. Krebs bd1 9(15): 15, 20, es descr. in higge
62, descr., 63, descr., 1879. This replaces the later Borbas ex Nym., Enum. Fl.
Transsilv. (1889) record.

R. *ha — Be: > 18, 24, descr. in clavis, 37, 49, descr., 51. 1879.
thungarica B mat. Termész. Kozlem. 15: 186. 1 197. 1878; Ertek. Termész.
Korébol 9(15) : er 16, “a 23, Pied in clavis, Bo descr., 1879. This replaces the later
Borbas ex Nym., Consp r. (1889) rec ord.

R. — — in Ertek. kona Kérébél 9(15) : 14, 16, 18, 23, descr. in clavis, 48, 54,

R. syrat ete on. cit. 40, 49. 1879 (Armoracia *lyrata Scheele, Flore 26(1) : 307. 1843).

was the entry that led us to the unlisted Brachylobus names of Schur which

— ea inepenana to this note, and further the location of the hitherto unlisted Scheele

R. tmorisoni B. in Mathemat. Termész. Koziem. 15: 186. 1878; Ertek. Term
Korébol 1918) 16 8 Be descr. in clavis., 1879. This is replaces G. Beck’s later bce
of the Fl. Nied—Oester ae 1902).

NEW PLANT NAMES PUBLISHED BY AMOS EATON 79

tneograde Borbas, op. cit., 186, 199. 1878; 16, 18, 22 gn >. clavis., 1879. This
Ra ea the later Borbas ex Nym., Consp. Fl. Eur . (1889) r ord.

rmixta Borbas, in Ertek. Termész. Kérébél 9(15) : ve 19, 2, diac. in clavis, 30,
one 1879.
Nasreanae! B rege op. cit., 48, 49, descr., 51. 1879.
tprolifera in Mathem. Termész. Saray 15: 185. 186. 1878; Ertek. Termész.
Korébol a(t): tk oa 20, 30, descr. in clavis, 43, 63, descr., 1879. This replaces the

later Simonkai, Enum. Fi. Transsilv. (1886), "transfer.

Secdeicais Borbas, in meh Termész. K6rébol 9(15) : 11, 18, 21, descr. in clavis., 1879,
freichenbachii Borbas, of. cit. 16, 19, 28, 31, 41, 42, 61, descr., 1879. This replaces the
— arch by Simonkai, ‘india . Fl. Transsilv. (1886).

re ae

s, in Mathem Termész. Kozlem. ei 185. 1878; Ertek. Termész. Kérébdél

Rice iT i i 19, = 29, descr. in clavis, 40, 49. 1879.

jsilvestris Reichb., Ic. Pl. Germ. 2: 15. 1837-38. This replaces the later transfer by

Fuss, Fl. Transsilyv, (i 866).

Satdadaet Borbas, in Ertek. Termész. Korébél 9(15): 18, 21, descr. in clavis., 1879.

sean pA pele op. cit. 17, 21, descr. in nyrested * descr., 1879. This replaces the
r Borbas ex Nym. Consp. Fl. Eur. (1 reco

D8 eer ad bere

taubglobosa Borbés, in Mathem. Termész Kozlem. 15: 186. 193. 200. 1878; Brtek.
Termész. Koréb6l 9(15): 24, descr. in clavis, 49, des 1879. On page 49 the
peng gives . a 5 hie earlier paper of 1878. This. Teplaces the later Borbas

x Nym., Consp. Fl. Eur ord.

R Riess ica Borbis, in Ertek. ioe ay Kérébal 9(15): 21, descr. ge clavis, 60. 1879. This

replaces the later Fritsch transfer, Verh. Zool.-Bot . Ges. Wie : 317. 1895.

. }turezanino rbas, op. cit. 19, 25, descr. in clos, 52, pice 11879, This replaces

Sinankai’s ta «tes transfer, Enum. Fl.’ Transsilv. (1886).

Certain references in this Borbas paper led us to earlier works, the net results
being the location of three unlisted Reichenbach transfers to Roripa (1837-38),
and ten transfers by Schur (1866) to Brachylobus, none listed in any standard
index. It was the entry “ Roripa (Brachylobus) hybrida (Schur) ” that led us
to examine Schur’s “ Enumeratio Plantarum Transsilvaniae ” (1866) where he
raised Nasturtium, section Brachylobus DC. to generic rank and transferred ten
species to it. The three Reichenbach early transfers to Roripa are included in
the above list; the ten Schur names, all synonyms of various species of Rorippa
are: Brachylobus *amphibius Schur, Enum. Pl. Transsilv. 40, 1866; *anceps
Schur, l.c.; *armoracoides Schur l.c.; *austriacus Schur, op. cit. 41: *brevi-
stylis Schur, op. cit. 39; *hybridus Schur, op. cit. 40; *palustris Schur, op. cit.
39; “pyrenaicus Schur. l.c.; *riparius Schur, op. cit. 40; *sylvestris Schur, op.
cit. 39. We suspect that share may be a large number of unlisted new binomials
in Schur’s work.

Otway H. Brown
W. M. BENNER anv F. W. PENNELL

Otway H. Brown, who died at his home at Cold Spring near Cape May, New
Jersey, on October 31, 1946, was for more than 38 years a Corresponding Member
of the Philadelphia Botanical Club. He lived all his life in southern New Jersey,
and knew the plants and animals of the Cape May district with remarkable in-
timacy.

Born April 23, 1877, he attended only local schools, which in those days of-
fered merely grammar grades. Early in life he developed an interest in nature,
especially in botany. On occasional visits to Philadelphia he bought botanical
books. It was from these books and from the plants at hand that he obtained
his education in our science. Long winter evenings would be spent in study and
in work on his herbarium.

Mr. Brown’s business, that of gardener and florist, was congenial to this inter-
est. In later life he worked in other and less attractive pursuits, but during this
past year he was appointed Curator of the newly formed Cape May Geographic
Society. His friends were hoping that this would develop into a worthy outlet
for his talents.

Mr. Brown’s association with the botanists of the Academy of Natural Sci-
ences of Philadelphia dates from the first decade of this century, the period when
Stewardson Brown, Samuel 8S. Van Pelt, Charles S. Williamson, Bayard Long,

and especially Witmer Stone, made trip after trip to the Pine Barrens and coastal
portions of southern New Jersey. When Cape May County was visited, the trips
were often under the guidance of Otway Brown. On October 22, 1908 he was
made a Corresponding Member of the Philadelphia Botanical Club, and early
numbers of Bartonia contain many references to significant collections by him.
In the “ Plants of Southern New Jersey ”, published in 1911, Dr. Stone expresses
his indebtedness to Brown, and states that the latter’s herbarium then included
some 2,500 specimens from Cape May County.

At Cape May there lived also H. Walker Hand, an enthusiastic observer and
collector of birds, and with this older man Brown was happily associated for
many years. The younger man had a wider interest, for we find him collecting
both plants and animals, even gathering cold-blooded vertebrates for Mr. H. W.
Fowler of the Philadelphia Academy. (One of these, a beautiful little fish named
Antigonia otwayi by Fowler, perpetuates Otway Brown’s name in science.)
Above all, both Hand and Brown were most hospitable to visiting naturalists,
and many such made the home of Mr. and Mrs. Brown their basis for scientific
werk in the Cape May peninsula.

80

OTWAY H. BROWN 81

To none was Otway Brown’s hospitality and the practical aid of his car given
more freely than to Witmer Stone, who for many years spent his summers and
later his entire years at Cape May. Both men were naturalists in a broad sense.
They were together for fourteen Christmas seasons, and then cooperated in each
Christmas bird census. Both had herbaria, and both were keenly alert to prob-
lems of local distribution of plants and animals. Brown’s zeal turned to the
preparation of a detailed catalogue that he entitled “ Plants of Cape May County,
New Jersey, collected from 1893 to 1931”, though one suspects that the closing
date should be moved forward to 1946. For each entity it gives habitat, local
occurrence, and flowering season. Just before his death this catalogue was
brought to Philadelphia, and a special committee of the Philadelphia Botanical
Club is considering the possibility of its publication.

Mr. Brown’s herbarium grew not only by his own local collecting but also by
exchange with many correspondents over the World. His local finds were at all
times generously shared with the Local Herbarium of the Academy of Natural
Sciences, but the more distant and foreign acquisitions must contain many col-
lections, and even species, not represented at that institution. Because of the
wealth of both series we deeply appreciate Mrs. Brown’s willingness to have this
considerable herbarium come to our Academy.

Cape May has been fortunate in having so keen and generous-spirited a stu-
dent of its flora and fauna. Otway Brown will be widely and deeply missed.

Program of Meetings during 1945 |

Date Subject Speaker Attendance
Jan. 25 Rambling in the Colorado Rockies ........... Raymond Gregg 28
Feb. 22 Flowers of northern British Columbia ........ Mrs. J. Norman Henry 31
Mar. 22 Toadstools to Orchids Richard B. Chillas 24
Apr. 26 The Genus Pedicularis—American species ..... Francis W. Pennell

—Chinese species ...... ui-Lin Li 32
May 24 Polemoniaceae Edgar T. Wherry 50
Sept.27 Plants of the Central Colorado Rockies ...... John Austin Jump 27

Oct. 25 sabcsal Pag ed in Chinese Botanical Re-

- Hui-Lin Li
Orchids ak others Flowers in my Chinese

Garden William W. Cadbury 32

Nov.29 Moss Collecting in Sullivan County, Pennsyl-

ania Leslie D. Stair

A Method for preserving Natural Color of
owering Specimens G. R. Fessenden 35

Dec. 20 Twenty-five Years of Botanizing throughout
the United States Edgar T. Wherry 25

List of Officers and Members, 1945
Francis W. Penney, President
Mrs. J. Norman Henry, Vice-President
Watter M. Benner, Secretary
Lee Sowpen, Treasurer
Bayarp Lone, Curator
Francis W. PENNELL, Editor of BARTONIA

ACTIVE MEMBERS

ACTIVE MEMBERS
(as of December 1, 1946)

d::W. Apams, 32 Pleasant St. Philadelphia 10; Peed 2) « ccend casts Spi aucag cede vk

Water AInswortH, 3202 Hamilton St., Philadelphia 4, Pa.

D. Curry ArMstTRONG, 124 Bridge St., Morton, Pa. .........0.cecececeecscececenees

Elected

Mrs. A. C. Barnes, Latch’s Lane, Meriies Pa.
Epwin B. Barrram, Bushkill, Pa

J. Russet Bester, 135 E. Phil Ellena St., Philadelphia 19, Pa.

Mrs. Louis P. Bett (Lfonre Hacerry), 6612 Germantown Ave., Philadelphia 19, Pa. ...

ALTER M. Benner, 5636 Loretta Ave., Philadelphia 24, Pa
Jasper T. Bentiey, 7334 Rural Lane, Philadelphia 19, Pa.

Dr. Davm BerKHerMer, 518 Elm St., —- Pa.

Cart E. Briss, 76 N. Grove St., East Aur

Wer ie
Miss Rutu Boyer, Academy of Natural Sens Philadelphia 8, Pas... 6.000... <0.

Joun Bricut, 511 Cheltena Ave., Jenkinto

os cee

» rh
Miss Eruen Brusaker, “ The Fairfax, ” 43rd bi Lonust Sts., Philadelphia 4, Pa. ......

-+s 1080

ILLIAM C. BRUMBACH, Esterly,

Miss Mariz Cumuas, 233 Winona fer Philadelphia 44, Pa.
Ricuarp B. Cumras, 233 Winona Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pa.

Pror. M. A. Curyster, Chaplin, Conn

F. Van Buren Connett, “ Holtyhrook "; ”, Brookside Ave., Wayne, Pa.

J.S. Coryeiz, School of Horticulture, Ania

W. L. Drx, 801 Crown St., Morrisville, Pa

D. E. Drunicx, 183 State St., East Stroudsburg

T. Dretspacn, 301 ain St., Midland, "Mich
32

p
Mrs. Haroip Evans, “ Awbury ”, E. Washington Lane, Philadelphia 38, Pa. .....-..

<< 11

Ricwarp Brossom Farry, “ Sarobia ”, Eddington, Pa.

193
G. R. Fessenpen, Wyeth Institute of Biochemistry, 900 N. Broad St., Philadelphia 30, Pa. 1945
1946

Miss Exizasern H. Fiavevt, 142 W. Chelten Ave., Philadelphia 44,

Dr. JoHn M. Foca, Jr., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 4, Pa.

Farman R. Furness, Media, Pa.
Miss ETH A. Gest, R. D. 1, Telford, Pa.
Joun Gru, 2 Linden Ave. Haddonfield, N. J.

Mrs. Joun Grptn, Sugar Loaf Orchard, Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia 18. Pa. ......
Dr. THomas S. Grrnens, Cambridge Apartments, School Lane and Wissahickon Ave.,
Philadelphia 44, Pa. ;

Dr. Roser: B. Gorpon, 415 Sharpless St., West Chester, Pa.

Dr. H. K. Grorr, 18 §. Duke St., Lancaster, Pa.

Dr. Asorz age P. Haas, Philadeiphia Pott wos of Pharmacy and Science, Jeeta 4,

tee E. Hanp, 8061 Fairview St., Philadelphia 36, Pa.

eee
Miss ANN Harsison, “The Barclay,” 18th St. and Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia ‘ail

3, Pa.

84 BARTONIA

Arruur M. Henry, 416 New Post Office, Atlanta, Ga. 1927
Howarp K. Henry, 1464 Drayton Lane, Philadelphia 31, Pa. ..........---+- esse eee eeeee 1932
Mrs. J. Norman Henry, Gladwyne, Pa. 1932
Miss JosePHINE DE N. Henry, Gladwyne, Pa ... 1938
Miss L. K. Herrina, 444 Queen Lane, Philadelphia 44, Pa. .............0- eee eeeeees 1942
Lee P. Hynzs, 36 West End Ave., Haddonfield, N. J. 1.2.2... eceeee cee e sence rere ecees 1939
Miss Nancy E. James, 4043 Daltimore Ave, Philadwinbia: 4, Pas oven c ec ce ccc ces cesses 1942
Cuarues F. Jenxins, Kitchens Lane, Philadelphia Ps i a SWS 1934
Pror. Marion A. Jounson, Dept. of Botany, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N. J. . 1946
Miss Nata B. Krmper, 538 E. Locust Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pa. ............++.20005 1928
Rey. Wr1am U. Kistter, 118 Main St., Pennsburg, Pa. .¢. 15
Cuartes E. Knorr, 7161 Georgian Road, Philadelphia 38, Pa. ..+ 1931
Dr. Henry A. Lagssiz, 5900 Market St., Philadelphia 39, Pa. ............:0eeeeeeeeee 1894
Mars. Ipa K. Lanoman, 2316 Delancy Place, Philadelphia 3, Pa. ...........2-.0+eeeeeee 1937
Morris E. Leeps, 1025 Westview St., Philadelphia 19, Pa. ...............-0.00. 000 Founder
Dr. Harry A. Lioyp, 200 N. 35th St., Philadelphia 4, Pa. oe
Bayarp Lona, 250 Ashbourne Road, Elkins Park, Philadelphia 17, Pa. ............+-++ 1906
Joun R. McIntosu, 304 Winona Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pa. ..............00 cee e eee eens 1945
Miss Mari A. Meatey, 1126 W. Fourth St., Wilmington, Del. ................---200 00 1946
Epwin T. Movt, Pepe of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 4, Pa. ..... 1945
Mas. Georce B. One, “Orchard Way ”, Berwyn, Pa. .........ccccecccccnceccsenececes 1935
Miss ExizasetH G. OstHEIMER, Jenkintown Pa. bay dic BON 1933
Dr. Samuet C, Patmer, 26th and Chestnut Sts., Chester, Passi. As obi e es 0 eds 1929
Dr. Rut Parrick, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 3, Pa. .............--++: 1937
Dr. Francis W. Pennett, Moylan, Pa. ~é. 1916

Mins.. Viona.T..Pisttcis,; Became; Pas. 6 is soe A ee ee 944
Ricuarp W. Pout, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 4, Pa. .... 1940
Haroitp W. Pretz, 123 S. 17th St., Allentown, Pa. ..-. 1909

Gerorce R. Procror, Old Mill Road, Greenville, Del. ............ccceeeecccceeseeeueeees 1944
Miss Heten Ramsay, 1328 Jerome St., Philadelphia 40, Pa. ..............ececeeeeeeeees 1945
Mrs. Kart Rucart, 612 Bryn Mawr Ave., Penn Valley, Narberth, Pa. ...........-.--++ 1942
Rosert L. Scuazrrer, Jr., 32 N. 8th St., Allentown, Pa. . ++. 1938

Dr. J. R. ScoramM, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 4, Patz . 1937
Henry Sxinner, Morris Arboretum, Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia 18, Pa. AA is CEE 1942
Lue Sowpen, 3823 Oak Road, Philadelphia 29, Pa. .........0..ceccceseucceeseceeeeere 1901
Leste D. Sram, 141 Fern Ave., Collingswood 1944
Dr. Watter Sreckseck, Dept of Botany, University Fr Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 4, Be 1925
Dr. C. I. Srrreter, 507 Welsh St., Chester, Pa. 1945

eneeerrre

Huox E. Stone, 431 Berkley Road, Haverford, Pa. .........sccecceesccecceeecceneceets 1892
Dr. Rosert R. Tarnatt, 1100 W. Tenth St., Wilmington, Del. ..........00e20eeeee eee 1928
Horace E. Tuompson, 5016 Schuyler St., Philadelphia 44, Pa. ... 1920
Wo. Tuompson, Jr., Leroy Court Apts. # 403, 1700 S. 60th St., Philadelphia 42, Pac ...- 1936
R. J. Trruerrneton, 6317 N. Norwood St., Philadelphia 38, Pa. .......2+-cee0eeeeeeee 1942
Harry W. Truvett, 303 Highland Ave., Abington, Pa. .......0...00ecceeecceeceeeeees 1915
Dr. Paut R. Wacner, Ursinus College, Colléeevills. yer yeep ane gue rer ere 1935
Warren H. Wacner, 7708 N.W. Morningside Drive, Washington, D. C. .........-+++- 1942
E. Paror Watxker, 511 Lynmere Road, Bryn Mawr, Pa. .........e.cecceceeseceeeeeeeees 1939
Mrs. Marcuertre L. Warn ke, 142 S. Logan Ave., ‘Audubon: Se eas Se ere ee 1935

Rossar F. Wetsu, 325 Chestnut St., Philadelphia 6, Pa. ..............-.secceeeeeeeees 1909
Dr. Encar T. Wuerry, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 4, Pa. 1925

ACTIVE MEMBERS 85

Hans Wrrzens, 424 S. 15th St., Reading, Pa. ....... lpubetagas bie don 1928
Wuttam H., Wirtz, Riegelsville, Pa., R. D. 1898
Carrot, E. Woon, Jr., 434 High St., Salem, WG. oven ea eh Se Nt on Re 1942
Howarp Woop, Jr., “ pea! ae = D. 1, Conshohocken, Pa. 1944
Miss Mary F. Wricut, 231 Winona Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pa. .. 1928
HONORARY MEMBERS
Cuartes M. B. Capwataper, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 3, Pa. ........ 1944
Dr. Joszrx §. Irricx, State College of Forestry, Syracuse, N. Y. 1925
Dr. Epwarp E. WitpMaAn, 4331 Osage Ave., Philadelphia 4, Pa. ........ 1931

CORRESPONDING MEMBERS

Dr. Joun H. Barnuart, New York Botanical Garden, New York, N. Y. 1936

. L. Fernawp, Gray Herbarium, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. ......... 1929
Dr. Hur-Lin Li, Soochow University, Soochow, Kiangsu, China 1944
Dr. Ecmer D. Meramt, Arnold Arboretum, Jamaica Plain 30, Mass. 1945
Dr. Harorp Sr. Joun, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, T. H. 1927
Dr. Wri11AM RanborPH TAaYLor, een # of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. ............ 1921
Dr. Campsett E. Waters, Chevy Chase, Washington, D. C. 1904
Dr. Heser W. YouNGKEN, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy, Peto, BEAM, 26s tess 1918

RECENTLY DECEASED MEMBERS

Orway H. Brown, Corresponding Oct. 31, 1946
F. F. Huser, Active Nov. 28, 1946
Pror. W. A. Kung, Active Nov. 20, 1946

Index to Species

(Names of new entities in beld-face type; of synonyms in italic type.)

Acacia brachyloba, 65; cooleyi, 50

Acerates ivesii, ; lanceolata, 50; mono-
cephala, 50; nuttalliana, 50; obovata, 50;
viridi flora,

Achillea borealis, 20; a 20

Achyranthes vermiculari

Adicea (“Adesia”’) vias 51

Aegilops triuncialis, 23

Aesculus macrostachya (“monostachya”),
51; parviflora, 51

Agrostis alaskana, 14; longifolia, 51; peren-

nans,
Alectorolophus arcticus, 19; borealis, 19
Allionia multiflora, 51

Alnus crispa sinuata, 16; rubra, 16
Alopecurus aequalis, 14; rendlei, 24; utricu-

Alsine longifolia, 65
Amaryllis atamasco, 51

73
Ammophila shoe dna 24
eata, 68; monoica, 68;

3

margaritacea occidentalis, 20
Andrewsia paniculata, 52
Antennaria margaritacea, 20
ium, 51; triornithophorum

(“ trianthophorum”), 51
Anychia argyrocoma, 70; hernarioides, 70
Anychiastrum hernarioides, 70

yemale, 56
Aplopappus spinulosus, 74
Aquilegia formosa, 16
Arabis hastata, 28, 51-52; hirsuta eschscholt-

ziana, 17; laevigata, 51; lyrata, 73

Arbutus filiformis, 60; thymifolius, 60
Ardisia escallonioides, 68
Arenaria peploides, 16
Arethusa plicata, 61; reflexa, 61
Armoracia aquatica, 56; lyrata, 78
Arnica latifolia, 20

Arrhenatherum elatius biaristatus, 24
Artemisia absinthium (“absynthium”), 52;
— siana (“douglassii”), 52; ‘ludovi-

a, 52

Leow adie, 52; walteri, 52

Aruncus sylvester,

Arundinaria japonica, 2

Arundo canadensis, 52; ert! (“ cono-
ides”), 52; coarctata, 53; strict

Asclepias lanceolata, 50; heosorent 50; obo-

, 50; viridiflora, 50

Aspidium atomarium, 49; bulbiferum, 49;
obtusum, 49, 50; ate" era 49; puncti-
lobum, 49; pork, m, 49; tenu.

Aster foliaceus, 20; and nus, 20

Astragalus lotiflorus, 67; triphyllus, 67
thyrium atomarium, 49; bulbiferum, 49;
filix-femina cyclosorum, 14; punctilobum, 49;

Atriplex gmelini, 16

Bacopa monnieri, 62
Baptisia australis, 52; coerulea, 52
Barkhausia (“ Borkh erie”) grandiflora, 53
Bartonia nuda, 75; ornata, 75; paniculata, 52;
tenella, 52
Batophaca lotiflora, 67
Besseya bullii, = 61
Bignonia crucigera (“crucifera”), 5
Blephilia beckii, 6; ciliata, 65, 66; ea. 65
ea ichnumonea, 61; membranacea, 61;
procera, 61
Bouteloua curtipendula, 55
Brachylobus amphibius, 79; anceps, 79;
armoracoides, 79; austriacus, 79; brevisty-
on 79; hybridus, 79; palustris, 79; pyre-
us, 79; riparius, 79; sylvestris, 79
beaker sarothrae
Bradburya virginiana, 77
unias edentula (! ‘leueie”), 53

Cakile edentula, 53; e. californica, 17; mari-

tima,
Caladium glaucum, 28, 53

86

EER ey eae eat

INDEX TO SPECIES 87

Calamagrostis canadensis, 52; c. langsdorffi,
14; 6 ae et “a6 ; coarctata, 53; langs-
dorffi, 14; neglec

Caltha palustris caera 16

Calystegia catesbeiana,

Campanula amplexicaulis, 74

Capsella bursa-pastoris, 17

Carduus foliosus, 55; pitcheri, 55;
folius, 56; undulatus, 56

—y

remoti-

Carex brunnescens, 15; canescens, 15; capil-
laris, 15; carltonia (“carltoniana”), 53;
concolor, 54; decidua, 15; deweyana

(“deweyi”), 53; festiva pachystachya, 15;
flava, 15; garberi bifaria, 15; gmelini, 15;
halseyana (“halseyi”), 53; heleonastes, 53;
hindsii, 15; hitchcockiana (« hitchcocku”’),
$3: Sieshae: stygia, 15; macloviana pachy-
stachya, 15; macrocephala’ anthericoides,
15; mertensii, a? ; oederi viridula, 15;
okesiana = (“oa “ okesti™), TA;
oligosperma, “ae phptidatshics. 15; physo-

polymorpha, —

Ww
washingtonia”), 54
ta, 54, 63; squamosa, 54
Cassiope stleriana 18
Castilleja miniata, 19; unalaschoensis, 19
Caulinia pees lis, 60
Centaurella autumnalis, 52; paniculata, 52
Centrosema plumieri, 77; virginiana,
Cerastium caespitosum, 16; dichotomum, 54
Cerasus cerasus, 54; emarginata, 69; littor-
lis, 54; ellata, 54
Chaerophyllum claytoni, 66; procumbens, 76
Cheirinia cheiranthoides, 73
Chiogenes hispidula, 60
Chironia stellata C. stellaris”), 54; venosa, 55
Chloris secundus, 5
Chrysocoma ens
Chrysocoptis (“ cece oe
rysoma pauciflosculosa, 55; a ass
Chrysosplenium tetrandrum,
Cimicifuga americana, 64; cordifolia, 64;
elata, 64; foetida, 64; palmata, 65; podo-
carpa, 65; racemosa, 65; serpentaria, 65
innamomum camphora,
Circaea alpina, 18
Cirsium pitcheri, 55; undulatum, 56
Citrus limetta (“Jimella”), 55
Claytonia caroliniana, 55; spatulata, 55

Clematis heragona, 55; b igegie. 55; vir-
giniana (“virginica”), 5

Cleome erosa

Clintonia borealis, 56; umbellulata, 56

Clitoria mariana, 77; plumieri, 77; virginiana,
77

Cnicus foliosus, 55; pitcheri, 55; remotifolius,
55; undulatus, 56

Cochlearia aquatica, 56; groenlandica (“green-

56; officinalis, 56; 0. oblongi-

Coelopleurum gmelini, 18

Conioselinum gmelini, 18

Convallaria umbellata, 56; umbellulata, 56

Convolvulus catesbeianus (“ catesbyanus”), 56

Coptis asplenifolia, 16; groenlandica, 62;
trifolia, 16,

Corallorrhiza hyemalis, 56; mertensiana, 16

Cornucopia perennans, 75

Cornus canadensis, 18

Coronilla emerus (“ omerus”), 56

Corydalis rosea, 56; sempervirens, 56

Corynephorus canescens,

Crataegus flexuosa, 56-57; platycarpa, 56

Cristatella erosa, 55; jamesii, 5

Crotalaria flexuosa, 56; sig sak aoe 56; sagit-
talis,

Cryptotaenia canadensis, 76

Cubelium concolor,

Cucubalus dimobeeils. 57; niveus (“nivens”),
57

56;

Cymbidium antenniferum, 61; hyemale,
1

us, 57; caespitosus, 57;
diandrus, 57; dubius, 57; filicinus, 57; fili-
culmis macilentus, 57; ‘Milacsendes, 57;
nuttallii, 57

Cystopteris bulbifera, 49; fragilis, 14, 49;
ti

Dactylis glomerata, 64

Dendrium buxifolium, 64
Dendrobium grandiflorum, 61
Dennstaedtia punctilobula, 49

88

Descurainia richardii, 74

Desmanthus branchylobus, 65; cooleyi, 46, 50;
illinoensis, 65; jamesii,

Desmodium canescens, 62

Deweya canadensis,

Digitaria vulgaris, 61

Dioscorea glauca, 58

Dodecatheon frigidum, 21; meadia pauci-
florum, 21; pauciflorum, 21; superbum, 18,

Dolichos phaseolus, 58

Donia pubescens, 58

Draba borealis, 58: incana, 58; unalaschkiana
(“unalaschiana”), 58

Drosera rotundifolia, 17

Dryopteris austriaca, 14; linneana, 14; spinu-
losa, 14

Eatonia, 58

ksieet horridum, 11, 12, 18

Eleocharis calva, 72; parvula, 72; tenuis, 72
Elodea canadensis, 73

Elymus arenarius ‘welt 14; hirsutus, 15

Em c
Epidendrum antenniferum, 61; grandiflorum,

6
Epilobium angustifolium, 18;

behringianum,
me : Tog ay

, 18; hornemanni, 18; lati-
Perse ec 61
isetum arvense, 14; variegatum alaskanum,

Eragrostis cilianensis, 69

Erigenia bulbosa, oe

Erigeron salsugino.

Eriophorum eS scabriusculum, 15;
scheuchzeri, 15; vaginatum (“virginatum”),
58; virginicum, 6

Erysimum amphibium, 59; ee 73°

eri, 59
Esula corollata, 59; lathyrus, 59; mercurialina,

Euosmus 63
Eupatorium altissimum, 59; fistulosum, 60;

BARTONIA

Fedia coerulea, 60, 76

Festuca obt 69; rubra, 15; sciwrea, 22

Fimbristylis puberulus, 72

Fluvialis fragilis, 60

Fragaria chiloensis, 17

Fuirena scirpoidea, 76;
mosa”), 60

squarrosa (“ squa-

Galactia villosa, 60

Galardia fimbriata, 64

Galega paucifolia, 60

Gastronychia hernarioides, 70

Gaultheria hispidula, 60; serpillifolia, 60

Geum calthifolium, 17; macrophyllum, 17

Glandularia bipinnatifida, 76

Glaux maritima, 18

Glechoma cordata, 61; hederacea, 61

Glehnia leiocarpa, 18

Glyceria borealis, 22; pauciflora,

eine frutescens, 68;. helvola ie helvata”’),
61; tomentosa volubilis, 67

Coobiiann brasiliensis, 51; vermicularis, 51

Gordonia alatamaha, 61; franklinia, 61; frank-
linit, 61

Gratiole monnieri, 62; neglecta, 61; pubescens,
61

Grindelia inuloides, 58; pubescens, 58
Gutierrezia euthamiae, 53; sarothrae, 53
Gymnandra bullii, 61

Habenaria dilatata, 16; flava, 61; foliosa, 61;
fuscescens, 61; humilis, 61; asobaaley 16s
japonica, 61; koenigii, 61; auxti,
psychodes, 61; quinqueseta, ‘Sle PSS 62

Haplopappus spinulosus, 74

Haynaldia villosa, 23

Hedysarum aikinii, 62; viridiflorum, 62

Helenium vernale, 64

Helianthus ballii, 47, 62; decapetalus, 62

Helleborus trifolius Sag inifoliatus "), Oe

8
Hoffmannia chawaia. 61; verticillata, 61
Holcus mollis, 24
Honckenya peploides major, 16

INDEX TO SPECIES

Hordeum brachyantherum, 15; gussoneanum,
23; jubatum, 15; murinum, 23: pusillum, 23
Hosackia americana, 76

Hydrocharis cordifolie, 62; spongia (“ spon-
iosa”), 62
serereisie bulbosa, 62
um cooleyanum, 29
H ache obtusa, 49
Hypopithys americana, 66; lanuginosa, 66
Tlex canadensis, 58; cassine, 63; dahoon
(“dakoon”), 63
Illecebrum vermiculatum, 51
Ionidium concolor, 63
Iris setosa, 16
snardia ascendens, 63

Juglans compressa, 54; squamosa (“ squar-
rosa”), 54, 63

Juncoides ainda estre sudeticum, 15

Juncus alpinus nodulosus, 15; bufonius, 15;
alcatus alaskensis, 15; f, sitchensis, 15;

mertensianus, 15; triglumis, 15

Krigia griffithti, 63; lyrata, 63

Lathyrus albidus, 63; maritimus, 17; ochro-
leucus, 63; palustris, 17, 63; s eudeosas , 63

Laurus albida, 63; camphora (“ camphors
ata”), 63 :

Lavandula spica (“spicata”), 64; vera, 64

Ledum thymifolium, 64

Leiophyllum buxifolium, 64; thymifolium, 64

is, 62

2-4, 6, 8; m, 7; , 7;
i 3, 6, 8; michiganense, 4, 6, 7, 8;
m. umbelliferum, 8; m. uniflorum, 8;
tanum, 7; p. enum, 8; phi
5, 6 (with forma masseyi, 7); p. andinum,
5, 7 (with formas mon-
; DP. montanum, 7

; p. pulchrum, 7;
superbum, 3, 6, 7, 8; s. carolinianum, 8

Limnetis glomerata, 64

Lindernia dubia major, 62

Listera caurina, 16; cordata nephrophylla, 16

Lonicera hirsuta, 34, 64; pubescens, 34; villosa
solonis, 46, 77
otus sericeus, 76

Lupinus nootkatensis, 17; n. unalaskensis, 17;
polyphyllus, 17

Luzula multiflora, 15; parviflora divaricata, 15

L ium annotinum, 14; L. a. pungens, 14;
selago (“celago ~ a
Lysichiton ameri

Lysimachia a adieent Ns thyrsifolia”), 64

Macrotys cordifolia, 64; foetida, 64; palmata,
64; podocarpa, 65; racemosa, 65; serpen-
taria, 65

Majanthemum dilatatum, 15

Melia triflora, ef
Melica triflora, 6
Mentzelia ele 75; nuda, 75; ornata, 75

Micr um, 65; longifolium, 65
Microstylis sehitadaasiided 65
Milium racemosum

Mimosa brachyloba, 65; sensitiva, 72

a,
Monarda beckii, 65; ciliata, 66; pilosa, 66
Moneses uniflora ra, 18
Monniera brownei, 62
eae sirette: 66; hypopithys, 66; pro-

Mo saaties esculentus, 29; impudicus, 29
Myrica gale tomentosa, 16
Myriophyllum spicatum, 18

Myrrhis claytoni, 66; dulcis, 66

Najas guadalupensis, 60; a 60
Nasturti

palustri
Naumbergia thyrsifiora, 64
Ni fascicularis, 58; mucronatus, 58
Neobeckia aquatica, 56

90 BARTONIA

Nepeta glechoma, 61
canta punctilobulum, 49; rufidulum, 49;

pairs A 16

Nuttallia decapetala, 75; nuda, 75

Nymphaea ape 16

Nyssa — ; sylvatica biflora, 66; tri-
flora, 66

Oenanthe longifolia,

Oenothera longiflora . longifolia”), 66

Orchis foliosa, 61; fuscescens, 61; humilis, 51;
ichnumonea, 61; japonica, 61; koenigit, 61;

procera, 61; psychodes,

eta,
Orophaca caespitosa, 67
Oryzopsis melanocarpa, 69; racemosa, 68
Osmorrhiza claytoni, 66; purpurea, 18
Oxybaphus multiflorus, 51
coccus hispidulus, 60; microcarpus, 18
Oxypolis rigidior, 66

Panicum acroanthum, 25; angustifolium, 66;
ashei, 67; barbatum, 67; dichotomum, 66;
latifolium, 67; macrocarpon, 67; mattamus-
keetense, 67; nitidum barbatum, 67; wm-
brosum, 67

Parnassia palustris, 17

Paronychia argyrocoma, 70; SoreRaIE 70;
sessiliflora

Paspalum pubidorun glabrum, 25

Pedicularis parviflora, 19; p. wlassowiana, 19

— glauca, 28, 53; virginica, 52;

Draken —— 57

Petasites hyperboreus

Phaca caespitosa, 67: aati (“latiflora”’),
67 ; triphylla, 67

Phiseoins caribaeus, 67 ; di , 67; erectus,

ifformis,
A frutescens, 67; helvolus, 61; latifolius,
; menispermoideus, 68; monoicus, 68;

aber 68; reniformis, 68; sarmentosus,
68; vulgaris, 58

Phegopteris dryopteris, 14

Phellopterus littoralis, 18

Philotria’ canadensis, 73

um americanum, 15
Phlox carolina, 68; revoluta, 68; triflora, 68
Pholiurus incurvus,
Picea kee. 1 ll, 14

Pickeringia (“ Pickeringa”) paniculata, 68

Pilea pumila, 51

Pinguicula vulgaris, 19

Piptatherium nigrum, 69; racemosum, 68

Plantago juncoides, 19; macrocarpa, 19;
major, 19; minima, 19

— ar 16; stricta, 16

ia maritima, 19

pea he annua, 15; eminens, 15; festucoides, 69;
glumaris, 15; obtusa, 69; es 69;
seslerioides,

Podalyria caerulea, 52

Polemonium acutiflor 18

Polygala viridescens, 69; viridi-alba, 69

Polygonum amphibium natans, 69; a. stipu-
laceum, 46, 69; fluitans, 69; natans, 28, 69;
virginianum (“virginicum”), 69; viviparum,
16

Polypodium vulgare occidentale, 14

Populus tacamahacca, 1

Potamogeton natans, 42; perfoliatus. richard-
soni, 14; pusillus, 14

Potentilla anserina, 17; pacifica, 17; palustris,
17

Prenanthes alata, 20; lessingii, 20; miamten-

sis, 34; a, 34; parviflora, 34; proteo-
phylla, 34

Prunus cerasus, 54; emarginata, 69; littoralis,
54; maritima, 54; sphaerocarpa, 54; umbel-
lata, 54

Pseudosasa japonica, 22

Pterospora andromedea, 66

Ptilimnium capillaceum, 73; costatum, 73

Puccinellia maritima, 15; nutkaensis, 1

Pyrola asarifolia incarnata, 18; minor, 18;

18

secunda,
Pyrrhopappus grandiflorus, 53; scaposus, 53

Quamoclidion multiflorum, 51
ueria argyyrocoma, 70; hernarioides, 70;
sessiliflora, 70

1
delphinifolius, 70; intermedius, 70; lacustris,
70; micranthus, 7 sonii, 16; nitidus,
70; recurvatus, nn; repens, 70; reptans, 17;
saniculaeformis, 71; septentrionalis pacificus,
17; trichophyllus, 17
micrantha, 71

INDEX TO SPECIES 91

Rhinanthus sees, 13, 19; borealis, 19;
crista-galli, 19; groenlandicus, 19

Rhynchosia difformis, 67; erecta, 67 ; latifolia,

reni-

Rhynchospora cymosa, 71; globularis recog-
nita, 71; glomerata, 71; rariflora (“vari-
71

Rorippa americana, 56; amphibia, 59; anceps,
78; aquatica, 46, 56; astylis, 78; capillipes,
78; danubialis, 78; erythrocaulis, 78; hay-
naldiana, 78; hungarica, 78; hybri ida, 78;

palustris, 17, 59; permixta, 79; pinnatifida,
79; prolifera, 79; quadrivalvis, 79; reichen-
bachil, 79; repens, 79; silvestris, 79; sonderi,
79; stenophylla, 79; subamphibia, 79;
sabslobons, 79; sylvestris, 59; thracica, 79;
turczaninowii, 79; walteri,

Rosa rubifolia (“sabifolia”), 71; setigera, 71

Rotala ramosior,

Rubus nutkanus, 17; parviflorus, 17; pedatus,
17; spectabilis, 12. 17, stellatus, 17

Rina acetosella, 16; domestica, 16; hastatu-
lus, 28, 71

Sabatia lanceolata, 55; stellaris, 54

Sagina crassicaulis, 16; virginica, 52

Salix cordifolia callicarpaea, 71; lasiandra
lancifolia, 16; obovata, 28, 71; sitchensis, 15

Sambucus racemosa pubens, ate

Sanguisorba Jatifolia, 17, 71;
(“ medica”), 71; sitchensis, we stipulata,
17, 71

heterophylla, 42, 72; purpurea
i ve

. 45

Scandix dulcis, 66; procumbens, 76

Schizaea pusilla, 50; tortuosa, 50

Schoenus cymosus, 71; rariflorus, 71

Schrankia sensitiva, 72

Scirpus caespitosus austriacus, 15; depilatus,
72; ferrugineus, 72; glaucus, 72; gracilis,
72; puberulus, 72

Scleria reticularis (“reticulata”), 72

Scutellaria cordifolia, 72, 73; laevigata, 73;
serrata, 73; versicolor, 73

Sedum nuttallianum (“nuttallii”), 73; tor-
reyi,

Selinum acaule, 74; gmelini, 18

Senecio pseudoarnica, 20; triangularis, 20

Serapias reflexa, 61

Serpicula canadensis, 73

Setaria faberii, 25

Sideranthus spinulosus, 74

Silene acaulis, 13, 16; olbe, 57; baldwinii, 58;
douglasii, 57; nivea, 57

Sinapis arvensis, 17

Sison canadense, 76; costatus, 73; majus, 73;

icaule, 73
Sisymbrium amphibium, 59; a, palustre, 59;
brachycarpon, 74; cheiranthoides, 73; humile,

74; nasturtium-aquaticum, 59; vulgare, 59;
walteri, 59
isyrinchium a 74; humile, 74

Sium longifolium, 66

Smilax cercidifolia (“ cincidifolia”), 74

Solidago sarothrae, 53

Specularia amplexicaulis, 74; perfoliata, 74

Spergularia canadensis, 16

Sporobolus asper, 51

Starkea spinulosa, 74

Stellaria crispa, 16; humifusa, 16; longifolia,
65; sitchana bongardiana, 16

Streptanthus maculatus, 74; obtusifolius, 74;
ovalifolius, 74

Streptopus amplexifolius, 15

Strophostyles helvola, 61

Swertia perennis, 18

Synthyris bullit, 61

Taraxacum chamissonis, 20; latilobum, 20
Tephrosia paucifolia, 60; prostrata, 60 ; spicata,

Thapsia acaulis, 7

Tiarella trifoliata, 17

Tillaea aquatica, 74; ig Gi 74

Tillaeastrum

Tillandsia juncea, 74; ‘pinifolia (“ prinifolia”),
74

Tofieldia glutinosa, 15; occidentalis, 15
5

ria
Trichodium perenneum, 75
Trichophorum eriophorum, 76

92 BARTONIA

Tridens flava, 77

Trientalis europaea arctica.

Trifolium repens, 17; winlacdéecpie. 76
Triglochin maritimum, 14

Trigonella americana, 76; - 76
Triodia chapmani, 22;

Trisetum cernuum, 15; ak , 65
Tsuga auksordey 11, 14; soertensinse: 14
Tussilago frigida, 20

Uraspermum canadense, 76;
procumbens, 76
Urtica gracilis, 16

claytoni, 66;

Vaccinium hispidulum, 60-61; ovalifolium, 18;
parvifolium, 18; uliginosum, 18

Vaginaria scirpoides, 76

Vahlodea atropurpurea paramushirensis, 15

Valerianella coerulea, 60, 76; locusta, 60, 76
eratrum eschscholtzii, 15

“

Verbena bipinnatifida, 76

Veronica americana, 19

Vexillaria mariana, 77; plumieri, 77

Viburnum tinus (“ linus”), 77

Vicia hirsuta, 77; mitchelli, 77; mitchilla, 77

Viola adunca, 17; esipsls, 17; glabella, 17;
langsdorfhii, 17

Vulpia elliotea, 22

Windsoria seslerioides, 77
Wisteria frutescens, 67

Woodsia ilvensis, 49: obtusa, 49
Wulfenia bullii, 61

Xylosteum solonis, 32, 42, 77

Yucca aloifolia (“ alnifolia”), 77; draconis, 77

Zephyranthes atamasco, 51
Zizania aquatica naegac ay 24

JOURNAL OF THE
PHILADELPHIA BoTanicaL CLUB

Work and Publications of Henry Mublenberg, with Special Attention to Un-
Recorded Binomials
3 E. D. Menmun and Smxu-Yrxo Hu Ss

oo Heser ae For ©

recorded or I
Further Obearvations on castors Tixreliat ee fee Waerry 70

a :
2.

— : A journal devoted primarily to d-eastern and

on Pr $10.

ee

BartTonia No. 25

PLATE 1

6 CL. 1V. TETRANDRIA.
MONOGYNIA.
Cekzx. Corotia. Flabitat. Fructus, et
(Gatium) Tempus florendi.
alb. 4. aparine 9] oo oo Sieg fi. Maio.
alb. 5. cuspidatum Y _ spit-poin Pens. fl. Jul.
alb. pur. 6 Liaise cross-branched Pens. fl. Jun. Car.
purp. ¥ pilosum pi ae
(puncticulo- hairy ; sii eee bic
sum Mx. :
" 8. Bermudianum 2% Bermudian Pens. fl. Jun. Car.
yiolac. + 9. latifolium broad-leaved Car.
purp-
4dent. 4part. 93. Rubra MADDER semina 2, glabr.
1. Brownei Mx. Brown’s Car.
lut. 2. tinctoriaC. % = dyers’ Pens. fl. Jun.
4dent. 4 part. 94. mITCHELLA MITCHELLA bacca 2 partita 4 sper.
. - Pens. fl. Jun. Virg:
alb. repens kh (patridge berry) $ Cot Ni Eher
4fid. 4fid. 95. CALLICARPA ee bacc. globosa 4 sperm.
cer. -leaved ar. fl. Jun.—Sept-
purp. : esteidieinaiact: ee (Spanish ues Virg. Miss.
4ph. 4fid. 96. rporypremum POLYPREMUM caps. 2 loc. 2 valy.
alb. procumbens€) (Carolina flax) Virg. Car.
97. BARTONIA
4part. 4part. 5 (centaurella Mx.) : BARTONIA caps. | loc. : valy.
alb. 1. verna vernal Georg. - eee vere
alb. 2. paniculata late Pens. fl. Aug. Car
4fid 4 fid. 98. pLantaco PLANTAIN — fiat ae
alb. 1. major C. % great Pens. fi. Jun
alb. 2. media
.: cimanitolie § hoary-leayed Pens, fl. Jul
alb 3. Virginica © pa an ap Pens. fl. Jun.
4. lanceolata 2X rib Pens. fl. Maio, Car.
maritima 2 sea N. Caes.—N. Ang].
alb. 6. cordata 2
B. macrophyl- } heart-leaved Pens. Kent. fl. Jul. Jun.
1 2
7. aristata awny Illin.
8. sparsiflora :
aepesicl spreading Car. Georg.
Gd. 4:66.90. senvvuccros oo PIMPERNEL) fe - toc. circum-
‘ CHAFFWEED ssa.
alb. lanceolatus M.@ RE Car.
2ph. 4part. 100. sancursonpa BURNET SAXIFRAGE cups. 2 locul.
purp. 1. media = -Y___short-spiked fi. Jul. Sept.
alb. 2. Canadensis % _long-spiked Pens. fl. Aug.
4 part. 4pet. 101. pTELEA SHRUBBY TREFOIL samara alata
alb.

trifoliata om three-leaved

Ten.Georg.Car.fl.Jun

A typical page from edition one of Muhlenberg’s “ Catalogus ”, 1814

BARTONIA

JOURNAL OF THE PHILADELPHIA BOTANICAL
CLUB

No. 25 PHILADELPHIA, PA. 1949

Work and Publications of Henry Muhlenberg, with Special
Attention to Unrecorded or Incorrectly
Recorded Binomials

E. D. Merritt AND Suiu-yinc Hu

Henry Muhlenberg’s father Henry [Heinrich] Melchior Muhlenberg, D.D.,
was born at Einbeck, Hanover, September 6, 1711, and was educated at the Uni-
versities of Géttingen and Halle. Having been urged to accept an appointment
in the ministry of the Lutheran church in Philadelphia, he left Germany for
England in 1742, landed at Charleston, South Carolina, September 23, and arrived
in Philadelphia November 25 of that year. His remaining life was spent in the
service of the church, chiefly in Philadelphia, where he organized the first Lu-
theran synod in America in 1748, and eventually became known as the “ Patriarch _
of the Lutheran Church in America.” He died at Trappe, Pennsylvania, October
7, tet

Gotthilf Henry [Heinrich] Ernst Muhlenberg, his youngest son, was born at
New Providence, now Trappe, Pennsylvania, November 17, 1753. In the spring
of 1763 he accompanied his two older brothers to Halle, spending about seven

Stoever, M. L., Memoir of the Life and Times of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, D.D.,
Patriarch of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. i-xii. 13-120. portr. 1856. Philadelphia.
Lindsay and Blakiston. ge veg

_Mann, W. J., Life and Times of Henry Melchior Mithlenberg. 1-xvi. 1-547. portr. 1888.
Philadelphia. G. W. Frederick
he family name was originally Mihlenberg [Muehlenberg], but his father appar-
ently adopted the anglicized form Henry Melc ior Muhlenberg. At any rate the subject
of this sketch invariably used the anglicized form. His technical publications, other than
those published in Germany under the editorship of Willdenow, appeared under the name
Henry Muhlenberg, or some, with Latin titles, as “auctore Henrico ota eid all
i i en a

ing to _see Rei .
The Muhlenberg Family. A Bibliography Compiled from: the Subject Union Catalog
Americana-Germanica of the Carl Schurz Foundation. -43. 1943.

2 BARTONIA

years there in educational pursuits. Soon after his return to Philadelphia in
1770, he was ordained as a Lutheran preacher. The British occupation of that
city in 1777, during the troublesome times of the American Revolutionary War,
forced him to flee because of his active sympathy with the colonial cause, in his
own words, as reported by Maisch:* “‘In 1777 mussten wir abermals in die
Flucht,’ schreibt er; ‘ich selbst folgte meiner Familie am 22 September, und
konnte sie erst in Jahrzeit wieder zurucknehmen, nachdem die Englander im Juli
1778 die Stadt verlassen.’” Stoever states regarding this episode, and the be-
ginning of Muhlenberg’s interest in botany:

he had nearly fallen into hostile hands, through the snares of an innkeeper, who
had intentionally directed him to take the road by which the British were ap-
proaching. Warned, however, in season, by a Whig occupant of the house, he
succeeded in making his escape, and reached New Hanover in safety. Relieved
for a time from professional duties, he engaged with great zest in the study of
botany, and acquired that love for his favorite pursuit which afterwards so
strongly manifested itself. On the election of his brother* to a civil office, he
succeeded him as pastor. In the year 1780, he removed to Lancaster, where he

labored with great efficiency until his death, in 1815, holding a high rank as a

It has been claimed that Muhlenberg initiated his botanical studies while he
was a student in Germany, but as he was only seventeen years old when he
returned to Philadelphia, this seems to be unlikely, although he may well have
developed interest in the subject at that time. Stoever’s categorical statement
would seem to indicate that in botany he was self-trained, and that the beginning
of his intensive study of the subject coincided with the time he was a refugee
from Philadelphia, September, 1777 to July, 1778. Maisch states that his first
botanical explorations were initiated in 1780.

The episode of his flight from Philadelphia, to which he was not able to return
until after the city had been abandoned by the British troops in July, 1778, as
expressed by Maisch is:

“ Mithlenberg’s botanische Thatigkeit beginnt erst mit seiner Flucht von
Philadelphia, wo er in landlicher Zurickgezogenheit seine Aufmerksamkeit den
lieblichen Kindern Flora’s zuwenden konnte. Nach seiner Riickkehr nach Phila-

3 Maisch, J. M., Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Mithlenberg als Botaniker. Pharm. Rund-

schau 4: 119-129, 1886 (Reprint, p. 7). The reprint was actually published in New York.

_ * Peter Muhlenberg, 1746-1807. He served with distinction in the American Revo-

oe, Wat, attaining the rank of General, later serving as a member of the United
es Senate.

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 3

gamen allmalig angeregt. Sein Vater scheint weder als Forscher noch als Sammler
von Pflanzen thatig gewesen zu sein, obwohl er mit in Europa lebenden Natur-
forschern in brieflicher Verbindung stand.”

This Maisch paper naturally deals very largely with Muhlenberg’s botanical
interests and activities.5 In 1780 he accepted appointment as pastor of the
Lutheran church at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, spending the remaining 35 years of
his life there.

As soon as possible after the close of the Revolutionary War, Muhlenberg
commenced to correspond with various European botanists, sending them speci-
mens for identification and for verification, and exchanging duplicates for similar
foreign material. It was but natural that his first correspondents were the active
German botanists of the time, but he did not confine his correspondence to these.
Eventually he sent a few technical manuscripts to Willdenow for publication in
Germany, and also, from time to time, sent to him, and others, with specimens,
the descriptions of various species which he considered to be new; these were
published in such works as Willdenow’s edition of the “Species plantarum ”
(1797-1830), his “ Enumeratio plantarum horti regii botanici Berolinensis ”
(1809), and in Schkuhr’s “ Riedgraser ” (1801-06). Muhlenberg’s first European
botanical correspondent was J. D. C. Schreber, but the list was soon extended to
include Messrs. Acharius, Aiton, Batsch, Beauvois, Hedwig, Hoffmann, Persoon,
Schépf, Schkuhr, Schrader, Smith (Sir J. E.), Sprengel, Sturm, Swartz, Thebaud,
Turner, Willdenow, and doubtless others.

He also carried on an extensive correspondence with various Americans inter-
ested in botany, listing 31 individuals in 1813 and in 1818 to whom he was
indebted for specimens or seeds, these being Messrs. Baldwin, Barton, William
Bartram, Billy, Beck, Brickell, Cleaver, Collins, Cutler, Dallman, Denke, Eddy,
Elliott, Enslin, Green, Hamilton, Kampman, Kin, Kramsch, Lyon, McMahon,
Mease, Mitchell, Moore, P. E. Muhlenberg, Muller, Pursh, Rafinesque, Van der
~ Schott, Van Vleck, and Mrs. Gambold. He was closely associated with the vari-
ous botanists of the Philadelphia area throughout the period of his active interest
in botany. There are numerous references to some of these individuals in the
unpublished Muhlenberg letters * to Stephen Elliott, 1808-1815.

Mann states, regarding Muhlenberg’s botanical work:

“To his father such studies [as botany] may have appeared to be no more
than dilettantism, and he gives vent to his feelings in a letter of Apr. 3, 1780,
saying that he had learned that his son Henry had already no less than sixty

5 See also The Botanists of Philadelphia and Their sek 2s

¢

Harshberger, J. W.
pp. 93-97, portr. 1899, and also Wallace, P. A. W. Henry Ernest Muhlenberg. Proc. Am.
Philos, Soc. 92: 108-110. 1948; The Muhlenbergs and the Revolutionary Backgroun
26. 1949.

6 These letters are in the library of the Arnold Arboretum. They were found in a
partial preliminary draft of Elliott’s “Sketch of the Botany of South Caro
Georgi i

4 BARTONIA

catechumens under his care at Lancaster, and adding, ‘this is more fruitful and
: ; :

land on their return from South America and Mexico. Deputies from the em-
peror of Austria sent to this country paid him their respects and with attention
viewed his botanical and mineralogical collections. Many literary, philosophical,
and scientific associations were proud to count him among their members. The
University of Pennsylvania honored him with the degree of master of arts; the
College of New Jersey, at Princeton, with that of doctor of divinity.”

As an indication of the esteem in which Muhlenberg was held by the botanists
of his time in Philadelphia, the following passage is quoted from W. P. C. Bar-
ton’s “ Florae Philadelphicae prodromus ” vii, dated October 1, 1815:

_ “The author takes this opportunity of acknowledging the assistance he re-
ceived during his collections from the late Dr. Henry Muhlenberg... . The
pious, the learned Muhlenberg, is no more! With him has fallen one of the

largely to raise—the edifice of botanick science in America. His merits, though
chiefly confined to nomenclatural botany, were of the highest order. In giving

?
ready to assist the young botanist, and to banish from his sight, obstacles which
in his own progress he himself had overcome, it seems extraordinary that few,
if any, of the large number that have profited by his labours and been the objects
of his personal or epistolary instruction, should have acknowledged the extent
of his assistance! The friend, whose succor contributed to raise us to our desired
elevation, is often, when no longer useful, cast away! Dr. Muhlenberg enjoyed

More or less pertinent to this discussion is the following quotation from the
same author’s “‘ Compendium florae Philadelphicae,” 1: Preface [2], dated July
11, 1818:

_ 7 Professor Paul A. W. Wallace of Lebanon Valley College, to whom a copy of the
original manuscript of this paper was sent, calls attention to the fact that in trans-

endlich mehr Segen und Gnaden-Lohn, zu wege bringen, als alle noch verborgens
arianten oder Linaei Krauter Wissenschaft aus zu forschen.”

~

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG o

“All the plants described in this Flora, with the exception of about twenty
have been personally collected by the Author—and in all cases of doubt or diffi-
culty recourse has been had to the Herbarium of the late Dr. Muhlenberg, in the
American Philosophical Society, wher biel all that certainty has been attained
which a source so authentic could produc

“Tt is a matter of no little satietenten that I mention as the property of the
oe Philosophical Society, this valuable and authentic Herbarium consist-

g of Dr. Muhlenberg’s entire collection of American plants. The well-known
ineemapectiod and patience of that botanist, and the ee eed a time in whieh the
herbarium was arranged, add greatly to its value as author

“Tt is but due to those concerned, to remark, that at a eviod when this her-
barium was eagerly sought after, not only by persons in distant states, but
foreigners, it was proffered by the son of Dr. Muhlenberg, whose property it
became, to Mr. Collins, for the American Philosophical Society, at a price con-
siderably seach than might. otherwise have been obtained for it; and this gentle-

an, improving the occasion, promptly purchased it with a view to its ultimate
destination as : part of the museum of that institution to which it has since been
presented by Mr. Zaccheus Collins, Chief Justice Pes , Dr. Wist oe Dr.
Ja

[Chapman], and Dr. Dor

The above is the first el itialed statement that we have seen regarding the

acquisition of the Muhlenberg herbarium for the American Philosophical Society.

omewhat isolated as he was in the then small town of Lancaster, Pennsyl-
vania, Muhlenberg manifestly took very great pleasure in his extensive botanical
correspondence and in his pioneer botanical work. Because of the slowness in
transmission of letters and of parcels of plants, characteristic of the time, and
because of the unsettled conditions incident to the American Revolution and the
later War of 1812, he experienced exasperating delays, and one frequently notes
references to these in his letters; particularly in the slowness with which some
of his European correspondents responded; see p. 18.

Muhlenberg died in Lancaster, May 23, 1815, not June 24, 1817, as given by
Pritzel.8 We quote from a letter written by Zaccheus Collins to Stephen Elliott,
dated Philadelphia, May 28, 1815:

“T feel it incumbent on me the melancholy task os ucges to you, that
your amiable and valued friend Muhlenberg is no m .. On the morning
of the 23rd inst. he was affected with symptoms of caieie which soon disap-
peared, leaving an unimpaired intellect, but great physical debility, thus he

‘remained til evening when the paroxysm was repeated which in a little while
terminated his valuable life.”
MUHLENBERG’S PUBLISHED BOTANICAL PAPERS

It is clear that Muhlenberg sent many hundreds of specimens to his European
colleagues for identification, in many cases these specimens being accompanied
by his own descriptions of those that he considered to be unnamed and unde-

8 Pritizel, G. A. Thesaurus literaturae botanicae, ed. 2, 266. 1872.

6 BARTONIA

scribed. This accounts for the very considerable number of species in various
groups that were described in the works of several European botanists with
Muhlenberg as the authority for the names. He depended upon various special-
ists and productive general botanists in Europe to assist him in the determina-
tion of his specimens, sending packages of duplicate numbered specimens for this
purpose.

He did prepare a very large amount of descriptive manuscript (see p. 16)
most of which was never published. His list of actually published technical
papers in botany is rather short, and several of these were not printed until after
his death. The list follows:

INDEX FLORAE LANCASTRIENSIS. Trans. Am. Philos. sae a Felibeos 1793. P
This is a mere list, but with a certain number species indicated, all nomina
nuda. The manuscript was presented to the Armecieah Philosophical Society, February
18, 1791
Supriemewrvi INDICIS FLORAE LANCASTRIENSIS. op. cit. . 235-242. 1799.
Supple eee to the preceding item, and similar t it in content. The manuscript
was presented to the American Philosophical Society, hadi nora 16, 1796.
Kurze Beneenxc xc UBER DIE IN DER GEGEND VON ye ge aad aah AerrsPagreee Seat WACH-

SENDEN ART DER GATTUNGEN JUGLANS, FRAXINUS UN UNGEN
a N Paowaden R C. L. Wittpenow. Neue Schrift. Ges: Natace, bike ‘Berlin 3:
Notes on ‘twenty species, some described as new
OBSERVATIONS ON THE GENERA JUGLANs, FRAXINUS, AND QUER gE NEIGHBORHOOD
OF LANCASTER, IN NortH America. In : Konig. ny Tracts Rise: ie Gp Ment 241-259.
1805. Phillips an ardon, London.
An English trautetion of the preceding item.

UEr EBER DIF ah MERICANISCHEN WEIDEN MIT ANMERKUNGEN a! Herren Pror. WILLDENOW.

onsists of Bey riginal descriptions of ten new species of Salis, taken from his un-
published “ Uberiori “descriptone plantaru ia Renate triensium
On NortH pecan ILLOWS BY TH rig Mr. MuHLENEERG, witH Notes or PRror.
WILLtpenow, Ann. Bot. Konig & Sim: a3: 62-69. pl. 1-5. 1
S — of the preceding fen the German parts ‘b¢ the text translated into
n
espeeeoned 3 ggidgl AMERICAE SEPTENTRIONALIS HUCUSQUE COGNITARUM IN
CICURUM, or, atalogue of the Hitherto Known Native and Naturalized Plants sat
North ae Arranged According to the Sexual System of Linnaeus. i-iv. 1-122. 1813.
amult
rOduEIOd is dared August 3, 1813. However, the list of cryptogamous plants
still niall ae to be added. It was _—_ Lene se distributed until October, 1813, see p. 7.
DEscrIPTIO UBERIOR PLANTARUM NTARUM CALAMARIUM ‘Aariwhodit SEPTEN-
TRIONALIS. i-ii. 1-295. 1817. S, WwW. Gon lt hg Philadelphia.
Tiki mage published, the introduction signed by F. A. Muhlenberg, son of the
aut
CATALOGUS PLANTARUM AMERICAE SEPTENTRI . . Second Edition, Corrected and
Enlarged. i-iv. 1-222 sp 18ie. S. W. Cantus: Philade e:phia.

or ALL

AMERICAE SEPTENTUONALIS TO THE NaturaL Faminies or De Jusstev’s System. In

Smith, J. E. Grammar of Botany. 213-224. 1822. James V. Seeman, New York.

__. Muhlenberg is credited with being the author of this addition to the New York
ith’s : :

edition, an individua is. nown to us. In the notice, p.v, of the Introduction, the state-

ment is made: “A reduction of all the Genera in Muhlenberg’s Catalogue of Nort
American Plants to ries Proper places in Jussieu’s arrangement, has been added at the
afahetia of Dr. [Samuel L.] Mitchill, thus increasing the value to the American

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 7

MUHLENBERG’S CATALOGUS

In the first edition of this work, published in Lancaster in 1813, Muhlenberg
lists (including the cellular cryptogams) 853 genera and about 3670 species.
There are various references to this work in his letters to Stephen Elliott, con-
firming the statement in the preface that the text was completed in 1809, that
printing commenced in November, 1812, and that the work was finished (as to the
phanerogams) “ toward the end of July ” 1813. The cryptogamous plants were
then added and the “ Catalogus ” was issued in October, 1813.

References to this work in Muhlenberg’s letters to Stephen Elliott, are as
follows: On June 16, 1809, he states that the copy for the phanerogamous plants
was finished “ but it is not printed yet because I wish to correct the sheets my-
self and we have no printer in Lancaster able to undertake the printing.” On
November 8, 1809, he mentioned it again: “ All is ready for the press, but I find
some difficulties, the want of a printer near at hand and the wish to have the
catalogue more complete are the chief.” On March 30, 1810, he wrote: ‘‘ My
Catalogue has no descriptions. . . . I find great difficulty in getting it printed.
I have tried here [Lancaster] and in Philadelphia.” January 5, 1812, he states:
“ My Catalogue . . . has long ago been ready for the press, probably it might
be printed this winter in Lancaster.” On October 5, 1812, he wrote in connection
with the appearance of Barton’s “ Flora Virginica” that he had learned that
Pursh was publishing a new flora of North America in London, and states, “I
find it extremely difficult to get even a small Catalogue printed.” His letter of
December 1, 1812, includes this statement: ‘“‘ Mr. Hamilton has begun the print-
ing of my catalogue but goes on very slowly about 4 sheet every month. I have
thought of adding the cryptogamous plants.” On January 14, 1818, he added:
“My Catalogue goes very slow, the five first Classes to the Umbellatae are
_ printed from Nov. 1811, until now, and all my begging and driving is of no use.”
On July 20, 1813: “ My Catalogue of the Phanerogamous plants is at last printed,
and the 24 Class will be added before the Catalogue is published. How long
this will be I do not know, the printer is not to be got out of his slow step.
Whenever the whole is done I shall do myself the pleasure of sending you a
copy.” Finally on November 7, 1813, he states: “ October 12 I put a copy of
my Catalogue in the mail, post paid, for you.” We may infer that probably
October 12, 1813, is very close to the date of issue of this small work. ,Ten
months for the actual printing of a 112 page pamphlet, and his statement that
there was at first no printer in Lancaster able to undertake the work! With the
eminence that Lancaster has enjoyed for many decades as one of the most impor-
tant centers in the United States for the publication of scientific literature, the
contrast between Muhlenberg’s times and our own is very great.

There are no descriptions, but there are many new names, mostly as nomina
nuda, but some of the new names are actually validated by the citation of syno-

8 BARTONIA

nyms. In general authorities are not given for accepted names, Muhlenberg
doubtless being influenced in this procedure by Donn’s “ Hortus Cantabrigiensis ”
with which he was familiar.

Three years after Muhlenberg’s death a second edition of the “ Catalogus ”
was issued in Philadelphia. The title was registered by S. W. Conrad, Feb. 27,
1818, and the work was issued sometime during that year. The format is the
same as that of the first edition, but with various corrections and additions, the
number of genera being increased to 877, and of species to about 3810. The text
was prepared by Muhlenberg, for he explained to Elliott, in a letter dated De-
cember 6, 1813, that he had prepared an inter-leaved copy of the first edition,
and that he was including additions and corrections, apologizing for the poor
quality of the paper used in the printing of the first edition.

In both editions of the “ Catalogus” many new binomials appear, these, for
the most part, strictly nomina nuda as noted above. In some cases synonyms
are added, or at least the generic name from which a “ transferred ” specific name
was taken is indicated. Some of Muhlenberg’s contemporaries and immediate
successors accepted a certain number of his proposed new names and validated
them by preparing descriptions and citing the basic synonyms; these were W. P.
C. Barton, Bigelow, Sprengel, Trinius, Torrey, Beck, Eaton, Elliott, Rafinesque,
Chapman, A. Gray, and others, while some were validated by Muhlenberg’s own
descriptions as published in his “ Descriptio” in 1817. Pursh’s rather shabby
treatment of certain of Muhlenberg’s original binomials is discussed below
tp. 27).

Many of Muhlenberg’s new names were listed by Steudel® and others, and
thus have found their places in standard indices. However there is much con-
fusion in entries as between the original edition of 1813 and the second one of
1818, a peculiarly high percentage of entries in “ Index Kewensis ” being to the
second edition rather than to the original one of 1813. Thus in this work there
are about 185 cases, below indicated by the sign +, where minor changes in entries
should be made.

Because Muhlenberg in general rarely cited the authority for the binomials
that he accepted it is rather surprising that so many of his new names were
actually listed by those bibliographers who were primarily concerned with de-
tecting and listing new plant names. In his “ Catalogus ” Muhlenberg never
cited himself as the author of a new name. Nor did he indicate that any of the
names which he originated were actually new, except for a limited number of
lichens in the first edition which he characterized by adding the letters “ N.S.”
A list of these new names for the cellular cryptogams is given below. In order
to determine what may have originated with him it has been necessary to check
all the binomials for the flowering plants against the entries in “ Index Kewensis ”
and its ten supplements.

9 Steudel, E. G. Nomenclator botanicus, ed. 1, 1821; ed. 2, 1840-41.

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 9

We have checked the names of only the phanerogams and the vascular crypto-
gams. We call attention to the fact, however, that in the first edition of the
“ Catalogus” there are a certain number of new specific names proposed for
lichens; and for that matter, a few also for various genera of cellular cryptogams
in the earlier works that Muhlenberg published on the flora of Lancaster. These
are, however, mostly nomina nuda, and as such, of course have no taxonomic
standing. In his first paper, published in 1793, he explained that for those
species for which he could find no name in the published works available to him
and in the lists of names received from his European correspondents: “ If I could
find no name by these means, I was forced to make one myself adding N.S. until
better informed by abler botanists.” The same system was continued in his
second paper of 1799.

The nomina nuda for a few mosses and for one lichen indicated as “ N.S.” in
the “ Supplementum indicis florae Lancastriensis” (1799), are: Hypnum pilosum,
H. obtusifolium, H. fragile, H. salebrosum, and Lichen umbrinus. In the first
edition of his “ Catalogus”’ (1813), the binomials so indicated, all for lichens,
are: Lecidea varians, L. spadicea, L. sorediata, Gyrophora mamillata, Porina
papillata, Lecanora internata, Parmelia cyliphora, P. placorodia, P. crinita, P.
galbinea, P. rudecta, P. obsessa, P. granulifera, P. cristulata, and Usnea angulata.
None of the names accepted in the second edition of the “ Catalogus” (1818) is
there indicated as new.

MUHLENBERG’S CATALOGUS IN RELATION TO JAMES Donn’s
ORTUS CANTABRIGIENSIS

Muhlenberg apparently did what few other botanists have done in that he
examined all the entries in those editions of Donn’s “ Hortus Cantabrigiensis ”
that were available to him, in order to detect the names of species credited by
Donn to North America. The latest edition that was available to him was that
of 1809 (edition five). We say “ what few other botanists have done,” because
there are a great many new binomials published in the various editions of Donn’s
work that do not appear in our standard indices. All of the entries in editions
one (1796) to five (1809) are strictly nomina nuda, so that it makes very little
difference whether or not these fugitive names are ever listed. In the first five
editions no synonyms are given under any of the entries.

Beginning with edition six (1811) the picture is somewhat different, for in
this and in succeeding editions up to thirteen (1845) some synonyms are listed,
which in certain cases validate some of the new binomials. In the present paper
we have, in general, not concerned ourselves with these new Donn names except
where Muhlenberg accepted them in his “ Catalogus.” Incidentally it may be
of some interest to American botanists to note that Frederick Pursh was the
author of editions eight (1815) and nine (1819) of Donn’s work. We have done

10 BARTONIA

a certain amount of random sampling in the various editions of the “ Hortus
Cantabrigiensis” with a view to locating unlisted but validly published bi-
nomials, examples of unlisted or incorrectly listed new names being as follows:

Amomum *casumunar Donn, Hort. Cantab. ed. 7, 1. 1812, nom. (Zingiber casumunar
Roxb.

Cistenens:* intermedia Donn, op. cit., ed. 3, 93. 1804, nom. — Validated ed. 6, 137. 1811,
by the addition of the synonym Pyrus intermedia [Ehrh.].

Crataegus *odoratissima Donn, op. cit. ed. 5, 122. 1809, nom. nud. Validated ed. 6, 137.

, = by the addition of the synonym Mespilus odoratissima Andr.

Galax *cordifolia Pursh ex Donn, op. cit., ed. 8, 60. 1815, nom. (Blandfordia cordata Andr.,
Galax aphylla Linn

Knowltonia *capensis Ban. op. cit. ed. 4, 130. 1807, nom. nud. Validated ed. 7, 167. 1812,
by the addition of the synonym Adonis capensis Linn.

Lobelia ytupa Donn, op. cit. ed. 6, 51. 1811, nom. (Lobelia oe Cav.). The “Index
ee Aner sia is gt ex Steud., Nomencl. ed. 1, 491. 1821

thi n, op. cit. ed. 3, 64. 1804, nom. nud. Validated ed. 7, 103. «

“1812, ea Bhi Saditoe ok the synonym M elanthium junceum Jacq.

Mespilus *ovalis Donn, op. cit. ed. 4, 115. 1807, nom. nud. Validated ed. 6, 138. 1811,

y the addition of the synonym Pyrus ovalis Willd.

Wisi: *odorata Donn, op. cit. ed. 3, 35. 1804, nom. nud. Validated ed. 6, 54. 1811, by
the addition of the synonym rai sre: undulata Sims. The “Index Kewensis ” entry
is Nicotiana “ odorata Hort.—Cf. Gard. Chron. (1881) II. 183.”

Nycterium jflavum Pursh ex Donn, op. ee ed. 8, 63. 1815, nom. (Solanum heterandrum
Pursh) : the oT Index Kewensis” entry is Lindl. ex Donn Hort. Cantab. ed. 11, 76. 1826.

Platylobium ——— Donn, op. cit. ed. 7, 202. 1812, nom. (Bossiaea scolopenivia Sims).

Protea jstrobolina Donn, op. cit. 14. 1796, nom. nud. Validated ed. 6, 31. 1811, _ by the
addition pre ce synonym Protea globosa Andr.; the “Index Kewensis ” entry is Donn

eud. Nom. ed. 2, 2: 401. 1841.

That Muhlenberg was concerned with the fugitive new names, which in the
following quoted passage we have marked with an asterisk, is evidenced in his
correspondence with Stephen Elliott. In a letter dated Yaisery 14, 1813, he
states:

florum, Mespilus prunifolia, Rosa eine *stricta, Rubus *p ureus, Sarracenia
adunca, Clematis pennsylv., cylindrica, *triternata, Stachys intermedia, Thymus
grandiflorus, Scutellaria pubescens, serrata, Hi biscus i incanus, Fumaria formosa,
Dolichos *miamensis (Glycine umbellata *. Trifolium involucratum, Hyper! 1cum
pyramidatum, elatum, Inula glandulosa, Rudbeckia *lobata, Silphium *varians,
Quercus candida, Juglans *minima, *hispida, pubescens, Mimosa *divaricata,
*miamensis, Op s hystrix, minor. If you have sent some e of them pray mention
the numbers. I suppose many of them Mr. Lyon exported.”

Many of the species in the above list had been published here and there by
various authors in works that were apparently not available to Muhlenberg, but

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 1l

at least the sixteen above marked with an asterisk are still unlisted. In the first
edition of his ‘ Catalogus” he accepted seventeen of the Donn binomials, these
mostly appearing for the first time in edition four (1807), and at least one in
edition five (1809); a few in earlier editions. The list is Acacia *divaricata
Muhl. Cat. 96. 1813; Mimosa *divaricata Donn, Hort. Cantab. ed. 4, 222. 1807;
Acacia *miamensis Muhl. Cat. 96. 1813; Mimosa *miamensis Donn, op. cit., 223;
Andromeda *serratifolia Donn, ed. 4, 98. 1807, Muhl. Cat. 43. 1813; Aster *albus
Donn, ed. 3, 156. 1804, Muhl. Cat. 75; A. *fleruosus Donn, ed. 2, 109. 1800, Muhl.
Cat. 73; Cassia *discolor Donn, ed. 4, 95. 1807, Muhl. Cat. 42; Clematis *tri-
ternatea Donn, ed. 4, 129. 1807, Muhl. Cat. 54; Houstonia *divaricata Donn, ed.
4, 28. 1807, Muhl. Cat. 15; Ledum *decumbens Donn, ed. 2, 54. 1800, Muhl. Cat.
43. 1813; Podalyria *virginica Donn, ed. 4, 94. 1807, Muhl. Cat. 42; Prunus
*depressa Donn, ed. 4, 114. 1807, Muhl. Cat. 48. 1813; Pulmonaria *mollis Donn,
ed. 4, 34. 1807, Muhl. Cat. 19; Rosa *stricta Donn, ed. 5, 128. 1809, Muhl. Cat.
50. 1813; Rudbeckia *lobata Donn, ed. 4, 196. 1807, Muhl. Cat. 78; Silphium
*varians Donn, ed. 4, 198. 1807, Muhl. Cat. 79; Viburnum *ulmfolium Donn,
ed. 4, 42. 1807, Muhl. Cat. 32. 1813; Viola *pygmaea Donn, ed. 4, 49. 1807, Muhl.
Cat. 26; and Vitis *odoratissima Donn, ed. 4, 50. 1807, Muhl. Cat. 27. 1813.
These for the most part are marked by the sign 7 in Muhlenberg’s “ Catalogus,”
which he used to indicate those species not represented in his herbarium.

® There are certain entries in both editions of Muhlenberg’s “ Catalogus”
wherein he erroneously credited various binomials to Donn. These are Aster
altissimus (that of Miller or Moench intended), A. glaber (that of Willdenow
intended), Clematis cylindrica (that of Sims intended), Inula aestuans (that of
Linnaeus intended), Lilium pennsylvanicum (that of Ker-Gawler intended),
Lythrum triflorum (that of Linnaeus f. intended), Menziesia globularis (that of
Salisbury intended), Pancratium rotatum (that of Ker-Gawler intended), Sazi-
fraga pilosa (that of Haworth intended), Vaccinium crassifolium (that of An-
drews intended), and V. parviflorum (that of Andrews intended). It should be
remembered that in all the early editions of Donn’s work no authorities are given
for the binomials which he listed. It was this usage which doubtless influenced
Muhlenberg to adopt the same general plan.

Tue DESCRIPTIO UBERIOR PLANTARUM GRAMINUM ET PLANTARUM
CALAMARIUM AMERICAE SEPTENTRIONALIS INDIGENARUM
ET CICURUM

This small volume of 295 pages plus two pages of introduction was published
by S. W. Conrad in Philadelphia in 1817, two years after Muhlenberg’s death.
The title was registered June 12, 1817, and the work appeared before the end of
that year, as Rafinesque’s review of it was published in December, 1817. The
introduction is signed by F. A. Muhlenberg, son of the author. It contains the
descriptions of about 380 species and varieties of Gramineae, Cyperaceae, Junca-

12 BARTONIA

ceae, Typhaceae, and Sparganiaceae. The manuscript was not finished at the
time of the author’s death and apparently no attempt was made to make it more
complete by the editor of the volume. There are about 38 cases where species
or varieties are described in various genera but without specific names. Clearly
here Muhlenberg was following his own advice to Stephen Elliott because of the
great delays he was subjected to in receiving lists of identifications of duplicate
specimens that he sent to his botanical correspondents in Europe: “ We must
depend upon ourselves, make good descriptions, and leave the name to a future
day ”

Throughout the Muhlenberg unpublished manuscripts that we have seen, and
in this published “ Descriptio,” as well as in both editions of his “ Catalogus,”
one is impressed with his most casual consideration of the authorities for the
names he used. Clearly his interest was in the correct names for the plants he
considered, and not at all in any “credit” that might accrue to him as the
individual who located and first named and described a new genus or a new
species. He manifestly would not have been impressed by the critique in Rafi-
nesque’s review of the work to the effect that for certain described but unnamed
species in his “ Descriptio: ” “The real author will be deprived of that merit,”
i.e., the more or less doubtful merit of having named and described such and such
a genus or species, a point by which so many modern authors, like Rafinesque,
set such great store. As Hitchcock 2° says: ®

“In only a few cases are his own species indicated by ‘ Mihi.’ It is therefore
difficult to be certain which names are meant to be new and which are old ones
misapplied.”

We merely comment here that in a considerabie number of cases where
Muhlenberg described a species, he correctly interpreted this or that entity of
his predecessors, Linnaeus, Willdenow, Walter, Michaux, and other botanists. In
only a few cases, where he felt reasonably certain in the correctness of his inter-
pretations, did he even bother to cite the authorities, and then in abbreviated
form such as L.=Linnaeus; Willd. = Willdenow; and M. or Mich. = Michaux.
We assume that he expected it would be understood that he was dealing with
this or that species of this or that author when he used a previously published
name. We interpret the occasional “H.L.” following a species to mean that
Muhlenberg had observed the plant in cultivation in his garden at Lancaster
(Hortus Lancastriensis), for it is clear from his letters that he grew as many
species as he could from seeds received from his correspondents: and he inci-
dentally recommended Elliott to do likewise.

It is therefore difficult in some cases to determine whether Muhlenberg was
actually proposing a new specific name when he wrote certain descriptions, or
was redescribing a previously proposed species. In some cases synonyms are

ana , A. S. a Grasses of the Muhlenberg Herbarium. Bartonia 14: 27-52

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 13

cited at the ends of the descriptions, but this is an exception rather than a rule.
In Scirpus where thirty-one species are described, and many of these here de-
scribed for the first time, we can rather safely assume that where no authority
for a name was cited by Muhlenberg, they are as we have added them in the
succeeding list: Scirpus lacustris Linn., S. palustris Linn., S. acutus Willd., S.
triqueter Linn., S. debilis Lam., S. spadiceus Linn., S. capillaris Linn., S. autum-
nalis Linn., S. castaneus Michx., S. echinatus Linn., S. retrofractus Linn., S.
macrostachyus Lam., and S. lineatus Michx.; or at any rate, what Muhlenberg
or his European correspondents had identified, rightly or wrongly, as representing
this or that species of his predecessors. Hitchcock encountered many difficulties —
in his detailed study of the grasses in Muhlenberg’s herbarium in connection
with an examination of the original descriptions. Other groups covered by
Muhlenberg as yet lack such a detailed study, except for the ferns.* It is
inevitable that in some cases, where it is clear that Muhlenberg did not intend
that a certain binomial should represent a new species that he was describing,
some names assigned to these undocumented descriptions have been entered _
in standard indices with Muhlenberg as the authority. Such are Asclepias
pulchra (Barton, Fl. Phila. Prodr. 35. 1815), A. pulchra Ehrh. ex Willd. intended;
A. quadrifolia (Muhl., Cat. 28. 1813), A. quadrifolia Jacq. intended; Aster
cyaneus (Muhl., Cat. 74. 1813), A. cyaneus Hoffm. intended; Carex oligocarpa
(Muhl., Cat. 83. 1813), C. oligocarpa Schkuhr intended; C. riparia (Muhl., Cat.
84. 1813), C. riparia Curt. intended; Cynanchum angustifolium (Muhl., Cat. 28.
1813), C. angustifolium Pers. intended; Gerardia glauca (Muhl., Cat. 58. 1813),
G. glauca Eddy intended; Paspalum debile (Muhl., Cat. 8. 1813), P. debile
Michx. intended; Schoenus effusus (Muhl., Cat. 6. 1813), S. effusus Sw. intended;
Scirpus castaneus (Muhl., Cat. 7. 1813), S. castaneus Michx. intended; S. lineatus
(Muhl., Cat. 7. 1813), S. lineatus Michx. intended; and Spiraea crenata (Muhl.,
Cat. 49. 1813), S. crenata Linn. intended.

Cynanchum angustifolium Pers. Syn. 1: 274. 1805, is an interesting case, for
Muhlenberg seems to have been the only American botanist, other than possibly
Nuttall, who has considered it. The type was a specimen collected by the younger
Michaux “ad littora maris in Carolina.” Since 1805 a formidable synonymy
has been built up, including Ceropegia palustris Pursh (1814), Lyonia maritima
Ell. (1817), Cynanchum angustifolium Nutt. (1818) (perhaps Nuttall intended
C. angustifolium Pers.), Seutera maritima Decne. (1844), Amphistelma salinarum
C. Wright (1866), Metastelma salinarum C. Wright ( 1870), Cynoctonum *mart-
timum Maxim. in Bull. Acad. St. Pétersb. III. 21: 369. 1877 and in Mélang. Biol.

11 Wherry, E. T. Notes on Muhlenberg’s Ferns. Am. Fern Jour. 36: 54-58. 1946
Wherry states that Muhlenberg’s fern herbarium was acquired by W. P. C. esi =~
that it ultimately passed to the American Philosophical Society; see the discussion of on
Muhlenberg herbarium, p. 29. e also states: “ Unfortunately Barton lost some of the
specimens and destroyed all but one of such labels as there may have been.” But see p. 31.

14 BARTONIA

9: 799. 1877, Vincetoxicum palustre A. Gray (1878), Cynanchum *maritimum
Schltr. et Urban, Symb. Antill. 1: 258. 1899, Seutera *palustris Vail ex Small,
Fl. Southeast U. 8. 952. 1903, Cynanchum palustre Heller (1898), and Lyonia
palustris Small (1913). No matter what generic name be used, the oldest valid
specific name is the one assigned to it by Persoon in 1805. The three binomials
marked by an asterisk still remain unlisted in standard indices.

A survey of the first 100 species actually included in the “ Descriptio ” shows
that for 7 of the descriptions no specific name is given (there is a total of 38 in
the volume in this category including varieties and what he called co-species) ;
that in only 11 cases did Muhlenberg cite the authority for the accepted name;
that in only about 29 cases did he cite at the end of the descriptions synonyms
that, at least in part, explain the accepted name; that approximately 75 of the
accepted names were intended to represent species originally described by such
botanists as Linnaeus, Willdenow, Persoon, Michaux, Schreber, Sprengel, La-
marck, Swartz, and a few other early authors (his interpretations of the various
species are naturally not always correct, but he was right in the majority of the
cases) ; and again that of the 100 species Muhlenberg actually originated at least
18:of the names which he used. :

Muhlenberg was so modest, and so little impressed with what one may call
self-advertising, that is, in receiving credit for his new binomials, that of a total
of some scores of new species which he characterized in his “ Descriptio,” in only
five cases are the names followed by the word “ Mihi,” or any other indication
that he considered them as new. These are Panicum verrucosum, Poa obtusa,
Poa ? uniflora, Festuca clandestina, and Carex dasycarpa. It would have simpli-
fied the work of his successors had he, in accordance with the now generally
accepted custom among botanists, clearly indicated those names which originated
with him, and had cited the standard abbreviations of the names of those bota-
nists whose specific names he accepted for his redescriptions of their species.

Muhlenberg’s posthumously published “ Descriptio” was soon reviewed by
Rafinesque,” proof, if proof be needed, that the volume was off the press well
before December of that year. Rafinesque remarks, inter alia:

that could rectify this omission, he is inexcusable; but we are certain that many
of our botanists would have been very glad to do it, and associate thereby this
abour to those of the worthy author. The consequence will be that those

12 Am. Monthly Mag. Crit. Rev. 2: 143-144, December, 1817

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 15

employ some botanist to compare the species of Muhlenberg, with those of Pursh
and Elliott! and frame specific definitions. These and many other omissions and
imperfections lessen the value of this otherwise classical work; we shall endeavor
to rectify them in a future review.’

Undoubtedly Rafinesque considered himself to be Hunoadiily well qualified
to have completed the manuscript by providing the new names for the described
but unnamed species of Muhlenberg. Probably it is fortunate that his promise
to rectify the faults at a later date was never fulfilled. However he was, in a
sense, correct, because in a few cases other botanists, notably Schultes, did select
and apply their own specific names to certain of the species that Muhlenberg
described without names.

As to the numerous entries in Muhlenberg’s “ Descriptio” (1817), where
binomials are given accompanied with descriptions, even an examination of the
actual specimens on which the descriptions were based does not always indicate
whether Muhlenberg was describing a new species on his own account, or rede-
scribing what he took to represent a previously described one of some other
author. Hitchcock, in his critical notes on the grasses in Muhlenberg’s her-
barium 1° has in each case added the name of the original author in brackets.

In very many cases Muhlenberg correctly interpreted the species of this or
that author. An examination of Hitchcock’s entries shows that in approximately
115 cases Muhlenberg so interpreted the species described by his predecessors,
which, considering the critical nature of many species of the Gramineae, and the
slight differences by which they are often differentiated, is an exceedingly good
record, considering the time that Muhlenberg worked arid the facilities which
were available to him. In less than 30 cases did Muhlenberg misapply a specific
name originated by another. In nearly 60 cases Hitchcock has shown that
Muhlenberg originated the specific names which he used, and that he is, there-
fore, the authority for these, a credit that he did not acknowledge except in
five cases so far as their being indicated as new species.

Because of the somewhat confused nature of presentation of the published
record in the “ Descriptio,” naturally a considerable number of entries have been
made in standard indices with the binomials accredited to Muhlenberg when all
that he did was correctly to interpret this or that species originally named and
described by his predecessors, as noted above. There are naturally a number of
cases where the specimens which Muhlenberg had, do not represent the species
of the author indicated, and these, if cited at all, will largely be indicated as
“sensu Muhl., non Miclix. ” etc., as the case may be: The number is not large.
The original scAnieiint of this work was presented by the heirs of Zaccheus
Collins to the American Philosophical Society, November 18, 1831.

13 Bartonia 14: 27-53. 1932.

16 BARTONIA

UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPTS

It has long been known that Muhlenberg prepared many botanical manu-
scripts which were never published, but we doubt if the full extent of his activity
in this field is generally realized. In addition to his published works, listed
above, and the extensive manuscript on the Lancaster flora discussed below, we
find a rather remarkable list of his unpublished documents enumerated in 1890.
The first actually published note on the Muhlenberg manuscripts that we have
seen is in the entry covering the minutes of the meeting of the American Philo-
sophical Society, July 15, 1785: 1* “ Muhlenberg sent his specimen of a Flora
Lancastriensis, and floral Calendarium. Referred to Committee Natural History
and Chemistry.” The .22 items listed below were presented to the American
Philosophical Society by Muhlenberg’s grandson, the Reverend F. A. Muhlen-
berg.5 These manuscripts are now preserved in the library of the American
Philosophical Society, the titles being listed in 1890 as follows:

Botanicae; Book of Descriptions et bee}: Plants not Determined,
According to [ee System, 1788; e Buc and “ Noten Buch” from
1784 to 1789; Catalogus arborum et idles peer septentrionalis; Crypto-
gamia Lancastriensis, 1791; Agrostographia Pennsylvaniae, Graser, die bei Lan-
caster wild wachsen oder die ich sonst auf meinen inlandischen Reisen bemerkte;
Plantae cryptogamicae Lancastrienses; Fungi Pennsylvaniae mediae, 1793;
Monographien von Gewachsen von Lancaster, 1790 (vol. 1); Monographia plan-
tarum Lancastriensis (vol. 2); Descriptio plan tarum ex aliis partibus Americae
pe aoe td oe incepta a 1792; Sammlung von Beitragen zur Kenntniss der Natur,

785; Forsetzung meines Journals von Jahren 1799-1806; Botanical Journal,
1807-1815; and Flora Lancastriensis, 1790.

Supplementary to these we find in the library of the American Philosophical
Society the following additional manuscripts: Lichenes Lancastrienses (1791) ;
Folio plantarum Lancastriensium (1808), 222 figures; Nachschrift von Baumen
und Stauden die in der Gegend von Lancaster wild oder naturalisert wachsen
(1787) ; Supplementum continens ceteras plantas Pensilvaniae et Americae Sep-
tentrionalis; and Floral Calendar (no date). Preserved in the Library of the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia are four rather thick volumes: one
being Observationes botanicae de plantis Americae Septentrionalis, two volumes,
1807 and 1811; the other Fungi Lancastriensis, two volumes dated 1802. The
total number of pages in the extant but unpublished Muhlenberg manuscripts
that we have seen exceed 6200.

MUHLENBERG’S DESCRIPTIO UBERIOR PLANTARUM LANCASTRIENSIUM
Muhlenberg’s descriptive Lancaster Flora, to the preparation of which he
devoted much time, was never published. We quote from the first edition of his

14 Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. 22 (3): 132. 1885.
15 Op. cit. 28: 94-95. 1890 (Stated Meeting, March 21, 1890).

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 17

Catalogus, p. iv. 1813: “ Whether my long promised ‘DESCRIPTIO UBERIOR
PLANTARUM LANCASTRIENSIUM’ or only an Extract of NON DE-
SCRIPTS, will be published, depends upon circumstances. It has been written
in M.S. many years ago, and also a DESCRIPTIO UBERIOR of all other
North American Plants which are in my HERBARIUM.” The actual publica-
tion: of technical botanical papers in the United States at the time in which he
lived depended largely on whether or not individual authors could supply the
necessary funds. We call attention to the fact that the original manuscript of
his work on the Lancaster flora was prepared before 1800, for among the Muhlen-
berg manuscripts in the library of the American Philosophical Society are two
volumes, the first dated 1790, entitled “Monographien von Gewachsen von
Lancaster, ” the second entitled “ Monographia plantarum Lancastriensis,” as
well as a third work bearing the title “ Flora Lancastriensis.”

Attention has been called by the librarian, Herbert B. Anstaett, to a variant
draft of Muhlenberg’s “ Flora Lancastriensis ” that survives in the library of
Franklin and Marshall College at Lancaster, Pa. “ The first 34 pages contain
the classified list of plants. Pages 35-40 contain notes on medicinal uses. Pages
42-57 contain various other scientific notes: electrical experiments, tables of
weights and measures, heights of mountains, etc.’

The manuscript of what is apparently the final copy of the Lancaster flora,
but without a title, is preserved in the library of the Gray Herbarium of Harvard
University, having been presented by Asa Gray; there is no record as to how he
acquired it. Some librarian has pencilled on the first sheet “ [Muhlenberg,
G. H. E. Florula Lancastriensis].” It is noted by Pritzel, “Thesaurus” ed. 2,
226. 1872, under his number 6504 as: ‘“‘ Ejusdem auctoris opus posthumum: ‘ De-
scriptio uberior Florae lancastriensis et americanae’ annis 1817-1818 a bibliopolo
Conrad Philadelphiae annuntiatum vix a prele produiit.”

On the inside of the cover of volume one of this manuscript is the statement:
“ Copyright purchased of Dr. F. A. Muhlenberg (son of the Author) for four
hundred dollars. S. W. Conrad.” 1* Mr. Conrad’s place of business was then
located at 87 Market St., Philadelphia. He published Muhlenberg’s “ Descriptio
uberior graminum et plantarum calamarium Americae septentrionalis,” in 1817,
and the second edition of Muhlenberg’s “ Catalogus” in 1818. It is significant
that at the end of the list of scientific works that he offered for sale, on the inside
page of the back cover of his edition of the ‘‘ Catalogus ” is the statement “ s. W.
Conrad expects to publish in the course of the present year (1818) Descriptio

6 Solomon White Conrad, a Philadelphia bookseller and publisher, was born at
Ginidameete Philadelphia, July 31, 1779, and died there October 2, 1831. He big long
interested in botany and in conchology, and hs was doubtless his botanical interest, rather :
than any hope of profit, that a ee him to publish certain lg nag nberg’s techincal
works. In 1870, dedicating the us sath o him,
anes of Solo * W. Co ie rad Fig associate of Muhlenberg and other LD ahha
botanists of the last pednrateh ahieagelt a botanist of no mean acquirement

18 BARTONIA

Uberior Plantarum Lancastriensium, by Henry Muhlenberg.” This plan was
never consummated, possibly because the manuscript was somewhat incomplete,
possibly because of the cost of printing, and further because the publisher appar-
ently realized that there would not be a very great demand for such a technical
work.

The manuscript consists of two bound volumes in Muhlenberg’s fine but dis-
tinctly clear handwriting. The pages are 6 by 34 inches in size. There are 1012.
pages of practically completed text, but in addition pages 1013 to 1078 have
entries at the top of each page consisting of the names of lichens, but with no
‘descriptions. Page 1079 is blank, and the last entry in the book, p. 1080, is
merely the word Conferva. There is usually only a single species considered on
a page, but occasionally one notes two or even more.

It is apparent that in preparing this final copy Muhlenberg was working on
the lichens in 1815, his last finished description being that of Lecidea pannosa
Ach., but that it was his plan to include on the following numerous blank pages
the descriptions of the algae, and close the work with a consideration of the fungi
known to him from the vicinity of Lancaster. One notes in various letters to
Stephen Elliott his keen desire to receive representatives of the various groups
of cellular cryptogams and the delays he was subjected to in securing identifica-
tions from European correspondents to whom he had sent duplicate specimens.
Thus in a letter dated November 8, 1809, he states regarding the only two letters
he had received from Europe in that year: “ The other letter was from D. J. Ed.
Smith who continues to compare for me the herbarium of Linne, though much
too slow.” On August 10, 1810, when he recommended that Elliott send his
algae to Dawson Turner at Yarmouth, England, for identification, he explained:
“ Unluckily the gentlemen are very slow in answer and I have waited from 10-15
years for an answer although I received promises yearly, the answer was pre-
paring and almost ready. We must depend upon ourselves, make good descrip-
tions and leave the name to a future day.”

The text is wholly in Latin, and the arrangement follows the Linnaean sexual
system of classification. There is no explanatory statement, but it is clear that
the work was intended to include the descriptions of all species of plants known
to the author to. occur in the vicinity of Lancaster, in the form of a technical
descriptive flora.

For the genera and species of phanerogams and vascular cryptogams the
descriptions are, for the most part, practically complete; occasionally a species
description appears with only the generic name indicated, it probably being the
author’s intention to add specific names before publication. As one scans these
old descriptions one notes that in general the author did not cite authorities for
the names he used and that synonyms are rarely indicated, but that there are
rather frequent references to published figures. Probably Muhlenberg himself

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 19

would not have considered that the text was actually ready for the printer, yet
one naturally regrets that a nearly completed manuscript, the first extensive one
of its kind by a native born American botanist, and clearly a scholarly work,
to the preparation of which the author manifestly devoted much time and energy,
never saw the light of day in printed form. Possibly one of the reasons why
Mr. Conrad did not publish the work was because the text covering the cellular
cryptogams was far from complete; but if the parts covering the flowering plants
and vascular cryptogams had been published, the work would have been an
important contribution to our knowledge of the flora of the eastern United States
and publication would have enhanced Muhlenberg’s stature as a botanist. It
would have rendered to him the credit that he so richly deserved in the annals
of American descriptive botany.

Seldom in the history of systematic botany has any author written so much
of which actually so little was published. In some respects this is regrettable
for much of Muhlenberg’s work was careful and critical. The very fact that
two of his three proposed new generic names are accepted by all botanists, the
third being retained as of subgeneric rank, and that more than 100 of his specific
names are still used in the sense that he proposed them, representing still valid
species, speaks highly in favor of his work.

Muhlenberg’s documentation is very incomplete. Thus in his “ Catalogus
one will note that normally he did not cite authorities for the generic names
merely assuming that it would be understood that he was following standard
reference works. For the first 500 species (and synonyms) listed there are only :
95 cases where the authorities for the binomials are indicated, and at least half
of these are associated with the relatively few synonyms given.

Again, as noted elsewhere, his own new names, and perhaps in some cases
those proposed by his European correspondents and transmitted to him in lists
of identifications, are not indicated as new. This, of course, a Se in part
why so many of these new names first published in the “ Catalogus ” escaped
detection for so long.

An examination of Muhlenberg’s unpublished manuscripts shows that here
also documentation is reduced to a minimum. Thus in the first 100 species in the
manuscript on the Lancaster flora, in only two or three cases did he indicate the _
authority for the accepted binomial. However, in about forty cases where he
listed synonyms he did cite the authorities for these; and where he had access
to published figures in such works as those of Plukenet, Lamarck, Wangenheim,
Woodville, Dillenius, Junghans, and the Botanical Magazine, these are cited. In
the first 100 species, where the descriptions are complete or nearly so, there are
nine cases where no specific name is indicated. Here it manifestly was his inten-
tion to add the names when he should have received them from his European
correspondents or should have reached a final conclusion on his own part.

”

20 BARTONIA *

Taking the first few names as given in this manuscript, where no authorities
for the binomials are cited, it is evident that Muhlenberg’s belief was that he
was actually describing the species of the author whose abbreviated name we
have added in each case; and in most or all of these cases he was correct in his
interpretations: Hippuris vulgaris Linn., Callitriche verna Linn., C. terrestris
Muhl. (originated by Muhlenberg but first published as C. terrestris Raf.), Blitum
virgatum Linn., Chionanthus virginica Linn., Circaea lutetiana Linn., Veronica
virgimca Linn., V. officinalis Linn., V. eeyoliddlia Linn., V. hencaluanie Linn.,
V. anagallis Liens V. scutellata tik V. arvensis Linn., Y. agrestis Linn., and
V. peregrina Linus

If one examines the sueuae published “ Descriptio” of 1817, one will
note that the printed volume parallels the unpublished manuscript above briefly
discussed. The same lack of authorities for most of the accepted binomials, the
very sketchy synonymy, or more frequently lack of synonyms, the presence of
38 descriptions of species, co-species, and varieties without technical names (other
than the generic name) indicates that at the time of Muhlenberg’s death in 1815
the manuscript was not complete. Even for some scores of new species included
in it with complete or reasonably complete descriptions, in only five cases did
Muhlenberg indicate that he was the authority for the new names. Had he lived
it is very doubtful if he would have published the work in the form in which it
was presented in 1817. However, the editor and the publisher doubtless thought
that it was inadvisable to attempt to complete the manuscript. This is further
discussed, p. 18.

CREDIT OR DISCREDIT FOR NEW NAMES

Before criticizing Muhlenberg for his bibliographic shortcomings it is well to
survey the situation as to what some of his contemporaries and certain of his
successors did up to nearly the middle of the nineteenth century. Thus Walter
in his “ Flora Caroliniana ” (1788) cited no authorities for any of the binomials
which he used. He naturally assumed that were he describing Trillium cernuum
or T. sessile, he was merely considering these two Linnaean species. He did,
however, indicate his own new binomials by printing their specific names in
italics.

But with the very rapid expansion of descriptive botanical work following the
Linnaean period, the situation soon became distinctly complicated because of the
large number of individual authors concerned. Thus the custom of clearly indi-
eating the authorship of technical names, and more or less definitely indicating
the necessary new ones, became rather thoroughly established before the end 0
the century.

Some early American botanists carefully cited the authorities for the names
they used, such as B. S. Barton in his “ Flora Virginica ” (1812), Bigelow in his
“Florula Bostoniensis ” (1814), W. P. C. Barton in his “ Compendium florae

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 21

Philadelphicae ” (1818), Darlington in his “ Florula Cestrica ” (1826), and Beck
in his ‘‘ Botany of the Northern and Middle States” (1833). Eaton in the first
three editions of his ‘“ Manual” (1817-1822) cited no authorities for the names
he used, but in editions four (1824) to eight (1840) authors were indicated,
although with an extraordinary percentage of error. Darby, in his “ Manual of
Botany ... of the Southern States,” 1841 and 1847 editions, cited no authorities,
but added them in the 1855 edition. Torrey followed conventional usage by
adding authorities in his “ Catalogue” of 1819, and in his “ Flora” of 1824, but
in his ‘“ Compendium ” of 1826 he gives the binomials without their authorities.
Wood in the first edition of his “ Class-Book ” (1845) gives the authorities for
about fifty percent of the binomials he used; but by the time of the 1861 edition
he included authorities for most of the names.

Muhlenberg, who manifestly did not deliberately seek credit for the new
species he proposed and described, should not be severely criticized, even if his
modesty did raise certain problems for his successors. Rafinesque,’* who appar-
ently prized the credit for his myriads of new names, for he seldom failed to
indicate them, might have criticized Muhlenberg as he did Eaton. He noted that
Eaton cited no authorities for the names which he used in the first edition of his
“Manual” of 1817, and expressed surprise for what he indicated as an unwar-
rantable omission, closing with the statement: “ Let us hope they [Eaton’s stu-
dents] will not be led to believe that Mr. E. is the author of them!”

The only botanist that we know of, the late C. G. Lloyd, who attempted to
disclaim the authority for the new binomials he was forced to propose in connec-
tion with his descriptive mycological work, did so by crediting them to an imagi-
nary “ Professor McGinty; ” the descriptive mycologists should have no difficulty
in deciding which of their group inspired Lloyd in his selection of the name. We
mention this in passing merely to point up the fact that whether we like it or
not, the authority for a technical name is an essential part of the record. There
is no way of escaping the credit or the discredit unless one wishes to follow
Lloyd’s uninspired action. And here Stevenson and Cash’** after Lloyd’s death
have dispelled his attempt at anonimity by compiling a list of his new names
with Lloyd as the authority in each case. Thus the imaginary “ Professor Mc-
Ginty ” passes out of the botanical picture even if “ McGinty,” as an authority
for the names of certain species of fungi, is embalmed in the later volumes of
Saccardo’s “ Sylloge fungorum.”

NoMINA NUDA

Nomina nuda have no taxonomic standing, and may be entirely ignored; yet
in those cases where a technical name was originally used without the vestige

17 Am. Monthly Mag. Crit. Rev. 1: 428. 1817.
18 Stevenson, J. A. & Cash, E.K. The New Fungus Names Proposed by C. G. Lloyd.
Bull. Lloyd Libr. 35 (Mycol. Ser. 9): 1-209. 1936.

ae. BARTONIA

of a description, and the original author, or some other botanist, later accepted
a name and prepared a description, we cannot help but think that references to
the original places of publication of such names are a desirable part of the record.
The unfortunate thing is that in many cases these nomina nuda are listed in
standard indices, but usually such works do not contain entries to the places of
later validation of such names; and validation may take the form of an actual
description, or be by the citation of explanatory synonyms. We believe that all
of the new names first published in Muhlenberg’s “ Catalogus”” should be con-
sidered as nomina nuda except in those cases where explanatory synonyms are
entered. It is true that from the very brief descriptive data included in the tabu-
lation under the floral characters, together with the common names listed, and
the data included under the habitat, together with certain descriptive specific
names, shrewd guesses can be made as to what was intended by this or that
entry. We have, in certain cases, indicated definite, as well as probable or
possible reductions, on the basis of such data. We do not accept such brief
characterizations as corolla “ alb.,” inflorescence “ long-spiked,” and the locality
and time of flowering, such as “ Pens. fl. Aug.” as constituting valid descriptions,
although in the past some botanists have accepted certain Muhlenberg binomials
on the basis of such meager data. Muhlenberg’s method of presentation is well
illustrated by plate 1, which is a reproduction of a typical page of the first
edition (1813) of the “ Catalogus.”

It is admitted that there is very little to be said in favor of correcting the
places of publication of nomina nuda, and furthermore, that little is to be gained
by even listing the overlooked ones in this category. Simply because in the past
nomina nuda have very generally been listed in standard indices we decided to »
include in this work the overlooked ones that we located in the course of our
investigations. In this paper we have listed an approximate total of 300 bi-
nomials which were originally published as nomina nuda. Of these about 140
were later validated by Muhlenberg himself or by other authors who had access
to his herbarium material, either by the provision of actual descriptions, or by
the citation of explanatory synonyms.

Illustrative cases where we have not hesitated to reduce certain nomina nuda,
where no descriptive data were ever published, are Caltha denticulata Muhl. =
_ C. palustris Linn.; Campanula aculeata Muhl. =C. aparinoides Pursh; Heter-
anthera ovalis Muhl. =H. rentformis Ruiz & Pavon; Yucca recurvata Muhl=Y.
recurvifolia Salisb.; Symplocos montana Muhl.=S. tinctoria (Linn.) L’Heérit.,
and Thalia caerulea Muhl.= T. dealbata Fraser. For other reductions of nomina
nuda we have depended largely on the published record, for fortunately various
_ early American botanists actually examined the material in the Muhlenberg her-

barium and based their reductions on this material. |

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 23
‘

VALIDATION OF Nomina NupDA

As noted above not infrequently a name that originally appeared as a nomen
nudum, in the publication of this or that author, may be accepted by a contempo-
raneous or later botanist and validated by either having a description provided
or by adding the necessary explanatory synonym or synonyms. To locate these
validations in botanical literature is a slow process, involving an inordinate
amount of time-consuming library work.

Muhlenberg did publish a great many new binomials strictly as nomina nuda
in his papers of 1793, 1799, 1813, and in the posthumously published second edi-
tion of his “ Catalogus ” in 1818. It is true that some authors, in the past, have
accepted certain of these names as validly published, but descriptive data are
lacking. Sometimes these names are characterized as being nomina subnuda,
but this impresses us as begging the question.

In the first two papers and in the two editions of the “ Catalogus,” certain of
Muhlenberg’s new binomials are validly published because in these cases he cited
the necessary synonym or synonyms, making it clear just what he intended his
new name to represent. Thus on page 18 of the first edition of the “Catalogus,”
reproduced as plate 1, Galium brachiatum Muhl. is validly published because
G. circaezans Michx. is given as a synonym; Galium brachiatum Muhl. was pro-
posed merely as a new name for Michaux’s species.

The Bartonia verna and B. paniculata cases, discussed on p. 25, may be con-
sidered as of somewhat doubtful “ publication ” as to actual validity, because in
neither case was the name-bringing synonym cited, these being Centaurella verna
Michx. and C. paniculata Michx. The fact that he did cite the generic name
Centaurella as a synonym of his new name Bartonia (actually Bartonia Muhl.
was published as a new name for Centaurella Michx., 1803, non Delarb., 1800)
indicates this. The generic name Bartonia is validly published, but it is only by
inference that the two specific names fall in this category.

From time to time botanists here and there have accepted certain of Muhlen-
berg’s nomina nuda in the sense that he applied them, and have provided the
necessary descriptive data or added the necessary explanatory synonyms thus
effecting validation. In a number of cases such botanists as Bigelow (1814),
Barton (1815), and Elliott (1816) validated certain Muhlenberg nomina nuda
before the latter’s actual descriptions were posthumously published in 1817. We
cite a few illustrative cases from the many appearing in the body of this work:
Agrostis decumbens Muhl. 1813, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex Barton, 1815, descr.; Muhl. ex Elliott,

cr.

1816, descr.; Muhl. 1817, des :
stis sericea Muhl, 1813, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex Elliott, 1816, deser.; Muhl. 1817, descr.

gro.
Agrostis sobolifera Muhl., 1799, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex Willd. 1809, descr.
Aira mollis Muhl. 1813, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex Elliott, 1816, descr. ; Muhl. 1817, descr.
When one finds that it is desirable to locate the first place where an original
nomen nudum may have been validated by a contemporaneous or later author,

24 BARTONIA

it is often like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack. Only the origi-
nal place of publication of the name is included in standard indices, not the place
where such names were later validated. It becomes necessary to scan a vast
amount of contemporaneous and later literature covering the work of both Euro-
pean and American botanists if one desires to be reasonably certain as to where
descriptions of certain of Muhlenberg’s species were first published. The stand-
ard European works of the first half of the past century are involved, and with
us, those of Bigelow, W. P. C. Barton, Nuttall, Elliott, Eaton, Torrey, Rafinesque,
Gray, Beck, Darlington, Chapman, Wood, and others. There are various cases
of correctly listed nomina nuda of Muhlenberg, which are outside of the scope of
this paper, where the actual validations of the names appear to be as follows:
Castanea nana Muhl., nom. nud., 1813, validated by Elliott, 1824.

Cerastium hirsutum Muhl., nom. nud., 1813, validated by Barton, 1815.

Galium pennsylvanicum Muhl., nom. nud., 1813, validated by Barton, 1815.

Geum hirsutum Muhl., nom. nud., 1813, validated by Barton, 1815.

Impatiens maculata Muhl., nom. nud., 1813, validated by Barton, 1815.

Thalictrum polygonum Muhl., nom. nud., 1793, validated by Harisn, 1815.

We note that currently the validation of the last name is credited to Sprengel,
Syst. Veg. 2: 671. 1825. Dr. Boivin !* notes that Muhlenberg’s binomial, which
he accepted, is antedated by two, perhaps by four validly published earlier ones,
T. corynellum DC. (1817), T. divergens Link (1822), T. pubescens Pursh (1814),
and T. purpurascens Linn. (1753), but he conservatively retained 7. polygonum
Muhl. as validated by Sprengel in 1825 explaining that although he realized that
the name which he accepted was not the right one for the species “it seems
preferable to keep it until we make sure of the right one to take.” From this
discussion, in view of the fact that Barton actually published sufficient descrip-
tive data in 1815 more or less definitely to characterize Muhlenberg’s species,
two of the above names may now be eliminated, that of DeCandolle in 1817 and
that of Link in 1822, as both are antedated by Barton’s description of Thalictrum
polygonum Muhl. in 1815; this leaves only T. purpurascens Linn., 1753, and
T. pubescens Pursh, 1814, as possible older names than that of Muhlenberg for
this particular species.

DIFFERENCES IN INTERPRETATIONS

There are some cases where there may easily be differences of opinion in the
interpretation of certain Muhlenberg entries. Thus Anthoranthum “ giganteum
Walt. v. erianthus” and Erianthus “ giganteus, Andropogon alop. L.” on page
four of both editions of the “ Catalogus” is a case in point. Fernald *° strongly
disagrees with Hitchcock as to what was intended or consummated. As to the
entry under Anthozanthum he says: “ It is perfectly clear that Muhlenberg was

19 Rhodora 46: 475, 478. 1944.
20 Rhodora 45: 249-251. 1943.

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 25

maintaining Walter’s Anthoxanthum giganteum under Anthoxranthum! though
with the rather vague intimation (‘v. [vel] erianthus’) that perhaps it was an
Erianthus.” On the basis of the evidence Fernald was too positive and we accept
Hitchcock’s interpretation; in any case “ perfectly clear” is too strong an expres-
sion, in spite of the fact that, to prove his point, Fernald reproduced the entries
from both editions of the “ Catalogus.”

We admit that Muhlenberg was slightly inconsistent in the use of the abbrevi-
ation “ v.” but we believe that the “ v.” was intended in this case as an abbrevi-
ation for vide (not for vel) to save space. In other cases where he used the
word he spelled it out in full, vide, as Polemonium “dubium vide phacelia,”
p. 33; Erigeron “ nervosum vide Inula graminifolia,” p. 76; Verbena “ nodiflora
vide Zapania,” p. 57; these are the only cases that we have noted.

In a very few cases he manifestly did use the “ v.” for vel, all we have noted
being Plantago “ media v. crassifolia,” p. 16; Hypericum “ simplex v. villosum,”
p. 28; Ceanothus “ intermedius v. corymbosus,” p. 25; and in edition 2, 68, the
entry under Phaca is “ Aeschynomene v. Sesbania platycarpa.” His normal pro-
cedure when he wished to express the spay of the English word “ or” was
to use “s.” = sive or seu instead of “ v.”=vel, such as Convolvulus “ speciosus
8. Wheleri,” p. 22, and similar satel under Achillea, Amorpha, Andromeda,
Andropogon, Asclepias, Cnicus, Gerardia, Hydrangea, Laurus, Prenanthes, Rhus,
and Rosa.

We note further that for the Anthoranthum giganteum entry Muhlenberg
cites no locality, but under Erianthus giganteus he says “ Car. Virg.” Perhaps
the strangest oversight of all on the part of both Hubbard ** and Fernald, who
both considered the Erianthus giganteus case, is that apparently both overlooked
the fact that in 1817 Muhlenberg actually publabed a detailed description of
Erianthus giganteus Muhl. Descr. 192. 1817, from “ Carolina et Virginia,” stating
at the end of the description: “Summa affinitas cum Andropogone alopecuroides.”
He did not cite any name-bringing synonym, i.e., Anthozanthum giganteum
Walt., but this was not normally his custom; see p. 19. At any rate there was
no need of the new combination Erianthus giganteus (Walt.) Hubb. of 1912, for
Muhlenberg’s description of 1817 under Erianthus had ninety-five years priority.
We believe, with Hitchcock, that Muhlenberg did, in 1813, validly, even if con-
fusedly, publish the transfer of Walter’s specific name from Anthoxzanthum to
Erianthus, for otherwise he would scarcely have prepared a full description of
Erianthus giganteus Muhl. which was published a few years later. How easy
it is, in cases like this, to become involved in interminable discussions, some of
which, like Fernald’s, at times become somewhat acrimonious.

In the case of Bartonia paniculata (Michx.) Muhl., it is only by assumption
that valid “ publication ” of the binomial was effected by Muhlenberg in 1813,
although the publication of the generic name was valid as noted above. In 1908

21 Hubbard, F. T. Rhodora 14: 166. 1912: Fervald, M. L.. op. cit. 45: 249-251. 1943.

26 BARTONIA

B. L. Robinson ?? republished the binomial as Bartonia paniculata (Muhl.) B. L.
Rob., but Fernald and Weatherby ** accepted it-as Bartonia paniculata (Michx.)
Muhl., with a reference to the “Catalogus” entry of 1813; yet nowhere did
Muhlenberg cite the name-bringing synonym, Centaurella paniculata Michx.
Merrill and Reeder ** discussed this case, calling attention to the fact that in
1822 Eaton in the third edition of his “ Manual” not only provided a descrip-
tion but also cited the name-bringing synonym, Centaurella paniculata Michx.
We add that Bigelow ** cited Bartonia paniculata Muhl. as a synonym of Cen-
taurella paniculata Michx. and a year later Barton 2° did likewise. A glance at
the reproduction of page 16 of Muhlenberg’s “ Catalogus,” plate 1, clearly indi-
cates the situation. One suspects that if any modern author so sketchily pub-
lished a transfer, that it would not be accepted as valid under any circumstances,
especially in view of the requirement now in vogue that not only the name-
bringing synonym must be given, but also the reference to its original place of
publication.

MUHLENBERG AND RAFINESQUE

During the time of Rafinesque’s first residence in Philadelphia, 1802-1804,
Muhlenberg was acquainted with him, and, as with other botanists of the time,
he provided him with named specimens from his herbarium. Rafinesque’s treat-
ment of Muhlenberg was not too generous or too ethical, for we note in the latter’s
letter of June 16, 1809, addressed to Stephen Elliott, the following statement:

“ Have you seen what Mr. Rafinesque Schmal[t]z had printed in the New
York medical Repository and what he promises to publish hereafter? He makes
a wonderful change and havoc amongst our plants and will do much harm if he
keeps his promise. I know him personally and find a great number of my plants
which I gave him superficially described without mentioning a word from whence
he had them. Very often he makes a new genus where hardly a species can be
made and where his specimen was imperfect. There is a medium in everything,
in Botany the festina lente is very necessary.”

Thus it is, as with the more numerous Pursh binomials, that if one compares
Muhlenberg’s entries with those of Rafinesque, one will note some cases where
the same specific name was used independently by both to designate the same
species. The most curious case is that of Callitriche terrestris, a binomial that
was certainly originated by Muhlenberg. In 1808 Rafinesque published it as
Callitriche terrestris Raf., in 1811 as C. terrestris Muhl., and in 1817 as C. ter-
restris Raf. & Muhl. Frasera verticillata Muhl. (1813), nom., was published as
F, verticillata Raf. in 1828. Spiraea corymbosa Muhl. nom. (1813), probably

22 Rhodora 10: 35. 1908.

23 Op. cit. 34: 165. 1932.

24 Bartonia 24: 52. 1947.

25 Florula Bostoniensis 34. 1814.

26 Florae Philadelphicae prodromus 25. 1815.

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 27

represents the same species as S. corymbosa Raf. (1814). Vitis verrucosa Muhl.
(1813), nom., appeared as V. verrucosa Raf. in 1830; and V. labruscoides Muhl.
(1813), nom., was accepted by Rafinesque in 1830 as V. labruscoides “ Mg.
[Muhlenberg] and Raf.” It may be that in some cases it was merely by chance
that the two authors applied the same specific name independently to the same
species, but the suspicion is that in perhaps all cases Rafinesque merely appro-
priated the name that Muhlenberg had placed on duplicate specimens he had
given him.

MUHLENBERG AND PURSH

In the more numerous cases where Muhlenberg and Pursh independently
published the same binomial, and in each case presumably for the same species,
we were at first undecided as to whether we should indicate the unlisted Muhlen-
berg names by an asterisk, or use the sign ¢ with the citation [Pursh] ex Muhl.
Cat. Although we cannot now prove that Muhlenberg originated all of these
names we finally decided to mark them with an asterisk. Muhlenberg was
acquainted with Pursh during the years that the latter lived in Philadelphia
(1799-1808), and they exchanged botanical material. The number of cases is so
large that the duplicate use of so many specific names could scarcely be acci-
dental. In at least one case, Justicia brachiata, Muhlenberg in recording this
name cited its authority as Pursh; there may be other cases where Pursh origi-
nated the name but where Muhlenberg, following his usual practice, cited no
authority in his “ Catalogus.” If one will compare the entries in Muhlenberg’s
“ Catalogus” (manuscript 1809, publ. 1813) with those in Pursh’s “ Flora”
(1814), one will note that in practically every case the geographic range as given
by one, conforms closely or exactly with that given by the other; the manuscript
for the “ Catalogus” was completed in 1809 or four years before it was finally
published. The eases are Conyza camphorata Muhl. (1813), Pursh (1814);
Corydalis formosa Muhl. (1813), Pursh (1814); C. glawca Muhl. (1813), Pursh
(1814) ; Euonymus angustifolius Lyon ex Muhl. (1813), Pursh (1814) ; Amsonia
salicifolia Muhl. (1813), Pursh (1814); Andromeda floribunda Muhl. (1813),
Pursh (1814); A. frondosa Muhl. (1813), Pursh (1814); Aster ledifolius Muhl.
(1813), Pursh (1814); Ceanothus intermedius Muhl. (1813), Pursh (1814);
Cnicus muticus Muhl. (1813), Pursh (1814); C. virginianus Muhl. (1813), Pursh
(1814) ; Heuchera hispida Muhl. (1813), Pursh (1814); Laurus diospyrus Muhl.
(1813), Pursh (1814); Linwm lewisiti Muhl.2* (1813), Pursh (1814); Marshallia
angustifolia Muhl. (1813), Pursh (1814); M. lanceolata Muhl. (1813), Pursh
(1814); M. latifolia Muhl. (1813), Pursh (1814); Phacelia parviflora Muhl.
(1813), Pursh (1814); Prinos laevigatus Muhl. (1813), Pursh (1814); Prunus

27 Perhaps Pursh originated this binomial for he had the Lewis and Clark expedition
PER Sag ro study; but Muhlenberg had seeds and actually grew this species in his

-

28 BARTONIA

depressa Donn (1807), Donn ex Muhl. (1813), Pursh (1814); Sagittaria heter-
ophylla Muhl. (1813), Pursh (1814); and Scirpus debilis Muhl. (1813), Pursh
(1814). It is perhaps worthy of note that when Pursh** did not accept a
Muhlenberg species as valid, he sometimes cited the names in synonymy, as
“ Polypodium pensylvanicum Mull. in litt.’ and “ Polypodium pilosiusculum
MuAl. in litt.,” in such cases clearly indicating the authorship.

We suspect that in most cases Pursh had seen actual specimens named by
Muhlenberg, and when he came to prepare his manuscript that he merely appro-
priated the new species as his own, in view of the fact that Muhlenberg had
never published descriptions. One should note that Muhlenberg’s listings were
named at least as early as 1809, or five years before Pursh’s work was published.
Pursh was not obligated to accept merely herbarium names, but most botanists
follow the ethical rule of accepting and publishing the name of the originator of
a new one, crediting the species to him. However, there is much evidence that
Pursh’s ethics were not of a very high order. Rafinesque expressed himself in
no uncertain terms regarding Pursh’s pilfering of certain of his new species.
Thus *® regarding Drosera filiformis Raf. (1808) versus Drosera filiformis Pursh
(1814): “ The Drosera filiformis was discovered in 1802 by C. S. Rafinesque in
a journey to the sea-shore of New Jersey, in company with Col. Thomas Forrest,
communicated in 1803 to Dr. Muhlenberg, to Mr. Hamilton, to whom Mr. Pursh
was then gardener, and to Mr. Pursh himself, and published in 1808 in the
Medical Repository, in 1809 in the Journal of Botany, &c., nevertheless, Mr.
Pursh introduces it in his Flora, in 1814! as a new species, under the same name,
stating that he had discovered it in the same place, near Tuckerton, in 1805!
and without noticing in the least the above circumstances.” A year later *° in
discussing the same binomial he pointedly stated that “ Pursh .. . pilfered from
him [Rafinesque] the plant and the name.” And even more baldly; #1 “ Pursh,
in 1814, stole this plant from me.” Apparently botanical piracy isn’t a modern
phenomenon.

Some of the Muhlenberg names of 1813, listed above, are validly published,
and in these cases, as far as the names are now accepted as valid, Muhlenberg
should replace Pursh as the authority. On the other hand many are strictly
nomina nuda, and in these cases Pursh, who provided the first published descrip-
tions in each case, is the legitimate author of the binomials. While Pursh was
more or less familiar with what Muhlenberg was doing, up to the time he left
Philadelphia, we merely call attention to the fact that the period involved was
a very unsettled one, due to hostilities between the United States and Great
Britain; from 1812 to 1814 intercommunication between residents of the two

28 Flora Americae septentrionalis 2: 664, 671. 1814.
28 Am. Monthly Mag. Crit. Rev. 2: 174. 1818.

30 Op. cit. 4: 191. 1819.

31 Loudon’s Gard. Mag. 8: 246. 1833.

-
WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 29

countries was impossible or was severely restricted. There is no reason to believe
that Pursh, up to the time he had finished his manuscript, had any knowledge
of the actual publication of Muhlenberg’s “ Catalogus” in October, 1813, and
Muhlenberg never saw a copy of Pursh’s “ Flora,” if we may judge by his letiees
to Elliott up to April 10, 1815 (Muhlenberg died May 23, 1815), for he kept
Elliott posted on the new botanical works that he received from Europe. He
knew that the text of Pursh’s “ Flora” was being prepared for he mentions it in
his letter of October 10, 1814. According to W. P. C. Barton * copies of Pursh’s
work had not been received in Philadelphia up to October 1, 1815. From
Muhlenberg’s letter we quote:

‘We may expect a new work published in England in 2 volumes, flora Ameri-
cana Pursh. I know Mr. Pursh personally. He is a good botanist and he has
had an apg opportunity to examine Clayton’s and even Linne’s Herbarium
and so many botanical eprieys I expect a great deal, but still a great part of
our plants are untouche

Finally in his last letter to Elliott, dated April 10, 1815, Muhlenberg states:

“ Mr. Pursh has pe his Flora. He has seen Walter’s Herbarium with
the Fraser’s, also Clay and many others in England. Without doubt we

dubious plants and new Sere omitted by Walter and Michaux. Figures are
given to more than 25 plan

Perhaps Pursh ee that he was a much better authority on the flora
of North America, working as he later did in England, where he had access to
extensive collections of historical material, than was an obscure clergyman resi-
dent in such an out of the way place as Lancaster, Pennsylvania. We have
Muhlenberg’s own word for it that Rafinesque actually did appropriate some of
his (Muhlenberg’s) binomials as his own, but we have not found any reference,
other than casual ones, to his relationships with Pursh. The number of cases of
the duplication of specific names in this Muhlenberg-Pursh episode is too great
to warrant an explanation on the basis of mere chance.

MUHLENBERG’S HERBARIUM

The Muhlenberg herbarium, apparently the first really large one assembled
by a native-born American botanist, is the property of the American Philo-
sophical Society and is now deposited, as a separate collection, at the Academy
of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. The material is unmounted. There is one
small special collection, purchased from Dr. Muhlenberg’s son, Dr. F. A. Muhlen-
berg, by Dr. W. P. C. Barton, and presented by him to the Philosophical Society,
April 28, 1831, and the much larger general Muhlenberg herbarium. Barton’s
note regarding the small herbarium is reproduced by Hitchcock in his paper
on Muhlenberg’s grasses referred to below. The larger general herbarium was

32 Florae Philadelphicae prodromus vii. 1815.

30 BARTONIA

also purchased from Dr. Muhlenberg’s son by a group of nine donors, Messrs.
Zaccheus Collins, Nathaniel Chapman, J. 8. Dorsey, George Pollock, Thomas C.
James, William Short, William Tilghman, John Vaughn, and Caspar Wistar.
The actual minute reads, in part: “ Muhlenberg’s Herbarium costing ‘ upwards
of 500 dollars’ was received as a donation to the Society ‘ under terms hereafter
to be made known.’” Then follow the names of the actual donors with the
supplementary statement “ [The names of N. Biddle, H. Binney and C. Chauncey
appear faintly preceding the others, and seem to have ioe Paria Presented
by them to the Philosophical Society: February 20, 1818.”

The small collection is that part of Muhlenberg’s herbarium associated with
his posthumously published “ Descriptio uberior graminum et plantarum cala-
marium Americae septentrionalis,” a work that was apparently off the press as
early as June, 1817. This was subsequent to the publication of pages 1 to 296 of
volume one of Elliott’s “Sketch of the Botany of South Carolina and Georgia; ”
Elliott actually published some of Muhlenberg’s species, for they were in close
correspondence with each other and exchanged botanical specimens on a rather
large scale; see p. 35.

This special herbarium, the only part of Muhlenberg’s collection still remain-
ing as he left it, is limited to the Cyperaceae, the Gramineae, and the Juncaceae.
The folders containing the specimens are about 9 by 11 inches. The specimens,
for the most part small, are loose in the folders. In some cases there are several
species in a folder; they are usually unaccompanied by labels or notes. The
folders are sewed together like the signature of a book, with an accompanying
numbered list of the species, the corresponding sunabers being written on the
folders. These numbers extend from 1 to 414. The names actually published in
Muhlenberg’s “ Descriptio” are not always the same as those on the herbarium
lists.

The Gramineae were examined by the senior author in 1899,?4 at the begin-
ning of his short career as Assistant Agrostologist in the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture, and much more intensively by Hitchcock ®* in 1932. The
senior author considered only about 90 selected species, while Doctor Hitchcock
critically studied all of the North American grasses in the collection, totalling
about 220 species in Muhlenberg’s “Descriptio.” For the association of the
Muhlenberg species with those described by other authors, Hitchcock’s work
should be consulted.

33 Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 22 (3): 478. 1884. Part three, no. 119 of this volume is
eon to ye publication of the man bgprege minutes of the meetings from 1744 to 1848.

Scribner, F. L. & Merrill, E. D. The Grasses of the Muhlenberg Herbarium.
U; <, Dept. Agr. Div. Agrost. Circ. 27: 1-6. 1900.
a eee A. S. The Grasses of the Muhlenberg Herbarium. Bartonia 14: 27-52.

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 31

Both this and the much larger general Muhlenberg herbarium were still pre-
served in the original book-like boxes when Doctor F. W. Pennell took charge
of the herbarium of the Academy of Sciences in 1921. Both series consisted of
specimens collected by Muhlenberg and of American and foreign material sent
to him by various correspondents in eastern North America and in Europe. We
are informed by Doctor Pennell that Mr. R. Eglesfield Griffith, one of the cura-
tors of the Philosophical Society “ put the collection into good order” about 1830.
This was very unfortunate, the result being that only occasional records in
Muhlenberg’s handwriting survive. Perhaps one of the objectives was to prepare
the technical names in a more legible script, although Muhlenberg’s distinctly
small handwriting is remarkably clear. Doctor Pennell also informs us that he
suspects, from an earlier mention of the herbarium by William Baldwin,** that
there never were many data with the specimens. The extensive Muhlenberg
manuscripts contain very numerous lists of numbered specimens received from
his many correspondents. It may be assumed that the numbers and the col-
lector’s names were originally associated with the actual specimens in the her-
barium. However, if this was the case, the ordering up of the collection, about
1830, resulted in the elimination of most of these data. Often small slips bearing
numbers are associated with the specimens but rarely is any collector’s name
indicated. Thus it is in general difficult to determine which specimens were
collected by this or that individual—Elliott, Baldwin, Nuttall, etc., or even by
Muhlenberg himself, or when or where they were collected. From the lists of
identifications in Muhlenberg’s unpublished manuscripts, such as those of num-
bered collections sent to him by Baldwin, Elliott, and others, it would be possible,
in many cases, to add the collector’s names and perhaps the approximate locali-
ties for many of the specimens, but this would be a very critical and time-con-
suming task. Muhlenberg could scarcely have depended on his memory as to
localities and collectors, and if such data were originally associated with the
specimens the only conclusion that we can draw is that they were eliminated
when the herbarium was “ ordered up” by Mr. Griffith about 1830.

This herbarium has been rearranged, the specimens, still loose on the thin
sheets, now being in the sequence of the numbered genera of Muhlenberg’s
“Catalogus.” The material is now stored in standard herbarium cases. There
is doubtless much of historical value in this herbarium, including some or per-
haps most of Muhlenberg’s actual types, as well as isotypes of eastern. North
American species described by Willdenow and others on the basis of duplicate
specimens sent by Muhlenberg to his European correspondents. ‘Likewise there
should be important material that would help in elucidating species described by
Elliott. (1816-1824), for Muhlenberg’s letters to Elliott indicate that the latter

. Be react ge Baldwinianae . 1-346. 1843. This work incidentally
contains a great etters written by Muhlenberg to Baldwin from January 7, 1811
to May 11, 1815, nae TR alivins letters to Muhlenb

32 BARTONIA

sent about 900 plant specimens to him. Muhlenberg also received very extensive
collections made by Dr. Baldwin in Georgia. Some of the foreign material may
also prove to be of distinct value, including as it does specimens representing
early European and Asiatic collections.

In spite of the early lack of critical care of this herbarium we cannot fully
subscribe to Harshberger’s statement of 1899. He says in his “ Botanists of
Philadelphia,” p. 96, that when the herbarium was presented to the American
Philosophical Society in February 1818: “It was then in good condition, but has,
unfortunately, being [been] allowed to suffer from neglect until it is no longer
of any value.” In spite of the well-intentioned but ill-conceived attempt of a
former curator to “ put it into good order” which apparently did result in the
loss of certain original data, and perhaps in some mixtures of specimens and
their names, there are still many historical specimens in the herbarium; certainly
the statement: “ it is no longer of any value” is much too strong. It is possible
that some important specimens in the herbarium were destroyed by herbarium
beetles, during the many years that it apparently remained in dead storage and
was rarely consulted. The record is clear, however, that some of Muhlenberg’s
contemporaries and successors, such as the two Bartons, Darlington, Nuttall, Le
Conte, Torrey, and others, did consult the Muhlenberg herbarium in connection
with their studies.

The actual types of certain Muhlenberg species, the descriptions of which
were published in his name by his European correspondents, will naturally be
found in European herbaria. The most important was the Willdenow herbarium
at Berlin. This special collection, as a measure of safety, had been stored in an
abandoned mine in Thuringia during the early part of the second world war and
thus escaped destruction when the herbarium building at Dahlem was destroyed
on the night of March 1-2, 1943, in a bombing raid, in which the greater part
of the historically very rich Berlin herbarium and its accompanying library was
lost. Following the close of hostilities it was reported that the Willdenow her-
barium, and such other parts of the collections as had been moved from Berlin
for storage during the war, had been appropriated and “ moved to the east,” but
in the latter part of 1947 it was all returned to Berlin. It is estimated that
perhaps as many as 500,000 specimens were thus saved. Presumably, however,
there was in the original Muhlenberg herbarium duplicate types of most of the
species which were actually published in Germany by Willdenow and others.

COMMENTS ON EARLY HERBARIUM PRACTICES

As we consider the prevalent herbarium practices of a century or more ago,
or less for that matter, we are impressed by the meager data that were preserved
with the specimens. Doubtless this was a reflection of the attitude of Linnaeus,
for in his herbarium about the only records that appear on the faces of the
herbarium sheets are the technical names of the plants. If other data were

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 33

preserved they appear on the verso of the sheets and usually in exceedingly
abbreviated form, often even reduced to cryptic signs. The idea of the printed
label developed later. Muhlenberg apparently followed the general practices of
the time, using no herbarium labels.

Pennell ®7 has discussed this matter in connection with the large Schweinitz
herbarium which was bequeathed to the Academy of Natural Sciences of Phila-
delphia in 1835. It was estimated to contain about 23,000 species of plants
including those collected by himself and those received from his correspondents;
and the record shows that he had a much more extensive series of botanical
correspondents than did Muhlenberg, over 100 individuals ** in various parts of
the world. As Pennell expresses it:

“ Nuttall could cross a continent, and’be content with ‘ R. Mts.’ as the datum
for his species gathered in what is now Southern Wyoming and Idaho. Schweinitz
was content to let ‘Sal’ stand for whatever plants he had gathered while at
Salem, North Carolina.... Similarly ‘Beth’ denoted whatever he had gathered
while living at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. But more amazing still was his treat-
ment of the specimens received from his distinguished contemporaries.

those that Baldwin had gotten in Georgia, Elliott was gathering in South Caro-
lina, Ledebour had procured in the Altai region of central Asia, Sprengel in Ger-
many, and llich in India. The specimens of all collectors were treated alike,
their original labels uniformly discarded, and the abbreviations of collector and
country written upon the rough paper folder. Often these abbreviations became

cryptic signs.
“ THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN ”’

We have used the above ancient aphorism as the heading for this short state-
ment because, in 1915, the senior author ** published a short article on the utility
of carbon rubbings of the vegetative parts of plants as an aid in erbarium work.
A better title would have been a simplified method of making carbon impressions,
for the only original contribution in this paper was to call attention to the fact
that modern commercial carbon paper could be used to advantage; for with the
original method each operator had to smoke his own carbon paper over a candle
flame as needed. As a matter of fact the method was known at an early date,
and there is a very extensive published literature on the subject of making
nature prints; Dr. Frans Verdoorn called our attention to the many references

‘ 37 Pennell, F. W. The Botanist Schweinitz and His Herbarium. Bartonia 16: 1-8.
934.
38 A list of the contributors prefaced to a catalogue of the Schweinitz herbarium
that was subsequently discovered at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,
includes the names of Mae

89 Merrill, E. D. A Simple Method of Making Carbon Leaf Impressions. Torreya
15: 175-181, fia. 103. 1915.

34 BARTONIA

that he had assembled to the various methods used. As early as 1790, Hoppe *°
gave a detailed description of his method of making carbon nature prints of
plants through the use of smoked paper. The excellent plates in his book are
reproductions of prints that he made by his method; doubtless the method was
known and used long before Hoppe’s book was published. In the middle decades
of the last century, the method, with various modifications, was very extensively
used in Europe for preparing illustrations of plants and of parts of plants for
publication. In general, however, the herbarium botanists never used it very
extensively in spite of its simplicity and eminent practicability. We judge that
the rapid decline of its use was due to development of photographic processes
in the nineteenth century.

On the back of one of Muhlenberg’s letters to Elliott, dated February 1, 1811,
is a beautifully prepared carbon rubbing of the leaves of a certain species which
was apparently prepared by Muhlenberg to give Elliott some graphic idea of
what the leaves looked like as to size, venation, and marginal teeth. One judges
that in modern times this method of reproducing leaf forms, once very exten-
sively used, had by the beginning of the present century largely been forgotten,
photography taking its place; and yet a good carbon rubbing of a leaf will not
infrequently give a better idea of certain characters of the leaves of plants than
will the clearest photograph. The senior author’s attention was originally called
to the method by Mr. N. E. Brown at Kew, in 1907, who then occasionally used
it to prepare impressions of the leaves of aroids when he wished to preserve a
leaf outline for future reference.

EVIDENCE AS TO THE CRITICAL NATURE OF MUHLENBERG’S WORK

Muhlenberg is the authority for a few new generic names and many new
binomials for North American plant species, but in many cases his descriptions
were published for him by other authors to whom he sent specimens and manu-
script descriptions, notably by Willdenow, Schkuhr, and other botanists in
Europe. Bartonia Muhl. and Elliottia Muhl. are two generic names that he
originated, both of which are universally accepted by all botanists; his third new
genus, Atheropogon Muhl. is now placed as Muhlenbergia Schreber, subgen.
Atheropogon (Muhl.) Endl. Universally accepted by all botanists are somewhat
more than 100 specific names of North American plants, for which Muhlenberg
is the authority, which is a remarkably high percentage of those proposed by
him for which actual descriptions were published. This is in very striking con-
trast to the erratic work of Rafinesque, where with nearly 9,500 validly published
new generic and specific names, less than two percent have been accepted. This
indicates that Muhlenberg, whose motto in botany, as expressed in his letters to
Elliott was festina lente, was conservative, and shows moreover that he was not
only a keen observer, but also a distinctly critical worker. He was perhaps the

40 Hoppe, D. H. Botanisches Taschenbuch. 1-182. pl. 1-2. 1790.

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 35

most scholarly native American botanist of his time as well as an individual who
devoted his energy to the technical aspects of systematic botany rather than to
the more practical phases of the subject. He was not content to base his con-
clusions on a study of herbarium specimens alone, but as evidenced by state-
ments included in his correspondence with Elliott, actually grew hundreds of
species in his garden where he could observe them as living plants, and he
recommended Elliott to do likewise.

We do not claim that Muhlenberg’s botanical work was perfect, nor that his
concepts as to specific limits, nor his nomenclatural conclusions, were always
correct. It would be a very simple matter to criticize some of his methods and
certain conclusions that he reached. We maintain that any potential critic work-
ing in a modern institution that possesses great library and herbarium resources
should be the last to criticize Muhlenberg if consideration be given to the con-
ditions under which he worked and the limited amount of botanical literature
and herbarium material that was ‘available to him. He was self-trained in
botany, and his personal financial resources were limited. To a high degree he
had to depend on his own efforts. Commencing about 1780, through his own
personal efforts, he assembled in the following 35 years the largest private or
institutional herbarium in North America up to 1815, and also copies of the
reference works essential to his needs.

The pioneer is always at a disadvantage, and Muhlenberg was the pioneer
native-born American botanist who limited his field very largely to problems of
taxonomy. Over a period of approximately thirty-five years, and never with
institutional support, he persistently continued his botanical work because of his
deep personal interest in it. Through his own efforts, although resident in a
small and somewhat remote colonial town, he attained international eminence in
the field of systematic botany. It is one thing to initiate botanical work in
centers where great collections and library resources are available and institu-
tional support is provided; it was, in Muhlenberg’s time, quite another matter to
pioneer in almost strictly taxonomic work on a flora that was relatively little
known, one not covered by descriptive texts other than two editions of the pre-
Linnaean “ Flora Virginica ” of Gronovius (1739, 1762), the very limited “ Flora
Caroliniana ” of Walter (1788), and, after 1803, the more extensive but still very
incomplete “ Flora Boreali Americana ” of Michaux.

Stephen Elliott, who, like Muhlenberg was self-trained in botany, was the
author of the remarkable flora of South Carolina and Georgia, which he very
modestly called a “sketch.”*! Here is a large descriptive work where very
much of the matter was based on the author’s personal observations. From 1808
to Muhlenberg’s death in 1815, the two botanists, one in Pennsylvania, the other
in South Carolina, were in close correspondence, and Elliott was greatly indebted

A_ Sketch of the Botany of South Carolina and Georgia. 1: 1-606.
pl. 16 wate al: 2: i-vini. 1-743. pl. 7-12. [1821]-24. Charleston, J. R. Schenck.

36 BARTONIA

to Muhlenberg for assistance and advice. This he acknowledged in the dedica-
tion of his work which appears following the title page of volume one, 1821:

“ From a remembrance of his extensive and profound knowledge of the science
of Botany, and of his unwearied efforts to improve the Flora of North America;
from a high respect for his many virtues, his liberal temper and exemplary
character; and for the personal advantages derived from years of uninterrupted
correspondence, this volume is inscribed to the memory of the late Rev. Henry
Muhlenberg of Lancaster, Pennsylvania.”

It was undoubtedly the pioneer work of Muhlenberg from 1780 to 1815 which
to a large degree paved the way for the remarkably strong development of
botanical work in Philadelphia in the early decades of the past century. At this
time Philadelphia was the one outstanding center of botanical research in the
country, as witnessed by the descriptive works of the two Bartons, Darlington,
Nuttall, Von Schweinitz, Baldwin, and others; and from this center, through the
influence of Muhlenberg, descriptive botanical work was extended to other places
such as Boston, New York, and Charleston. Other contributing factors were the
-interests of the somewhat earlier workers such as Marshall, and the two Bartrams,
as well as the influence of Pursh while a resident of Philadelphia; the presence of
reasonably ample botanical library facilities, which were then largely wanting in
other American centers; the large accumulations of botanical material, first as
private, later as institutional collections; and the early development of organi-
zations and institutions such as the American Philosophical Society and the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. For details see the work of
Harshberger.*”

CoNCLUSION

We have tried to locate the new unlisted Muhlenberg names to the best of
our ability but we do not claim that we have succeeded in finding all of them.
We have also attempted to indicate reductions as far as this is possible, although
neither of us are in any sense specialists on the flora of North America. The
very fact that Muhlenberg in general did not cite authorities for his accepted
binomials has naturally complicated the task. For any errors and omissions and
for any erroneous reductions that may appear in this document we accept full
responsibility. We have merely tried to do the best that we could in what has
proved to be not a simple nor an easy task. We admit that in most cases what
we have located merely adds to synonymy, but in a few cases changes in accepted
specific names for valid species are indicated, such as Ulmus rubra Muhl. (1793)
to replace Ulmus fulva Michx. (1803), as Fernald has already demonstrated.

In this paper we have concerned ourselves only with those new Muhlenberg
names which are either not listed in standard indices (these marked with an

_. *Harshberger, J. W. The Botanists of Philadelphia and Their Work. i-xii. 1-457.
illus. 1899. Philadelphia.

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 37

asterisk, *), or those which are erroneously entered (these marked with a dag-
ger, +). It will be noted that the majority of the latter are those where the
“Index Kewensis ” entry is to the second edition of Muhlenberg’s “ Catalogus ”
(1818), rather than to the first edition (1813), in which they originally appeared;
such corrections are of minor importance. The total of unlisted binomials is
about 235 and of erroneously recorded ones about 190. There are few nomencla-
tural upsets, but there are naturally a number of additions to an already over-
burdened synonymy. While we have listed the strictly nomina nuda, we actually
question the value of so doing as such names have no standing whatsoever and
in no way affect nomenclature.

This is the fifth paper in a series on overlooked or erroneously recorded
technical names of plants appearing in early North American works on botany,
the first having been the senior author’s consideration of the Bartram names *°
of 1791 and the second the Merrill and Reeder paper ** on those appearing in the
eight editions of Eaton’s “ Manual ” (1817-1840). Two lesser ones are based on
the works of Wood 4° and Chapman.*® The most extensive paper in the series,
an “Index Rafinesquianus” is in press and will be issued in 1949. The grand
totals are impressive and rather clearly indicate that some American botanists
who have concerned themselves with the bibliographic aspects of the actual
publication of technical names for plants in early American botanical literature
have not taken the time to make the necessary critical examination of these
publications. Thus it is that in the works of Bartram, Muhlenberg, Eaton,
Wood, Chapman, and Rafinesque, all published between 1791 and 1897, we note
approximately 750 validly published but unlisted new generic names, 330 new sub-
generic or sectional names, 3200 specific names, and in the works of Rafinesque
alone 900 new varietal names (those in the works of the other authors were not
considered). * We believe that all who follow the cult of naming and describing
new genera, subgenera, and sections, species, and even varieties, should first
seriously consider what their predecessors have proposed, taking the time neces-
sary to examine the early literature. Until names are at least listed in standard
indices they are very largely “lost,” but merely because of clerical (and botan-
ical) oversights in detecting and listing such names this is no reason why they
should not be considered on their merits. We note that there are still unlisted
new names in early standard descriptive works published by Michaux, Pursh,

43 Merrill, E. D. In Defense of the Validity of William Bartram’s Binomials.
Bartonia 23: 10-35. 1945.

44 Merrill, E. D. & Reeder, J. R. New Piant Names published by Amos Eaton Be-
tween the Years 1817 and 1840. Bartonia 24: 26-79. 1947.

45 Merrill, E. D. Unlisted New Names in Alphonso Wood’s Botanical Publications.
Rhodora 50: 101-130. 1948.

46 Merrill, E. D. Unlisted Binomials in Chapman’s Flora of the Southern United
States. Castanea 13: 61-70. 1948.

38 BARTONIA

Nuttall, Elliott, Torrey, and Gray,4? and if one be on the alert in one’s biblio-
graphic researches it is surprising how large a number of unlisted names may be
detected in a relatively short time. In the words of Dr. L. H. Bailey inventories
are needed, for without inventories there is no valid discussion of objects; and
certainly this general subject of listing overlooked but validly published names
of plants helps on the needed inventory. We depend on the remarkable and
indispensable “ Index Kewensis” and its ten supplements (1893-1947) for the
names and their original places of publication of the hundreds of thousands of
species. We believe that it is the duty of all productive workers to assist in
making that work more complete through entries which may be made in future
supplements of previously overlooked binomials. We realize, however, that the
conservatives, some of whom scarcely devote sufficient time to a consideration
of bibliographic problems associated with published technical names, will sympa-
thize with James Britten’s statement 48 regarding Dr. Pennell’s discovery in 1921
of 84 unlisted generic names validly published by Rafinesque in 1840: ‘ We do
not think botanists generally will congratulate Mr. Pennell or themselves on
the discovery.” Neither are we impressed with the wishful thinking of those who
would lightly dismiss early published but as yet unlisted names on the basis that
they occur in “ outdated ” literature.49 We might devoutly wish that we could
legitimately dismiss a vast amount of early published work of numerous authors
rom consideration perhaps on the egotistical basis that we could, de novo, do a
much better piece of work. However, in the literature of systematic botany there
is no such category as “ outdated,” as long as the individual authors concerned
conformed to certain standard tenets in the presentation of their published data.

The completion of this study was made possible tirough the utilization of the
small balance in a grant made from the Penrose Fund of the American Philo-

*f have not concerned ourselves with the fugitive unlisted names fn the works of
the authors mentioned except occasionally as Muhlenberg recorded them. e did how-
ever check the three editions of Bigelow’s “ Florula Bostoniensis,” ed. 1 (1814), ed. 2 (1824),
ed: 3 G i Its: Bunias Bost. 157. 1814
(the Ind. Kew. entry is ed. 3, 267 [1840]; Rumex pallidus Bigel. op. cit., ed. 2, 143. 1824
i ; s tmaritimus Bigel. op. cit. ed. 2, 268

1824 (the Ind. Kew. entry is ed. 3, : tcastaneus Bigel. ed. 2, 18. 1824 (the
Kew. entry is ed. 3, 19 [1840]); Festuca +acutifolia Bigel. ed. 2, (the Ind

Kew. entry is ed. 3, 39 [1840]); Urasperum thirsutwn B 0 , ed. 2, 112. 1824 (the

tnd. K ntry is ed. 3, 120 [1840]); and Erythronium +bracteatum Bigel. ed. 2,

(the Ind. Kew. entry is Bigel. in Beck. Bot. 365 [1833]). There are very few nomenclatural

changes in edition three ant, lum fraxineum ill i a correction for th

:
3

c m ot edition two, and a description being provided for Utricularia
resupinata Greene ex Bigel. op. cit. ed. 3, 10 840, validating Greene’s nomen nudum of
1835. There are apparentlv no unlisted new binomials in any of the editions of Bigelow s
work, but there are ten of his new names that are credited to the third edition (1840) when
actually they appear for the first time in edition two (1824) or in one case in edition
one (1814).

48 Jour. Bot. 59: 184. 1921.

#9 Ames, O. Botanical Museum Leaflets, Harvard University 12: 17. 1947.

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 39

sophical Society which was provided to further the work on the Bartram and
Muhlenberg problems, and a special grant from the Bache Fund of the National
Academy of Sciences. The receipt of this financial support is gratefully ac-
knowledged.

As already stated, in the following enumeration the asterisk (*) preceding a
specific name indicates that the binomial is not listed in “ Index Kewensis,” while
the dagger (+) denotes a correction to the entry in that indispensable work.

PTERIDOPHYTA

Schizaea +tortuosa Pursh ex Muhl., Cat. 98. 1813; ed. 2, 102. 1818, nom. nud. = S. pusilla

Pursh (1814).

This case was briefly discussed by Merrill and Reeder in Bartonia 24: 50. 1947. The
entry in Christensen’s Index Filicum is confused as between the first and second editions
of Muhlenberg’s Catalogus. This is a case where Muhlenberg apparen ntly had a named
specimen from Pursh, but the latter, in publishing the first description of the species,
selected a different specific name; see p. 27.

SPERMATOPHYTA

Acacia *divaricata Muhl., Cat. 96. 1813; ed. 2, 100. 1818, nom. nud.
is , by error, credited to Donn, but the latter did not recognize the genus
Acacia, fiber eeinca it as Mimosa *divaricata Donn, Hort. Cantab. ed. 4, 222. 1807, nom.
nud. from Carolina. Acacia divaricata Muhi. has nothing to with A. divaricata Willd. (1806).
Acacia *miamensis Muhl., 11. cc., nom. nud. “ Miami.”
This is also erroneously credited to Don[n]. Unquestionably its basis was Mimosa
*miamensis Donn, Hort. Cantab. ed. 4, 223. 1807, nom. nud. from North America. In
edition eight of Donn’s work, 325. 1815, Pursh gives the eit as Carolina, indicating
the date of introduction of the species into England as 1806. Mimosa miamensis Roxb.,
Hort. Bengal. 41. 1814, nom. nud., undoubtedly represents the same species, merely indi-
cated as from America; apparently Roxburgh received seeds, directly or indirectly, from
the Cambridge botanic garden. The three nomina nuda here discussed probably all belong
with Desmanthus illinoensis (Michx.) MacMill. The original locality was doubtless the
Miami River region, Ohio.
Agrimonia *minor Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 170. 1793, nom. nud. Pennsylvania
[rtieitinr) 2004. aaa Wallr. (1842).
This was indicated by Muhlenberg as a new species. There is an earlier Agrimonia
minor Mil
Agrimonia , nom. nud. ; 1. ex Raf., FL
“ger sanlage mags oy age es ee th tay ate Wallr. Cidazy, Vai Small.
in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 4: 236. 1799, nud. ; Descr.

Agrostis jclandestina Muhl. i
Gram. aig 1817, descr.; Biehler, Pl. Nov. Herb. S pe i ‘Cent. 4. 1 1807, de descr. ; Spreng.
Mant. 32. 1807, descr. Pennsy lvania (Lancaster — Sporobolus eer

(Bichier) Hitche; see Hitchcock in Bartonia

The proper authority for the binomial Agrostis clandestina is Biehler who first pub-
lished a description; Muhlenberg originated the name. Muhlenberg in
Sprengel’s description.
Agrostis *cylindrica Muhl., op. cit., 3: 160. 1793, nom. nud. Pennsylvania (Lancaster).

40 BARTONIA

Agrostis *decumbens Muhl., Cat. 19. 1813; ed. 2, - ae nom, nud.; Descr. Gram. 68.

1817, descr.; Muhl. ex Barton, Fi. Phila. Prodr. 2 1815, descr.; Muhl. ex Ell, Sketch

1: 136. 1816, descr. 4 palustris Huds. et A. poten Vill.

Muhlenberg queries the correctness of the identification in his “ Catalogus ”, clearly
indicating that he thought he was recording a species named by some other author.
In 1817 he cited the authority as Gaudin [Agrost. Helv. 1: 78. 1811] =A. alba Linn. var.
decumbens Ga udin. The tone described in Elliott’s Sketch is A. verticillata Vill.; see

a2.

Agrostis — — in Trans. Pei Philos. Soc. 3: 160. 1793, nom. nud.: Cat. 10. 1813,
ea 2. 8, nud.; Descr. Gram. 1817, descr. Pennsylvania —= Muhlenbergia
me. ey Trin: ; see Hitchcock | in Bartonia 14: 31. 1932.

tis {glauca Muhl., Cat. 10. 1813; ed. 2, 10. 1818, nom. (Arundo glauca Muhl1.) ;

Gran. 76. 1817, descr. New E ngla ind, Pennsylvania, Ss aN tr i daaottes
(Muhl.) Barton: see Pie et in Bartonia 14: 33.: 1932.

tis finvoluta Muhl., Cat. 11. cc. nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 72. 1817, descr. New Yor
Beansyivanta —Sporsbois asper (Michx.) Kunth: see Hitchcock in Bartonia 14:
1932

Agrostis jlaxa Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 4: 236. 1799, nom. nud.; Schreb. ex Pursh,
Fl. Am. Sept. 1: 61. nce nom. in syn. Pennsylvania (Lancaster) —4. hiemalis (Walt.)
Britton, Sterns, & Poggenb.

This was mcene. a Schreber name transmitted to Muhlenberg in a list of
identifications; we suspect that Muhlenberg gave Pursh a duplicate specimen. Muhlen-
berg, Descr. Groen: 60. 1817 cites it as a synonym of Trichodium laxiflorum Muhl.

Agrostis jpungens Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 72. 1817, descr.; sensu
ae ong eh Am. Sept. ‘1: 64 1814, descr., cca Schreb. Carolina = Sporobolus virginicus
Linn
Muhle Mea specimen is Sporobolus virginicus (Linn.) Kunth; he probably thought

that he had a specimen representing Agrostis pungens Schreb., a Mediterranean species

= Sporobolus pungens (Sc hreb.) Kunth, and did not propose the name as a new one;

see Hitchcock in Bartonia 14: 33, 1932.

Agrostis jsericea Muhl., Cat. 10, 1813; ed. 2, 9. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 64. 1817, neat
Muhl. ex esis Ske te ay 3: 135. 1816, descr. New England to Georgia = Mu hlenber.
capillaris (Linn.) In
Stipa sericea Michx., ie by Elliott as a synonym= M1 thlenbergia Mphiode (Lam.)
Trin. var. filipes (M. A. Curtis) Chapm.; see Hitchcock in Bartonia 14:

is jsetosa Muhl., Cat. 10. 1813; ed. 2, 10. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 68. ie descr.
Pennsylvania = Muhlen enbergia racemosa (Michx.) Britton, Sterns, & Poggenb.; see
Hitchcock in Bartonia 14: 33, 1932.

Agrostis tsobolifera Muhl. ee! Trans. ~~ Philos. Soc. 4: 236. 1799, nom. nud.; Muhl.
Willd., Enum. Hort. B 95. 1809, descr.; Muhl., Descr. Gram. 70. 1817, descr. Penn-
sylvania (Lancaster) = Nuhlonbergia sobolifera "(Muh1.) Trin.; see Hitchcock in
Bartonia 14: 32, 193;

fmollis Muhl., Cat. 11. 1813; ed. 2, 10. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 82. 1817, descr.;
- Muhl. ex Ell, Sketch 1: 153, 1816, descr. Pennsylvania, Carolina = Sphenopholis nitida
(Spreng.) Scribn. : ; see Hitchcock in Bartonia 14: 34, 1932.

*navicularis Schreb. ex Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 161. 1793, nom. nud.
Pennsylvania (Lancaster).

1, c., nom. nud.; Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; Biehler, Pl. Nov. Herb. tog”

ira pallens Muhl.,
Cent. 8. 1807, deser.; Spreng., FL. Hal 1. Mant. 33. 1807, " descr.: Muhl, Descr. :
1817, descr.; Muhl. ex Eli, Sketch 1: 151. 1816, descr. as Aira “pallens, Var.

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 41

7 ereies nei Cat.” (Aira pennsylvanica Spreng.). Pennsylvania Sphenopholis nitida
Scribn.
The specimen Muhlenberg described is probably Sphenopholis aristata (Scribn. &
ne Heller; see Hitchcock in Bartonia 14: 34, 35. 1932.
a Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 161. 1793, nom. nud. Pennsylvania
feactkaes er).
This was indicated as a new sy
Aira jtruncata Muhl. c., nom, nud.; 1 COs, escr. Gram. 1817, descr.
(A. obtusata Mighs.). stim “Chancaster) = Sphenophols ce (Michx 3)
Scribn.; see Hitchcock in Bartonia 14:
Allionia *alba Muhl., Cat. 15. 1813; ed. 2, 14. 1818, nom. nud. Carolina.
Probably this was due to an error in transcription, Allionia albida Walt. (1788) being
intended.
Allium seer Muhl., Cat. 34. 1813; ed. 2, 34. 1818, nom. nud. Western America, cult.
Penn nia

s based on specimens grown from Lewis and Clark expedition seeds. In
itutitenbere’s unpublished mmaluseripe of 1807 this is indicated as “ Onion of the Missouri
within the Rocky Mountains.’

Allium *montanum Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 167. 1793, nom. nud. Pennsylvania
(Lancaster).

This was indicated as a new species.

Amorpha *emarginata Muhl., Cat. 64. 1813; ed. 2, 66. 1818, nom. nud. New Jersey, Carolina.
Ampelopsis ;hirsuta Donn, dee Cantab. bane 4, 50. 1807, nom. nud.; Muhl., Cat. 27. eg
ed. 2, 26. 1818, nom. nud. North Ameri aA. fuauhetoHe Michx., fide L. H. Baile

The i Kewensis entry is, by error, “Donn, Hort. Cantab. 166,” p. 66, ed. 7, ae
intended.

Amsonia +salicifolia Muhl., Cat. 27. 1813; ed. 2, 27. he nom. nud.; Pursh, A. oem Sept. 1:
184. 1814, Deser. Pennsylvania, Carolin na, Georg
Pursh may have here accepted ituhitectbere’s: name and published eo as his own; his

specimens were from Carolina and Georgia; see p

Anchusa *hirta Muhl., Cat. 18. 1813; ed. 2, Bi? — nom, cease Li + gag aproann EIll.,
Sketch 1: 227. 181 7, nom. in syn.; Michx. ex DC 1846, (Litho-
whe hirtum hehe): Pennsylvania, Peeglen, ie oy Poth gle epee
(Walt.) G. F. Gm

Andromeda “floribunda Muhl., Cat. 43. 1813; ed. 2, 44. 1818, nom. we Pursh, Fl. Am. Sept.
1: 293. 1814, deser. Carolina = Pieris floribunda (Pursh) Ben
This was emma a name originated by Muhlenberg and ae by Pursh as

his own; see p. 27.

Andromeda *: — Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; Pursh, Fl Am. Sept. 1: 295. 1814,
descr.; Mant x EIL., Sketch 4 490. 1817, desc r. Carolina, Georgia (Virginia, fide
Pur yceesculr frondosa (Pursh) Nutt. (Arsenococcus frondosus Small.)

This was perhaps another case where Pursh ee a Muhlenberg name;

seé p. 27

Andromedia {ligustrina Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. ( Vaccinium ligustrinum Linn.) ; Muhl. ex
Ell, Sketch 1: 490. 1817, descr. Pennsylvania Lyonia ligustrina (Linn.) DC.
(Arsenococcus ligustrinus Smal

42 BARTONIA

> *serratifolia Donn, Hort. Cantab. ed. 4, 98. 1807, nom. nud.: Muhl., Cate 11. ce;
nud.; “ Hort.” ex DC, Prot. 7: Uz. 1838, nom. in syn . Carolina = Leucotho oe

patent aie (Walt.) A. Gra
De Candolle’s oe, serratifolia “ Hort.” probably represents the species that

Donn named in 1

Andropogon ip arses Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 181. 1793, nom. nud. —
vania (Lancaster).

This was clearly indicated as a new species.

Andropogon “*latifolius Muhl., Cat. 94. 1813; ed. 2, 99. 1818, nom. (A. ambiguus Michx.).
New Luke f Carolina, Georgia — Gymnopogon ambiguus (Michx.) Britton, Siang
& Pog:

oo. +purpurascens Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 4: 237. 1799, nom. (“ Clayton
602”); Muhl. ex Willd., Sp. Pl. 4: 913. 1806, descr. Pennsylvania, Virginia, Carolina =
Andropogon scoparius Michx. (1803).

Clayton 602 is the only actual specimen that Gronovius cited under his Andropogon
Spicis conjugatis, calycibus hirsutis, Fl. Virg. ed. 2, 159. 1762 ge was the edition that was
available to Muhlenberg), and this was a Virginia specim We suspect that were a
Linnaean binomial involved Clayton 602 would be se need as the type in spite of
the fact that the three other references added, Royen, Tournefort, and Plukenet Dale ae
species of nepal iia sensu latiore, totally different from “Lugurus spicis purpuras-
centibus. Clayt. nm. 602.” One may regret that Muhlenberg’s beautifully descrip

i n

ye
be replaced by the earlier Muhlenberg name. Clayton 602 is A. scoparius i Assum-
ing that the mere citation of Clayton 602 following A. purpurascens Muhl. does not con-

ot
oO
=|
rt)
ted
S
o
72)
8)
S.
an
~
o
jan
aa
og
£5)
pa
oe
oo
a)
=
a)
ay
gQ
4
w
a
fe
es
3
=>
So
&
°
ts
a
o
°o
>
$
="
a
=
Q
or
a“
ig)
~
ee
vz
ra)
ot)
tad
ra)
al
I

with the addition of “ Ciaytb ni 92.” Fernald, in Rhodora 47: 201. 1945, insists
that ie: citation of page 92 of Gronovius’ Flora Virginica ed. 2, 1762, conse valid
publication df S. elliptica Muhl. as of 1793, and we accept his conclusion in this

Andropogon *tener Schreb. ex Muhl., op. cit. 3: 182. 1793, nom. nud. ae
(Lancaster).

1s can scarcely be the same as Andropogon tener (Nees) Kunth, as Lancaster
is far out of range for the latter which is unknown north of Georgia.

gelica thirsuta Muhl., Cat. 31. 1813; ed. 2, 30. 1818, nom. (A. triquinata Michx.). New
York, Pennsylvania = A. triqui inata Michx.

Annona *parviflora Muhl., Cat. 53. 1813: ed. 2, 55. 1818, nom. mud. Carolina, Georgia.
i pes hreb. ex Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 174. 1793, ve C eee’

rabis foliis ovatis denticulatis ok ee Gronov., FI. Vir 99.
1762) Cat 1, 1813; ed. 2, 23, 1818, no *, nud.; Biehler, Pl. Nov. Herb. “cote rm Cent
27. 1807, descr.; Spreng., Fl. Hal.’ Man 1807. ae. Pennsylvania = Cardam
bulbosa ‘(Schreb.) Britton, Sterns, & Pusveab: (C. rhomboidea DC.).

rsh, Fl. Am. Sept. 2: 437, 1814, cites as a synonym of Arabis rhomboidea Pers.
aS “A. bulbosa Muhlb. in litt.” Biehler and Sprengel 5° in describing the species in

50 See Fernald, in Rhodora oT ee. 1945 for a discussion of this bei Spreng’
er’s the Plantarum novarum ex herbarii Spr oe 1-46.
1807, _was published first. As Pernata ex Peal eam cp iam having fone: a piece -

WORK .AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG : 43

1807 cited no authority for it, merely stating “ E Pennsylvania Mihlenb.” If the original
appearance of the name in 1793 constitutes valid publication, and we assume that it
does because in this case Muhlenberg cited the page of the second edition of Gronovius
{the only edition that was available to him), then the use of Schreber’s name in
parenthetic citation is correct
sey? *elaytoni Muhl., 1. c., nom. (“ gt Ee Clayton 99, n. 745”, i.e., Arabts foliis
gris mapas FL. Vir gin, ed. 2, 99. 1762) ; Cat dl ce. ite ‘nud, Virginia, Tennessee
*thaliana (Linn, Hey nh, in Holl & Heynh., Fl. Sachsen 1: 538. 1842
( CSioysabrinin "thaleone Gay).

In this case SNS (1842) replaces Schur (1866) as the soi bioetex: for both the
generic name Arabidopsis (DC.) and for the binomial A. thaliana. Schur in 1866 and
Britton in 1913 independently made the same transfer. This reduction of AG Gronovian
species is based on a note made by A. Gray, when he examined the Clayton specimen,
Professor Fernald informs us that the species is now a superabundant weed in ‘Virginia.
Arenaria er vanica Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 169, 1793, nom. nud. (Ind.

Kew sylvanica Muhl. Ind. Fl. Lanc. 169”). Pennsylvania (Lancaster) =

A, Misitors Linn., fide ray.

maria *setacea pci 1. c., nom. nud. Pennsylvania (Lancaster) =? A. stricta Michx.

ae fide A. Gra
Arenaria *uniflora Muhl., Cat. 45. 1813; ed. 2, 46. 1818, nom. Sadorey se aaa Walt.]).

Carolina, Georgia = S tellaria aie Walt. (Sabulina uniflora Sm
Arethusa ‘stellata Muhl., Cat. 81, 1813; ed. 2, 84. 1818, nom. nud. Pennsylvania =

? A. bulbosa Linn.

Argemone *alba Muhl, Cat. 51, 1813; ed. 2, 53, i, nom. nud. Virginia, Carolina. Prob.
= Argemone mexicana Linn. var. ‘ochroleuca Lin
Aristida jlanosa Muhl., Cat. 14, 1813; ed. 2, 13. 1818, mom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 174. 1817,
descr. ; Muli-e ex Ell, Sketch 1: 143. 1816, descr. Carolina.

A valid species. Synonyms are Aristida lanata Poir., 1810, om Forsk, 1775 ; and
A, yee Bosc, 1836, 1842; see Hitchcock in Bartonia 14: 47. 1
Aristolochia jhirsuta Muhl., Cat. 81, 1813; ed, 2, 85. 1818, nom. nud. (haud * ‘Descr. Uber.

18” ut in Ind. Kew.); EIlL, Sket ays : 511. 1823, nom. in syn. Cherokee (Northern

Georgia) = A. tomentosa Sims (18g
ee +sagittata Muhl., 11. cc., nom. nud.; Duchartre in DC., Prodr. 15(1) : 134. 1864,

m. in syn, Carolina Cherok[ee] (Northern Georgia) = A. hastata Nutt. (1818).
Arundinaria }gigantea (Walt.) Muhl., Cat. 14. 1813; ed. 2, 13. 1818, nom. [Arundo gigantea

Waltle Chapm., Fl. South. U. S. 561. 1860. Carolina, Mississippi.

ndinaria jtecta (Walt.) Muhl., 11. cc., nom. [Arundo tecta Walt.]; Descr. Gram. 191.

1817, descr. Carolina, Mississippi.

In neither edition of the Catalogus did Muhlenberg cite the name-bringing synonyms,
Arundo gigantea Walt. and A. tecta Walt., the entries being “Arundinaria, Mx. Ludolphia,
Willd.,” followed by the two species “tecta Walt. gigantea Walt.”. He did, however,
add the synonym Arundo tecta Walt. when he gues a description in 1817. This is
a case very similar to the Barionia one discussed on p-

under his own name as Novarum Plantarum ex He rbario meo Centuria.’ Muhlenberg
may have sent a duplicate named specimen to Spren 7 iow t — the author
of the name, so botanical piracy cannot definitely be charged her: although Schreber
was the original author of Arabis bulbosa; but the absorption of Biehier’ s published paper
by Sprengel, without rendering credit to him impresses us as definitely piratical.

44 BARTONIA

Arundo ssa rere Muhl., Cat. 13. Sh ed. 2, 13. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 187. 1817,
descr, ex Ba rton, Fl. Phila. Prodr. 23. 1815, descr. — Calamagrostis cinnoides
(Muhi.) Barisa: see Hitchcock i in ges 14: 49, 1932,

Arundo *glauca a Cat. 11. cc., nom. alt. Agrostis glauca Muhl. = Calamagrostis cinnoides
(Muhl.) Barto

Asarum *acuminatum Muhl., Cat. ed. 2, 47. 1818, nom. nud. No locality given.

We suspect that this may be the same as Asarwm acuminatum Bickn. (A. canadense
Linn. var. acuminatum Ashe) or A. reflerum Bickn. (A. canadense Linn. var. reflexum
B. L. Rob.).

Asclepias *acuminata Muhl., Cat. 28. 1813; ed. fe bab hee nom, alt. A. exaltata Muhl.;
Baten. FL Phila: Poa 35. 1815, nom. in s

Asclepias jexaltata Muhl., Cat. hes rg 28. 1813; -. 2, ya a nom. nud.; EL, Lng ee 1: 319.
1817, nom. in syn. —A. ex a Linn., Am Acad. 3: 404. 1756, descr. (A. a

inn. var. pe tae Linn., Sp aL ed. 2 313. 1762) yh phytolaccoides PD ivoh, Fl. Am

Sept. 1: 180. 1814).

Elliott credits the binomial to Lyon. Pursh apparently adopted the name as his own

berg intended his name as a new one, he cited no synonyms. In Muhlenberg’s un-

published description of Asclepias “exaltata (acuminata) ” (Lancaster Flora MS p. es

he states, meee alia “ vel etiam Syriaca non in Herbario L. nomen bonum phytolacc.-.
vel acuminata.

Asclepias jnutans Muh ll. cc., nom. nud.; Steud., Nomencl. ed. 2, 1: 146. 1840,
ne Sahota vindiflons EIll.). "Pennsylvania, Georgia = Asclepias viridiflora Raf.
Pursh redescribed Asclepias viridiflora as his own species, Fl. Am. Sent. 1: 181. 1814,

accidentally or otherwise overlooking Rafinesque’s earlier use of the same name for the

same species. The first reduction of Muhlenberg’s species that we have noted is by

Torrey, Fl. U. S. 1: 284. 1824, as A. viridiflora Raf. The Index Kewensis entry is “ Muhl.

ex Steud. Nomencl. ed. II.

Aster *albus Donn, Hort. Cantab. ~ 3, 156. 1804, nom. nud.; Muhl., Cat. 75. 1813; ed. 2,
78. 1818, nom. nud. North Ameri

Aster ~asraiene oe op. cit. ed. 2, 109. 1800, nom. nud.; Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.
Noi ive Amer

This may or may not be the same as Aster flexuosus Nutt. (1819) = 4. tenuifolius Linn.

Aster *ledifolius Muhl., Cat. 75. fing ed. 2, 77. 1818, nom. alt. A. nemoralis Ait; Pursh,
Fl. Am. Sept. 2: 544 . 1814, d r. New Jersey =A. nesoralis Ait. (1789).

Pursh may here have a PORT s specific name as his own; see p. 27.

Aster jliatroides Muhl. ex Ell., Sketch 2: 354. 1823, nom. in syn.; DC., Prodr. 5: 230. 1836,
nom, on syn.= A. surculosus Michx. (1803).

Aster * us Donn, Hort Cantab. ve 4, 189. 1807, nom. nud.; Muhl. Cat. 75. 1813;
ed. 5 PB. 78. 18 i818, nom, npg North Ameri

*secundus Muhl. ex Barton, Fl. Phila. Prodr. 30. 1815, nom. ut syn. A. ericoides Linn.
en

*sphacelatus Willd. ex Muhl., Cat. 75. 1813; ed. 2, 78. 1818, nom. nud. New Jersey.
ae arolina.

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 45

Atragene *pennsylvanica Muhl., Cat. 54. og ed. 2, 55. 1818, nom. nud. hare (3! supeod
A. americana Sims, fide Torr., Cat. rh N. ¥. a 1819 — Clematis verticillaris DC.
Probably the source of this sa name was Clematis pensylvanica Donn, Hort.

Cantab. ed. 4, 129. 1807, also a nomen nudum

Avena teetaces Schreb. ex Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 161. 1793, nom. nud.; Muhl.

rin. i Acad. Pétersb. VI. Math. Phys. Nat. 1: 87. 1830. Pennsylvania
CLancasier) = Arid dichotoma Michx. (1803).

Bartonia * culata (Michx.) Muhl., Cat. 16. 1813; ed. 2, 15. 1818, nom. (Centaurella

Goalcar ‘Mick.}): Pennsylvania, Carclina, Georgia.

See the discussion of this case, p. 25.
Boltonia *affinis Muhl., Cat. 77. 1813; ed. 2, 80. 1818, nom. nud. Missouri.

Brassica jwashitana Muhl., Cat. 61. 1813; ed. 2, 63. 1818, nom. nud. Washita ae -¥
Oklahoma] = ? Str eptanthus maculatus Nutt. (1818) (Stanleya ? washitana DC., Syst.

Nuttall, Gen. 2: 72. 1818, suggested that this might prove to be a second species of
his genus Stanleya, but stated that there was no specimen in the Muhlenberg herbarium.
Bumelia *decandra Muhl., Cat. 24, 1813; ed. 2, 24. 1818, nom. nud. No locality indicated.
Bumelia *laevis Donn ex Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; Pursh ex Donn, Hort. Cantab.

ed. 8, 65. 1815, nom. nud. Canttind, ‘fide Pursh.

We cannot explain Muhlenberg’s use of this “Donn” name in 1813. The first place
that we found it is in edition eight of Donn’s work (1815) which was prepared by
Frederick Pursh, a volume that of course Muhlenberg never saw.

Caladium ‘speciosum Ell. ex Muhl., Cat. ed. 2, 93. 1818, nom. nud. No locality given.

The basis of this name was doubtless a specimen sent by Elliott to Muhlenberg,
either from South Carolina or Georgia. It is possibly the form actually described by
Elliott as C. *glaucum Ell., Sketch 2: 631. 1824—= Peltandra *glauca (Ell.) Feay ex Wood,
Class-Book 669. 1861.

Callitriche {terrestris — Cat. 1. 1813; ed. 2, 1. 1818, nud. Pennsylvania. =

C. terrestris Raf. Med. Repos. II. 5: 358. 1808; op. agers Ill. 2: 408. 1811, ut.
C. terrestris Muhl.; Ane Monthly Mag. Crit: Rev. 1: 359. 1817, ut C. terrestris Raf.

This was undoubtedly an original Muhlenberg binomial which Rafinesque appro-
priated; see p. 26.
dentata Muhl., Cat. 55. . en 2. ob. pee nom. nud. Pennsylvania = Caltha
palustris Linn, var. "fabellifolia any Torr. & Gra
Campanu la *taculeata Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 164. 1793, nom. nud. Pennsyl-
vania Ch picanent. aparinoides Pursh (1814) fide fe Fl. U. S. 1: 237. 1824.
Campanula jaspera Donn,. Hort. Cantab. ed. 4, 40. 1807, nom. nud. ; Muhl., Cat. 22. 1813
ed. ad. 2, 2 1818, nom. ut syn. C. erinoides Linn.=C. ggaior he nes Be Pursh (1814), fide
Torrey, Le
antua *inconspicua Muhl., Cat. 22. 1813; ed. 2, 21. 1818, nom, nud. ae locality given.
Fron C. coronopifolia Willd. (1798) = Gilia sae (Linn.) Heller
*luteus Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 176. nom. nud. sbleigedesmee
(Lancaster). Prob. = Cirsium spinosissimum alt.) Sco
This was clearly indicated by eee as a new species.
jodoratus Muhl. ex Torr. & Gra 2: 459, 1843, nom. in syn. (recte
Cnicus odoratus Muhl.) = Cirsium Pa ied as gee

46 BARTONIA

Index Kewensis reference is “ Muhl. Cat. Darl. Fl. Ces. 85”, but both Muhlenberg

and Darlington used the binomial Cnicus odoratus. Porter also transferred the species to

Carduus, as C. odoratus Porter in Mem Torr. Bot. Club 5: 345. 1894

Carex ‘*aristata Schreb. ex Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 179. 1793, nom. nud.
Pennsylvania (Lancaster).

Carex *curvicollis Schreb. ex Muhl. 1. c., mom. nud. Pennsylvania (Lancaster).

Carex jerinacea Muhl. ex Schkuhr, antag Nachtr. 69. 1806, nom. in syn; Muhl. ex Pursh,

Fl. Am. Sept. 1: 43. 1814, nom. in syn. = C. Aystericina Muhl. ex Willd. (1805).
The Index Kewensis entry is Muhl. ex Steudel, Nomencl. ed. 2, 1: 288. 1840.
Carex jfulva Muhl., Cat. 83. 1813; ed. 2, 88. 1814, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 246. 1817, descr.
Georgia = C. elliottii Schwein. & Torr. a 825 i

Carex {lagopus Muhl., Cat. 84. 1813; ed. 2, 88. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 265. 1817,
descr. West Virginia (not Pennsylvania) = C. fraseri Andr. (1811) (Cymophyllus
fraseri Mackenzie).

arex *pale Schreb. = Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 179. 1793, nom. nud.
Pennsylvania (Lancaster).
From the locality this Seal not be the same as Carex paleacea Wahl. (1803).

Carex jplantaginea Muhl., Cat. 11. ig nom. nud.; De erie fhe a. 1817, descr. Pennsyl-
vania, Virginia, “ser Sar ae ceps Muhl. ae a laxiflor

Carex {polymorpha Muhl, Descr. Gram. 239. 1817, descr. Pennsylvania.

A valid species extending from Maine to ble > pa and Maryland. The Index:

Kewensis entry is Muhl. ex Boott, Illus. Carex 1: 21. pl. 57. 1858.

Carex jrecurva Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 262. 1817, descr.; non Huds.
1778, nec Schkuhr, 1801. Pe cepts Sea et ex Descr. Gram. Cherokee Pe hers
Georgia) =C cherokeensis Schwein. (1824). =

*varia Schreb. ex Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 179. 1793, nom nud.; Muhl.
ex Wahl. in Svensk. Vet. Akad. Nya Handl. 24: 159, 1803; non Lumnitzer, 1791, nec..
<omy 1801. Pennsylvania (Lancaster) =C. artitecta Mackenzie (1935).

We suspect that Muhlenberg entered this species from one of Schreber’s lists of
eatifications, but Wahlenberg described it as Muhlenberg’s species.

fverrucosa Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 261. 1817, descr. Carolina,
Georgia.

A valid species now known from South Carolina to Florida and Louisiana.

Cassia jaspera Muhl., Cat. 42. 1813: ed. 2, 42. 1818, nom. mud.; Muhl. ex EIl, Sketch 1:
474. 1817, descr. Carolina, Georgia (C hamaecrista aspera Green e).

Cassia *discolor Donn, Hort. Cantab. ed. 4, 95. 1807, mom. nud.; Muhl., Cat. 42. 1813;.
ed. 2,42 1818, pam Pennsylvania

*corymbosus Muhl., Cat. 25. 1813; ed. 2, 24. 1818, nom. alt. C. intermedius
Muhl. = seq.

Ceanothus *intermedius Muhl. 1 , nom. nud.: Pursh, Fl. Am. Sept. 1: 167, 1814, descr. ;
Muhl. ex Ell, Sketch 1: 201. “1817, deser. Virginia, Georgia (Tennessee, fide Pursh).

_ Pursh’s species extends southward to Florida. Elliott’s entry is “ intermedius,

Muhl. Cat.” but he also gives a reference to “Pursh 1. p. 167.” We suspect that

Muhlenberg originated the specific name; see p. 27.

uhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 170. 1793, nom. nud. Pennsyl-

ay.

*

*hybridum M
vania (Lancaster) = ? C. arvense Linn., fide A. Gra

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 47

This was indicated by, Muhlenberg as a new species.

mug rerne Fig srige. 8 sayy ser are Muhl., Cat. 46. 1813; ed. 2, 47. 1818, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex
Bar Fl. Phila. Prodr. 52. 1815, descr. = C. nutans Ree (1814), fide Torrey, Cat.
PL N ee 44, 1819.

Britton and Brown, Ill. Fl. U. S. ed. 2, 2: 48. 1913, retain Muhlenberg’s name, but it
being a nomen nudum until 1815 we consider this to be inadmissable. Cerastium nutans
Raf. was described a year earlier.

Cerastium *villosum Mubl, Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; Pennsylvania=C. oblongifolium Torr.

& Gray, Fl. N. Am : 188. 1838 = C. ene Raf. (1808).

Torrey and Gray’ cite Muhlenberg’s binomial as a synonym of their Cerastium
oblongifolium.

Chelone Lhe yo rn Muhl., Cat. 58. iti ed. 2, 60. 1818, nom. nud.; Muhl, ex EIl., Sketch 2:

127 , descr. Carolina = C. lyonii Pursh (1814).

Chait *paniculatum Muhl., Cat. 28. 1813; ed. 2, 28. 1818, nom. nud. Pennsylvania.

seas eg ere *tenuifolium Muhl., Cat. 29. 1813; ed. 2, 28. 1818, nom. nud. New England,
e

Chironia jstellata Muhl., Cat. ed. 2, 23. 1818, nom. nud. New York, New Jersey, Georgia =

Sabatia stellaris Pursh (1814), aie Torrey, Fl. U. S. 1: 217. 1824

The Index Kewensis entry is incomplete, taken from A. a ‘Sin Fl. N. Am. 2 (1):
115. 1878, where Muhlenberg’s binomial is cited as a synonym
Chironia *venosa dese Cat. ed. 1, 24. 1813; ed. 2, 23. 1818, nom. nud. New Jersey,

ennesse, a = Saba tia pS tee Baldw., fide Torrey, FLU S; 2219, 1821 =
S. lanceolata (Walt) T orr. & G

Chrysocoma *denudata Muhl., Cat. se 1813; ed. 2, 75. 1818, nom. nud. Carolina.

Cimicifuga jamericana Muhl., Cat. 53. 1813; ed. 2, 54. 1818, nom. nud. Carolina, Tennessee
= G60 adohe Penk (1814).
hd ST *spa Donn, Hort. Cantab. ed. 5, 53. 1809, nom. nud.; Muhl., Cat. ed. 1,

tulata

813: ¢ ed. 2, 26: 1818, no nom. in syn. sub. C. caroliniana Mic hx.; Eaton, Man. ed. ra
207. sree ed. 3, 240. 1822; ed. 4, 263. 1824, descr.=C. caroliniana Michx. 1803).

Clematis *pensilvanica Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 172. as nom. nud. Pennsyl-
vania (Lancaster). An C. pensylvanica Donn, Hort. Cantab. ed. 4. , 129. 1807, nom. souk ?
Muhlenberg indicated this as a new species.

Clematis *triternata Donn, Hort. Cantab. ed. 5, 137. 1809, nom. nud.; Muhl., Cat. 54. 1813;
ed. 2, 56. 1818, Bey nud. North America. Prob.=C. triternata DC. Syst. #: 150, 1818,
gexy. 2 7 C. é
De Candolle’s feat description was based on a specimen cultivated in France. The

Status of the species is uncertain, but we suspect that Clematis crispa Linn. is the one

represented (Viorna crispa Small).

_—— Nomen} ifolia Muhl., Cat. 61. 1813; ed. 2, 64. 1818, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex Nutt., Gen.

Pl 2: 73. 1818, og 3 Muhl. ex Ell., Sketch 2: 150. "1822, descr. Georgia =
are cuneifolia (Muhi.) N

Clinopodium *monardella Muhl., Cat. 56. 1813; ed. 2, 58. 1818, mom. nud. Carolina.
Clinopodium *montanum Muhl. 11. cc., nom. nud. Carolina.

Cnicus *horridus Muhl., Cat. 70. 1813 vd 1818, nom. (Carlina [foliis sessilibus
sinuatus] Gronov. FL. Virgin., ed. 2, 7 Sue ‘New England, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
Carolina — Cirsium spinosissimum (Wait.) Scop. (Cnicus horridulus Pursh, 1814).

48 BARTONIA

Cnicus *lutescens Muhl., Cat. 11. cc. nom. alt. praec. = praec.

Cnicus }muticus Muhl., Cat. 11. cc. nud. [Cirsium muticum Michx]; Pursh, FI.
Am. Sept. 2: 506. 1814, pie Ell, "Sketch 2: 268. 1822, descr. Pennsylvania, Carolina
— Cirsium muticum Michx.

Cnicus jodoratus Muhl., Cat. 11. cc. nom. eae’ Muhl. ex Barton, Compend. FI. Phila.

95. 1818, descr.; Steu d., Nomencl. ed. 2, 1: 388. 0, nom. Ponce aie! Carlen
pumilum (Nutt.) Spreng. (Carduus pumilus Nat Gen. 2: 130. 1818.)

Cnicus jvirginianus Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud. [Cirsium virginianum Michx.]; Pursh,
Fl. Am. Sept. 2: 506, 1814 4, descr. Pennsylvania, Virginia, Carolina Cher[okee] (North-
ern Georgi a) = Cirsium virginian um (Linn.) Michx.

Conyza Darema: pe Cat. 72. 1813; ed. 2, 76. 1818, nom. (Erigeron camphor[atus]
Linn.); Pursh, FI. m. Sept. 2° 523. 1814, descr. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
Carolina = = Picken Soe ae (Linn.) D

Corydalis jformosa Muhl., Cat. 63. 1813; ed. 2, 66. 1818, nom. alt. C. rosea Muhl.; Evighe
Fl. Am. Sept. 2: 462. 1814, descr. New Yo rk, Tennessee = Dicentra eximia (Ke r) D

Corydalis jglauca Muhl., Cat. se cc. nom. nud.; Pursh, op. cit. 463, descr. Pennsylvania =
C. sempervirens (Linn .) Per
Here Muhlenberg may fave been the originator of these two Corydalis binomials;

see p. 27.

Corydalis *rosea Muhl., Cat. 11. cc. nom. alt. C. formosa Muhl. = Dicentra eximia (Ker) DC.
Crataegus *prunifolia Pers., Syn. 2: 37. 1806 [1807], descr. [Mespilus prunifolia Eo. in
Lam., Encycl. 4: 443. 1797) Mahl. Cat. 49. 1813; ed. 2, 50. 1818, nom. nud.; Bosc e
eae 'Prodr. 2: 627. 1825. Caro
This is probably not the same as the earlier cared fl pe Yong [Young],
Cat. Arb. Am. 7. 1783. The entire description of the is : arbuste a 15 pieds
de haut, il est épineux, a de jolies fleurs, & croit sur Slaw cables . iv
Cyclamen *americanum Muhl., Cat. 19. 1813; ed. 2, 19. 1818, nom. nud. Canada.
Cynanchum *renifolium Muhl., 11. cc., nom. nud. No locality given.
Perhaps this is the same as Gonolobus pubiflorus (Decne.) Engelm. (Edisonia pubi-
flora Small).
yperus jerythorhizos Muhl., Cat. 6. 1813; ed. 2, 6. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 20. 1817,
descr. Pennsylvania, Carolina, Georgia.
valid sony now known from New England to Ontario and Minnesota southward
to Florida and Tex
yperus {gracilis Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 18. Fo descr.; Muhl. ex
PSL, Sketch 1: 68. 1816, gece: Sheciena, Georgia —C. hasp

yperus jinflexus Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 16. 1817, descr. Pennsylvania,
Chersklec} Thoaherh Georgi a).

s *mollis Muhl, in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 160. 1793, nom. nud. Pennsylvania
el ahicaavery.
This was indicated by Muhlenberg as a new species.
Cyperus *nutans Muhl., 1. c., nom. nud. Pennsylvania (Lancaster).
This was also indicated by Muhlenberg as a new species.
11. cc., nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 19. 1817, descr.; Muhl

yperus jparviflorus Muhl., Cat. x :
ex Barton, Fl. Phila. Prodr. 17. "1815, descr.; non Vahl (1806). Massachusetts,
Pennsylvania =C. dentatus Torr. (1824).

«

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 49

Torrey’s name was proposed because of Vahl’s prior use of the same name for a
different species

pi peta tphymatodes Muhl., Peer 11. cc., nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 23. 1817, descr. Pennsyl-
nia = C. esculentus Lin

Cyperus jtenuis Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., no Descr. Gram. 22. 1817, descr..non Sw. (1788).
Pennsylvania, Virginia = C. nuttalit ey (1820) = C. ‘ihicions Vahl el 806).

Dalibarda Deeg Muhl., Cat. 52. 1818, nom. nud.; Baldw. = Bae, Sketch 1: 571.
1821 . Georgia = Wildeteints rates (Baldw.) Torr. & Gra

Pr Sa ne one Muhlenberg ee to record Baldwin’s species, as both he and
Elliott had sets of Baldwin’s specime
Dentaria jlaciniata Muhl. ex Willd., a Pl. 3: 479. 1800, descr.; Muhl., Cat. 60. 1813; ed.
2, 63. 1818, nom. New England, Pennsylvania, Carolina.
The references in Index Kewensis are reversed. The species is now known from
Quebec and New England to Minnesota, southward to Florida and Louisiana.
Dentaria A ota Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; Muhl. ex Nutt., Gen. 2: 66. 1818, nom nud.;
Muhl. ex EIL, Sketch 2: 142. 1822, descr. Carolina, Cherdie(eed (Northern Giorsay.
A valid species of the Appalachian region, now also known from Ohio and from
Alabama
— fcespitosum Muhl., Cat. 6. 1813; ed. 2, 6. 1818 , nom. nud.; Descr. — Se 1817,
descr. Georgia = Bulbostylis alc (Ell.) Fernald in Rhodora 40: 391. 1938.
aN reduced Muhlenberg’s species to his own, his description of seis stenophyllus
Ell, Sketch 1: 83. 1816 having one year’s priority over that of Muhlenber
Dichroma *stellatum Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud. Florida.
taria jischaemum Muhl., Cat. 9. 1813; ed. 2, 9. 1818, nom. nud. [Panicum ischaem

Schrak Schreb. ex Muhl, Descr. Gram. 1. 1817, "descr. =D. ischaemum (Schreb.)
Muhl.; Hitchcock in Bartonia 14: 42.

Diodia jhispida Muhl., Cat. 15. 1813: ed. 2, 14. Rade nom. nud.; EIl., Sketch LP 191. 1816,
nom, in syn.; DC., ’Prodr. 4: 562. 1830, nom. p syn. =D. hirsuta Pursh (1814).

Dioscorea jglauca Muhl., Cat. 92. 1813; ed. 2, 97. 1818, cee nud.; Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 233.
1818, descr.; ed. 3, 2 67. 1822, descr.; ed. 4, "287. 1824, des

Recognized by Bartlett in 1910, and by Small in ey as a valid species. Pennsyl-

vania to Missouri, Arkansas, and South Carolina

Diospyros jcaroliniana Muhl., Cat. 96. 1813; ed. 2, 101. in nom. nud.; Raf., Fl. Ludovic.
139. 1817, sey Ay in syn. Carolina, Mississippi = D. virginiana Linn.
Dolichos *sphaerospermus Muhl., Cat. 64. 1813; ed. 2, 67. 1818, nom. (Phaseolus [sphaeros-

perms Linn.]); DC., Prodr. 2: 400. 1825. Pennsylvania = Vigna ungutculata (Linn.)
Wal

Draba ae sig in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 173. 1793, nom. on. (Ind. Kew. 1
“Ind. Fl. Lane. 173”). Pennsylvania ROO rob, -—D. caroliniana Walt. disap
Draba jumbellata Muhl., Cat. 69. 1813; ed. 2, 62. 1818, nom. (D. caroliniana Walt.). Penn-
sylvania, Caro ina =D. caroliniana "Wa ie
Eleusine *erucaeformis Muhl., Cat. 12. 1813; ed. 2, 11. 1818, nom. nud. No locality indicated.
The basis of this name was probably Phalaris erucaeformis Linn. Beckmannia erucae-
formis Host. The American form long confused with the latter is Beckmannia syzigachne
(Steud.) Fernald in Rhodora 30: 27. 1928.

50 BARTONIA

Eleusine jsparsa Muhl. Cat. 11. cc., nom. (E. filiformis Pers.); Desecr. Gram. 1817,
— cr, Carolina, Ga Cher[o kee] (Northern gs gia) = Leptochloa ito rms
Lam.) Beauv-; see Hitchcock in Bartonia 14: 42. 193,

— Muhl., Soest 40. 1813; ed. 2, 40. 1818, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex EIll., Sketch 1: 448. 1817,
descr.; Muhl. ex Nutt., Gen, 2: Add [4]. 1818, descr.

Elliottia a Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., mom. nud.; Muhl. ex EIL, Sketch, 1. c., descr.
eorgia.

A monotypic genus known wi from South Carolina and Georgia.

Elymus *ciliatus M Cat. 3; ed. 2, 13. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 179. 1817,
descr. Cocotina. Charteker) Wetthecs Georgi ay.

A species of doubtful status; see Hitchcock, Bartonia 14: 48. 1932.

Elymus a Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos Soc. 2: 161. 1793, nom. nud. Pennsylvania

(Lancaster).

is might be the same as the species later asa by Muhlenberg as Elymus
say ‘Muhl, the type of which was from Pennsylva
Elymus ‘striatus Schreb. ex Muhl. 1. c., nom. nud. ells (Lancaster) — E. striatus

Willa Sp. Pl. 1: 470. 1797, descr. = B. virginicus Linn
—— Ray on Muhl., Cat. 81. 1813; ed. 2, 85. 1818, nom. nud. [Ophrys *pubera Michx.,

Fl. Bor. 2: 158, 1803]. No locality indicated by Muhlenberg; Georgia, fide

Michaux = Pie thieva glandulosa (Walt.) Mohr.

Confident that oe derived his specific name from the Michaux binomial,
we have placed the lat in square brackets; it is rather curious that Michaux’s
binomial, which was ney stores as new, is still unlisted in standard indices.
Erianthus jgig us Muh 1813; ed. 2, 4. 1818, nom. (Anthoxanthum giganteum

be Uneresiaea Sopctarocien Linn.) ; ‘Deser. Gram. 192. 1817, descr. Virginia,

ar

This is Brians giganteus (Walt.) Muhl. (E. saccharoides Michx.); see Hitchcock in
Bartonia 14: 49, 1932, and our discussion, p. 25.

*asteroides Ell. ex. Muhl., Cat. ed. 2, 76, 1818, moe nud., sphalm. “ astervideum.”
qiztcltes Geocache asteroides (Li nn.) L’Heri

The entry in Muhlenberg’s Catalogus is somewhat 2 ihaail “astervideum Elliot,
vel punctatum, venosum.’

Erigeron *flexuosus Muhl., Cat. 73. 1813; ed. 2, 76. 1818, nom. alt. E. stoloniferus Muhl.
has nothing to do with Erigeron flexuosus Cronquist in robes 6: 174. 1947;
neither of Mahicabergs specific names are accounted for by Cronq

rigeron *punctatus Muhl. Cat. ed. 2, i 1818, nom. alt. E. asteroides Ell. (“ astervideum ”)
= Boltonia asteroides (Linn.) L’H

Erigeron *stoloniferus Muhl., Cat. 73. 1813; ed. 2, 76. 1818, nom. nud. No locality indicated.

*venosus Muhl., Cat. ed. 2, 76. 1818, nom. alt, E. asteroides Ell. (“ astervideum i
= Boltonia asteroides (Linn.) L’Hérit
Erinus *pinnatifidus Muhl., Cat. 59. 1813; 2, 61. 1818, nom. nud. Georgia.
caregen: *tenue Muhl., Cat. ed. 2, 29. 1818, nom. nud. Ge orgia== FE. baldwinitt Spreng.
This is probably Muhlenberg’s name for the species described by Baldwin, one of
his correspondents, as E. gracile Baldw. ex Ell, Sketch 1: 345. 1821, non Lam., 1798=
E. baldwini Spreng.

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 51

Euonymus mameretit olin Lyon ex Muhl., Cat. 25. 1813; pe 2, 24. 1818, nom. nud.; Pursh
Fl. Am. Se : 168. i descr. Georgia, ex —E. americanus Linn. var,
angustifolius (Purch) Woo
Pursh had specimens hes Lyon, and we suspect that they bore Lyon’s specific

name.

>

Euphorbia *claytoni Muhl., Cat. 47. 1813; ed. 2, 48. 1818, nom. alt. E. lutescens Muhl.
Euphorbia *coccinea Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud. Georgia..
Euphorbia *lutescens Muhl., 11. cc., nom. nud. Pennsylvania.
Fagus *carpinifolia Muhl., Cat. 86. 1813; ed. 2, 91. 1818, nom. nud. No locality given.

See: E ape ee Muhl., Cat. 13. 1813; ed. 2, 12. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 167. 1817,
. New York, Delaware, Geor gia = Triplasis Sertiee (Walt.) Chapm.; see Hitch-
ec: in Bartonia 14: 46. 1932.
Festuca jclandestina Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., — nud.; Descr. ss “ae 1817, descr. New
York = Leptochloa nati (ans 3 aes see Hitchcoc
Fe “— ya aay Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 161. ‘Seis nom. nud. Pennsylvania
This is undoubtedly the same as Festuca obtusa Spreng., Mant. Fl. Hal. 34. 1807,
which was based on a Muhlenberg specimen.

Festuca }procumbens Muhl., Cat. 11. er nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 160. 1817, descr.
Carolina = praec.; see Hitcheock. op. cit., 45.

Festuca *tenella Schreb. ex Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 161. 1793, nom. nud.;
Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 1: rar 1797, descr. Pennsylvania peo eae oc toflora Walt.
(1788) ; see Hitchcock, 3

Frasera Phessiacre nage: Muhl., Cat. 17. 1813, ed. 2, 17. 1818, nom. nud. Pig rege ‘vertillata as
Pen ania, Ohio, Tenn nessee, Carolina. "—F. walteri Michx .. fide Beck, Bo
Mid. + tne 241. 1833 = F. verticillata Rat., Med. Fl..1: 196. f: 39. 1828=—F. SS etioes
Walt. (1788).

Fraxinus ‘australis Muhl., Cat. 96. 1813; ed. 2, 101. 1818, nom. nud. No locality indicated.

Fraxinus boagerg Muhl., Cat. he thee nom, nud. (haud “ Muhl., Cat. Pl. Am. Sept. iii.
115. t. 11” ut in Ind. Kew jo FT , Fil. N. Y. 2: pi. 90. 1843. "Pomayivaaia =F. pennsyl-
vanica Marsh. (1785) (F Pellicae wk Lam. 1788).

Apparently Torrey accepted Muhlenberg’s name which appears on the cited plate
only, but without authority. In the descriptive text it appears as Fraxinus pubescens
Wa i ot be the same as F. pubescens Lam., both Walter’s and
Lamarck’s binomials having been published in the same year.

Fraxinus jdiscolor Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud. P ylvania =F. americana Linn., fide

Bil Fl. Bost. 249. 1814.

sericea Muhl. Cat. 11. cc., nom. mud. “Western Black ash”. No locality
gegen sd Margery =? F. nigra au, (1785).
Galactia }pinnata Cat. 65. 1813; ed. 2, 67. 1818, nom. nud. Carolina, Georgia =
G. elliottii Net. ¢ sia).
We suspect that here Muhlenberg thought that he was recording Galactia pinnata
Pers., Syn. 2: 302. 1807, a West Indian species. See Elliott’s comment on Muhlenberg’s
name, Sketch 2: 240. 1

fbrachiatum Muhl., Cat. 16. 1813; ed. 2, 15. 1818, — nov. G. circaezans Michx.
New England, Pennsylvania, Carolina = G. circaezans Michx.

52 BARTONIA

Gentiana jalba Muhl., Cat. 29. 1813, ed. 2, 29. 1818, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex Nutt., Gen. 1: 172.
1818, descr. Pennsyly ania — Gentiana andrewsii Griseb. eDiccvesphoa andr ewsit- Small),

Possibly here Muhlenberg was recording the earlier Gentiana alba Yong [W. Young],

Arb. Am. 36. 783.

Gentiana a cnanioes Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 165. 1793, nom. nud. Pennsyl-
vania (Lanc £).

This was ain as a new species. Muhlenberg added “varietas ciliatae? ”, but

G, ciliata Linn. is a European species.

Gentiana *phoenicea Muhl. 1. c., nom. nud. Pennsylvania (Lancaster).

This was also indicated as a new species.

Gerardia nig pa dogg ya Cat. 11. cc., nom. alt. G. villosa Muhl.; Ell., Sketch 2: 120.
1822, nom. in w York, Pennsylvania = Aur eolaria virginica (Linn.) Pennell.
This has ee to se with Gerardia heterophylla Nutt. (1834).

Gerardia — Muhl, ex Raf., New Fl. N. Am. 2: 59. 1836 [1837], nom. in syn.,
sphalm

Gerardia “ania Muhl., oe it “= eld nud. Cherokee (Northern Georgia) ; Nutt.,
Gen. 2: 48.

818, nom. ut syn. G. cuneifolia Pursh. pier the tn Georgia) = ‘Mecardonia
psa (Walt.) Small Pepe Seek (Walt. ell,
This has nothing to do with the later Gerardia tle Greene (1899) which is a
synonym of G. fenuifolia Vahl. var. sr anal Benth.

gaan frithen Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; Raf., New Fl. N. Am. 2: 59. 1836 [1837],
in syn aa oar, villosa Raf. wd New York, Pennsylvania = Aurcolaria
eeiieice (Linn) Pennell.
Glechoma ‘cordifolia Muhl., Cat. 55. 1813: ed. 2, 57. 1818, nom. nud. Pestasia es
G. hederacea Linn. (Nepeta glechoma Benth we
This is undoubtedly the same as the form Eaton described as Glechoma *cordata Eaton,
Man. ed. 2, 259. 1818, which in ed. 3, 292. 1822, he credited to Muhlenberg
Glycine *parabolica Muhl. ex Barton, Fl. Phila. Prodr. 71. 1815, descr. Pennsylvania.
Glycine *simplicifolia Muhl., Cat. 64. 1813; ed. 2, 67. 1818, nom. nud. Carolina.
onia *franklinia Mu Cat. 63. 1813; ed. 2, 65. 1818, nom. nud.; Eat Man. 78.
1817, descr. Georgia, Pe phen io ge a{cult.) = Gordonia franklini Heit ct Proatianis
alatamaha Bartram ex Marshall (1785).
This is undoubtedly the source of Eaton’s name which Merrill and Reeder, Bartonia
24: 61. 1947, credited to him
Gratiola jaurea Muhl., Cat. 2. 1813; ed. 2, 2. 1818, nom. (G. officinalis sensu Michx.); Muh
ex Bigel., Fl, Bost. 6. a descr. : Muhl. ex ‘Barton, Fl. Phila. Prodr. 14. 1815, Brera ;
Pak Fl. Am. sag : 12. 1814, descr.; Muhl. ex Ell, Sketch 1: 13. 1816, descr. ;
Le Conte in Ann. Lyc. Nat Hist. N. Y. 1: 106. 1824, descr. New England, New
Jersey, Carolina = G. lutea Raf. (1811
We suspect that Pursh appropriated Mahlesbers’s specific name as his own. All
early American botanists, Bigelow, Barton, Elliott, Torrey, Beck and Chapman, credit
Muhlenberg with originating the name: see Pe 2s.
Gratiola *viscida Muhl., Cat. ed. 2,2. 1818, nom. nud. Carolina. Prob.—=G. viscidula Pennell.

This is doubtless the species described in 1824 as G. viscosa Schwein. ex Le Conte
in Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist. N. Y. 1: 106. 1824 (non Hornem., 1807), from Virginia and North
Carolina = G. viscidula Pennell (1919), which’ extends fake Delaware to northern Georgia.

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 53

Hedysarum jhumifusum Muhi., Cat. 66. 1813; ed. 2, 69. 1818, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex Bigel.,
Fl. Bost. ed. 2, 274, 1824, descr. Pennsylvania, Carolina = Desmodium humifusum
(Muhl.) Beck, Bot. U. S. 86. 1833=D. olabelline Michx. (1803).

Heysarum *lancifolium Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud. Delaware, Carolina.

Hedysarum *oblongifolium Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud. Pennsylvania.
fer: ore: *trifoliatus Muhl., Cat. 55. 1813; ed. 2, 56. 1818, nom. nud. [H. trifolius Linn.].;
Eat Man. 62. 1817, descr. New England, Pennsylva nia = Coptis gh yg {Linn,)
Saligb quoad nom. = C. groenlandica (Oeder) Fernald in Rhodora 31: 1929,
quoa
This is eee the source of Eaton’s name of 1817 that Merrill and Reeder
in Bartonia 24: 62. 1947 there credited to him.
Heteranthera ‘ovalis Muhl., cate 5. 1813; ed. 2, 5. 1818, nom. nud. Ilinois, Missouri =
H. reinformis Ruiz & Pav
We suspect that the source be this name was Leptanthus ovalis Michx.; see Merrill
and Reeder in Bartonia 24: 62. 1947, under discussion of Heteranthera ovalis Eaton
(1829); this is doubtless the source of Eaton’s name.
Heuchera *hispida Muhl., Cat. 29. an ed. 2, oi te nom. nud.; Pursh, Fl. Am. Sept. 1:
188. 1814, descr. Caro lina == H. hispida a Pur
We suspect that here Pursh appropriated ie s name. He says his specimens
were from the high mountains of Virginia and Carolina. Small, Man. Southeast. Fl. 594.
933, says: “It is not definitely known from our range” (North Carolina southward).
Hibiscus jcarolinianus Muhl., Cat. 63. 1813; ed. 2, 65. 1818, nom. nud.; Muh hl. ex Ell, Sketch
2: 168. 1822, descr. Pennsylvania, Carolina, Georgi a= H. militaris Cav. (1787).
Holcus *tener Schreber ex Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 182. 1793, nom. nud.
ennsylvania hears
Houstonia *divaricata Donn, Hort. Cantab. ed. 4, 28. 1807, nom. nud.; Muhl., Cat. 15.
1813, ed. 2, 14. 1818, nom. nud. [North Ameri ca].
Hydrocharis *cordifolia Muhl., Cat. 86. 1813; ed. 2, 90. 1818, nom. nud. Pie 1 cordt-
folia Nutt., Gen. 2: 241. 1817 — Limnobium spongia (Bosc) LC Ric

ydrocotyle *bipinnata Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 4: 1799, nom. pss Cat
30. 1813; ed. 2, 2,23. 1818, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex Barton, FI. Phila. aeaae 36. 1815, » m, nud.;
Raf. in Me pos. IL. S::i75. "4809, nom. nud. Pennsylvania (Lancaster) = Bnige nia

bulbosa (Michx.) Nutt.
This is apparently a case where Rafinesque appropriated Muhlenberg’s binomial

on the basis of a specimen given to him by the latter; see p. 26.

Hydrocotyle jinterrupta Muhl., Cat. 11. cc. nom. in syn. sub “H. vulgaris? ”; Muh

Ell, Sketch 1: 345. 1817, descr. Tennessee, Carolina, Geeta cherokies) eMenihien
a) =H. verticillata Thunb. (1798).

Hydrophyllum *pellucidum Muhl., Cat. 20. 1813; ed. 2, 19. 1818, nom. nud. No locality
indicated.

—— tpusillum Muhl, Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; A. DC. in DC, Prodr. 9: 289, 292.
1845, nom. in syn. Louisiana <= Eilisia microcalyx Nutt. (1833) = Nemophila foe stones
(Natt). Flick. & Mey.

os *tomentosum Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud. Tennessee.

Muhl. Cat. 67. 1813; ed. 2, 70. 1818, nom. ut syn. H. ascyroides

*bartramicum
rae [Willd.]. Pennsylvania, Ohio = Hypericum ascyron Linn.
\

54 BARTONIA

Muhlenberg may have used this name in the same sense as did Pursh in H. bar-
tramianum Pursh (1814), which is apparently the same as H. bartramium Mill. (1768

Hypericum, *villosum Muhl., Cat. 68, 1813; ed. 2, 71. 1818, nom. alt. H. simplex Michx.
Carolina = H. setosum Linn. (A. pilosum Walt.).

Ixia ‘pieiemeta Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 160. 1793, nom. nud. Pennsylvania

(Lancaster).

Juglans {pyriformis Muhl., Cat. 88. 1813; ed. 2, 92. 1818, nom. (J. obcordata Lam.).
Pennsylvania = Carya glabra (Mill.) Spach.

Juglans *villosa Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. ut syn. J. alba Linn. Pennsylvania = Carya alba
(Linn.) K. Koch.

Muhlenberg gives the common name as mocker nut or common hickory.

Juncus fechinatus Muhl., Cat. 36. 1813; vo 2, 36. 1818, nom. (J. ade gee Michx.) ;
Descr. Geis 207. 1817, descr.; Muhl. ex Ell oF ketch 1: 410. 1817, descr. Pennsyl-
Ton Carolina, Georgia, Cherok[ee] (Northern Georgia) = J. Rises (Michx.
We suspect that the pelts i record was based on specimens cultivated by

Muhlenberg at Lancaster. The species occurs from Virginia to Florida and Texas. It

is entered in Index Kewensis as hades echinatus EIl.

7 tsubverticillatus Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 209. 1817, descr.
J. fluitans sensu Michx.). Pennsylvania = J. botorius E, Mey. (1823).

Justicia +brachiata Pursh ex MuhlL, Cat. 2. 1813; ed. 2, 2. 1818, nom. nud.; Pursh, Fl. Am.
ne i: aes sd a: North "Carolina, Pennsylvania J esiitchak Pkapadlsten brachiatum
Pursh)

Here is a case pom manifestly Muhlenberg had a specimen named by Pursh. See the
discussion p. 27.

Justicia *ensiformis Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.: EIlL., Sketch 1: 11. 1816, descr. (Dian-
Vann. ensiformis Walt.). Carolina = Dianthera americana o nn, (Justi icia americana
ahl

Kyllinga jmonocephala Muhl., Cat. 5. tad Mag 2, 5. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 3.
1817, descr. ger ores Jersey, Carolina, Geo
Muhlenberg cited no synonyms but in de added a reference “ Lamarck Encl. 38,
1”, i, e., Lam., Tabl. Encycl. 1: pl. 38. fig. Kyllingia sp., thinking that what he had was

fy Sil ctplads Rottb. What he had was probably K. odorata Vahl, excluding the New
Jersey record.

ca jhirsuta Muhl., Cat. 69. 1813; vars a ae 1818, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex Nutt., Gen.
N. J Aan. PL 2: 124. 1818, descr. Pennsyl
A valid species extending from Gas. to Louisiana and Texas.

Lathyrus *pusillus Muhl., Cat. 1. 65. 1813; ed. 2, 68. 181 818, nom. nud.; Mississippi. Prob. =
Lp sci Ell, Sketch 2: 223. 1822, descr.’ North Carolina to ’ Kansas, Florida and

*diospyrus Muhl., Cat. 2. 41. 1813; ed. 2, 41. ea nom. og Pursh, Fl. Am.
Sept. 4: 26. 1 1814, descr. (L. melissacfolia Walt.; L. d diospyroid tric. Carolina,
Tennessee = Lindera melissaefolia (Walt.) Blume’ (Benzoin sishicnialaliaes Nees)

n, Hort. Pagpongg ed. 2, 54. 1800, nom. nud.; Muhl., Cat. 43. 1813;

*decumbens Do:
ed. 2, 43. 1818, nom. tid; Lodd. ex Steud., Nomencl, ety = 2: 20. 1841, nom. Hudson
Bay = L. palustre Lin

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 55

Limodorum jfunifolium Muhl., Cat. 81. 1813; ed. 2, 85. 1818, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex Nutt.,
in 2: 195. 1818, nom. in syn. New Jersey to Georgia = Tipularia pine og (Pursh)

enberg’s momen nudum of 1813 has no standing, hence we do not accept the
name Tipularia unifolia (Muhl.) Britton, Sterns, & Poggenb., for this species. Correctly

the nomenclature begins with the described Orchis discolor Pursh (1814).

Lindernia jattenuata Muhl., Cat. 59. 1813; = 2, 61. 1818, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex Barton,
Fl. Phila. Prodr. 66. 1815, descr.; Muhl. x Ell, Ske tch 1: 17. 1816, descr. Penns
vania, Carolina = L. dubia Linn.) Peheatle var. major (Pursh) Pennell.

Lindernia jdilatata Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., mom. mud.; Muhl. ex EIL, op. cit. 16, descr. Penn-
sylvania, Carolina = L. anagallidea (Michx.) Pennell.

Lindernia ee Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; ex Sabi Gen. N. Am. PI. 1:
9. 1818, nom.; Nutt. op. ‘cit. 2: Add. Tl]. 1818, FM seg Catalin
See neat in Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. Monog. 1: 156. 1935, who discusses this case

He offers no explanation of Nuttall’s first reference to “L. monticola of the hills of

New Hampshire” (— White Mountains). The description was based on a specimen from

North Carolina. Torrey’s full description, Fl. U. S. 1: 15. 1824, was based on specimens

collected by Schweinitz and Le Conte in North Carolina, as was Nuttall’s brief char-

acterization; and yet he says also “On the White Hills of New Hampshire. Nuttall.”

ee ert gy Muhl., Cat. 33. 1813; ed. 2, 33. 1818, mom. nud.; Pursh, Fl. Am. Sept. 1:

1814, descr. Missouri, Pennsylvania (cult.).
oz sh credits the binomial to himself. Muhlenberg grew the plant in his garden

at Lancaster from Lewis and Clark catia seeds. He may have had the name from
Pursh.

Lobelia jpallida Schreb. ex Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 178. 1793, nom._nud.;

uhl., Cat. 22. 1813; ed. 2, 22. 1818, nom. (L. goodenioides Willd.) ; Muhl. ex Bigel.,

Fl. Bost. 55. 1814 descr.: Muhl. ex Barton, Fl. Phila. Prodr. 30. 1815, descr.; Muhl. ex
Ell., Sketch 1: 265. 1817, descr. Pennsylvania (Lancaster)—=L. spicata Lam. (1791)

Lonicera {ciliata Muhl., cae 23. 1813; ed. 2, 22. 1818, nom. nud. New England, New York,
eS eek nadensis Marsh. (1785).
rsh, Fl. Am. Hab 1: 161. 1814, nhc a this as Xylosteum ciliatum Pursh, possibly
Pcie: his specific name from Muhlenber.
Lonicera jvillosa Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud. New York, Pennsylvania=L. hirsuta
Eaton (1818).
s was reduced by Torrey and Gray in 1841 to Lonicera hirsuta Eaton (1818). New
England to meres and Manitoba.

cea Muhl., Cat. 45. 1813; ed. 2, 46. 1818, nom. ut syn. pba ar Sr ligustrinum
roevitha sg conc Hy Pennsylvania (cult.) = Cliftonia monophylla (Lam.) Sar

Malva aris Bartram ex Muhl., Cat. 62. 1813; ed. 2, 65. 1818, nom. nud. Carolina.
i gustifolia Muhl., Cat. a ge ed. 2, 75. 1818, nom. (Persoonia [angustsfolia]
mg are. Fl. Am. Se ept. 2: 20. 181 4, descr. Carolina, Tennessee = M. gramin
fis rp Small,

*lanceolata Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. Rodbtence 3 {anceotta Michx.); Pursh,
op. cit. 519, desc. Carolina, Georgia = M. ervia (Walt.) P:

Ilia *latifolia Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. om [latifolia] Michx.); Pursh, 1. c.,
descr. Carolina M. trinervia (Walt.) Porter

56 BARTONIA

Melampyrum pie aig ims 57. 1813; ed. 2, 59. 1818, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex Nutt.,
Gen. 2: 58. ; Eat bowie ed: 2, 316. 1818, descr. Delaware = M. Tineare
Dear var. laifobune (Mahl) Desave

va Scotia aa Quebec westward to "ht goetie and Minnesota southward to South
Rocates and Georgia.

wey pet “hastata Michx., Fl. Bor. Am. 2: 107. 1803; Muhl., Cat. 71. 1813, ed. 2, 74.
1818, ; Pursh, Fl. Am. Se ept. 2: 519. 1814, deser. "Carolina, Georgia = Melan thera
*hastate "(Michx.) DC. Prodr. 5: 545. 1836
The entry in Index Kewensis is Vebdthecs hastata Michx., Fl. Bor. Am. 2: 106, but

Michaux in 1803 described Melananthera as a new genus, iilependenily of the earlier and

equivalent Melanthera Rohr (1792), and with a single species Melananthera hastata Michx.

Melica jracemosa Muhl., Cat. 11, 1813: ed. 2, 10. 1818 nud.; Descr. Gram. 88. 1817,
descr. Pennsylvania ‘( cult.), Carolina, Chercil ee iG Northern Carn a) =M. mutica
Walt. (1786); see Hitchcock i in Bartonia 14: 35.

Menisperum *craniocarpon Muhl, Cat. ed. 2, 98. iste. nom. alt. M. dubium Muhl.
Mississippi = seq.

enisperum }dubium Muhl., Cat. 93. 1813; ed. 2, 98. 1818, nom. nud.; Raf., Fl. Ludovic.
138. 1817, nom. nud. Missi sissippi.

Menziesia —— Muhl., Cat. 40. a ed. 2, 40. 1818, nom. nud. Western North
petrformis See (1811) = Bryanthus Bapeticorme A. Gray = Phyl-
‘dace pi pobitirens (Sm.) D n.

Mikania jpubescens Muhl., Cat. 71. 1813; ed. 2, 74. 1818, nom. nud.; Nutt., Gen. 2: 136. 1818,

descr.; — ex TAL, Sket ch 2: 293, 1822, descr. Penusylvania, Caroli ina, Georgia =
M. scan ens (Linn.) Willd.
Nuttall Re oo his Mikania pubescens runitiecde ns of that of Muhlenberg, but may

have derived his name from a Muhlenberg specim

Milium jciliatum Muhl., Cat. 10. 1813; ed. 2, 9. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 77. 1817,
descr.; non Mo ench, 1802. New Jersey — Amphicarpum purshii Kunth; see Hitchcock
in Bartonia 14: 33. 1932.

Milium jdistichum Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 78. 1877, descr.; EI,
Sketch 1: 104. 1816, nom. in syn. Carolina = Paspalum distichum Linn.; see Hitchcock,

Monotropa orisonia Muhl., Cat. 42. 1813; ed. 2, 43. 1818, nom. nud. Carolina=
"M. mee Pers. ne —M. morisoniana Michx. (1 803) = M. uniflora Linn

ng meer *diffusa Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 160. 1793 m. nud.;
Sp. Pi: 1: 320, tor, hie Pennsylvania (Lancaster) = M : sclshonk Gmel. yon).

See oleae in Bartonia 14: 30. 1932, who correctly, as the species was there first
published with a description, credits the binomial to Willdenow. Mahlenberg doubtless
d the name from Willdenow in a list of identifications.
ublenbergia *erecta ap hl. in Trans. a Philos. Soc. 3: 160. nom, nud, ;
1813; ed. 2, 7. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 57. ist, tg “Diteprim bridions m
Mi chx.). Pennsylvania, Carolina, Georeia = Brac elytrum erectum (Schreb.) Beauv-
S was indicated by Muhlenberg as a new species, but he probably received the
name from Schreber for whom ~ peed a description in 1807-08.
Myrica *parvula Muhl., Cat. ed. 2. 96. 1 Carolina, Florida.
This is probably Myrica pumila Miche ’ (1803) gr i abana, pumilus ‘Small).

nthe jteretifolia M Cat. 32. a ed. 2, 31. 1818, nom. nud. Carolina, Georgia =
Osypolis filiformis Wit) Britton

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 57

see ee *ovatifolia Muhl., Cat. 20. 1813; ed. 2) 20- oe nom. nud.; Ell., Sketch 1: 237.
1817, nom. in syn. sub O. mitreola Michx.; In d. Kew. 2: 353. 1894, ‘ut “ovalifolia Muhl.
Gat. 20° ” Carolina = Cynoctonum mitreola (Linn.) Brit rl

ons sete Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 178. 1793, nom. nud. Pennsylvania
L
is undoubtedly the species a gh ge as Cymbidium hyemale Muhl. ex Willd.
ia iced hyemale (Muhl.) T:
Ophrys *maculata Muhl. 1. c., nom. nud. Pennsylvania (Lancaster).
Possibly this is the Prot as Corallorhiza maculata Raf. (1817) CC. multiflora Nutt., 1832).
Ophrys tec Schreb. ex Muhl. 1. c., nom. mud. Pennsylvania (Lancaster).

a, ee uhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 178. Bl nom, (“ Stare on, 136, n.
i. €. Shen foliis sicko: inferioris ovatis Grono Fl. Virgin. ed 4 136. 1762,
os r. ennsylvani wigs ii spectabilis Lihn: (Galearis spectabilis Raf.,
1833, Calacrehie. spectabilis gtr
e merely record the fact that if one wishes to segregate a genus from Orchis as
Rydberg "did in 1901, Guleorchis Rydb. (1901) is antedated by Galearis Raf. (1833) by
68 years.
Orchis *quinquefida Muhl., Cat. 80. 1813; ed. 2, 1818, nom. nud. Carolina.
Possibly the same as Habenaria quinqueseta are Sw.
psis *aspera Muhl., Cat. 11. 1813; ed. 2, 10. 1818, nom. ut syn. O. melanocarpa Muhl.
“Pennsylvania. Ut videtur sphalm. "=0. ciate Michx. (1803).

Oryzopsis jmelanocarpa Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 79. rag? descr.
Penneylvania=0 racemosa 43. E. Sm.) Ricker; ke Hitchcock in Bartonia 14: 34. 1932.
Panicum jacuminatum sensu Muhl., Descr. = 125. 1817, descr.; e Cat. ed.

e , 9. 1818,
nom.: non ia oe (1788). North America] = =P. salapense H. B. Ky (1835); oat Hitch-
cock in Bartonia 14: 41.

Panicum *agrostoides Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 4: 236. 1799, nom. nud.; Mulh. ex.
Barton, Fl. Phila. Prodr. 20. 1815, descr.; Spreng., Pugill. 2: 4. "1815, descr.; Moi,
Descr. Gram. 119. 1817, descr. Pennsylvania (Lancaster), —_ ex Descr. Gram
Carolina, gm _ Cherokee (Northern Georgia) =P. agr stoides Spreng: (1815) ;
Hitch cock, 0
This was Soa y Miche. original name, published by Sprengel as his own

species. No authority is indicated in the Muhlenberg description of 1817. A valid widely

distributed species.

Panicum }depauperatum Muhl., Cat. * 1813; ed. 2, 8. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 112.
i817, descr. seni ee ‘Carolin

A valid species of wide there see Hitchcock, op. cit. 39.

i fdivergens Muhl., Cat. 1. cc., nom. see Descr. Gram. 120, 1817, deser.; pono
EL, Sketch 12: ‘150. 1816, descr.; no woh. (1815). Carolina = Lepto <a
cognatum (Schult.) Chase (Panicum caamhenn Schult.) ; see: Hitchcock, op.

Panicum jgeniculatum = hl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 4: 235. 1799, nom. nud.; Cat- 11.
cc. nom. nud.; Des Gram. 123, 1817, descr. (P. dichotomiflorum Michx.) ; Mu hl.
ex, Ell Sketch 1: 11 17. Hh descr.; non Lam. Gi). haat be saa Carolina, Georgia

=P. di chotomiflorum Mich. (1803); see Hitchcock,
thispidum = ed. 2, 8. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 107. 1817,
non “ee ne * 1786). °; ate ‘Yo rk, Delaware, Carolina = Echino chloa walteri
Panky Heller (Panicum walteri gg eh see Hitchcock, op. cit

58 BARTONIA

Panicum er Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos, Soc. 4: 236. 1799, nom. nud. Pennsylvania
(Lan

anicum frostratum Muhl., op. cit. 4: 236. 1799, nom. — illd.. Enum. Hort. Berol.

1032. 1809, eee Muhl., Cat. 9. 1813; ed. 2, 8. 1818, n re. anceps Michx.); Descr.

aie ge ee . descr. Penns ylvania, Vir rginia, Carolina TCierckee (Northern Georgia)
anceps Miche (1803) ; see Hiichepck: op. cit. 40.

Panicum j{setaceum Muhl., Cat 1813; ed. 2, 8. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 99. 1817,

descr. Georgia = P. cialis ben (1816) : see Hitchcock, op. cit. 37
taria *americana Muhl., Cat. 95. 1813; ed. 2, 100. 1818, nom. nud. Pennsylvania
scarier ter (Northern ee a).

Paspalum jmucronatum Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., som. Yee ges Gram. 96. 1817, descr.
(P: paniculatum Walt.) ; Bi. Sketch 1: 109. 1816 in syn. sub Geren fluitans
Ell. Georgia, Mississippi = P . repens Berg. (1762) : ee ‘Hitchcock, is

Pastinaca *noxia Muhl., Cat. 31. 1813; ed. 2, 31. 1818, nom. nud. New York, i
By this name Muhlenberg clearly intended to designate the wild form of the common

parsnip, Pastinaca sativa Linn
icularis *verna Muhl. Cat. 58. 1813, ed. 2, 60. 1818, nom. ut syn. P. canadensis Linn.
New England, Pennsylvania, Virgini a= P. canadensis Linn

Phacelia *parviflora sory, Cat. 20. 1813; ed. 2, 19. 1818, nom. (Polemonium dubium Linn.) ;
Pursh, Fl. yoy Sept. 1: 140. 1814, descr. Pennsylva nia = Phacelia dubia (Linn.) Small.
Apparently here Pursh appropriated Muhlenberg’s specific name; see p. 27.

Phalangium Mere Ome Muhl, Cat. 35. 1813; ed. 2, 35. 1818, nom. nud.; Steud., Nomencl.
ed. 2, 2: 184, 314. 1, nom. New Jersey = Nar — americanum Ker-Ga wl. fide
Torrey, Fl. U. S. 1: en 1824 (Abama americana Mots

lus *perennis Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: ue 1793, nom. nud. Pennsylvania
(Lancaster).
The only reason for listing this is that it is indicated as a new species, probably
through oversight. Apparently Muhlenberg intended to record P. perennis Ley (1788),
which occurs in the region=P. polystachyus (Linn.) fete Sterns, & Pogg

hiladelphus us Muhl., Cat. 48. 1813; ed. 2, 49. 1818, nom. nud. Tennessee Prob. =
P; oar oat Willd. (1 809).

Phlox *aspera Muhl., Cat. 21. 1813; ed. 2, 20. 1818, nom. nud. Cherokee (Northern Georgia).

*distichus Muhl., Cat. 84. 1813; ed. 2, 88. 1818, nom. alt. P. obovatus Muhl.
Tee nwa Sp. Pl. 4: 574. 1805]. Pennsylvania, Carolina, Georgia = P. caroliniensis

Pinus *denticulata Mu e — 89. 1813; ed. 2, 94. 1818, nom. alt. P. nigra Ait. [Abies
os Michx.]; Steud., Nomen cl. ed. 2 2: 337. 1841, Sada New England, Pennsyl-
vania = Picea sowed “Mi Britton, Sterns, & Pogg

HRS jlinearifolia Muhl., Cat. ed. 2, 15. 1818, n nud.; Torr., Fl. U. S. 1: 185. 1824,
nom. in syn. Pennsylvania, Carolina = P. sougeie Pursh ‘a.

Poa +brevifolia Muhl., oo 11. 1813; ed. 2, 10, 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 138. 1817,

13
descr.; non D ‘ Pennsylvania =P. cuspidata Nutt. rss); see Hitchcock
in Bartonia 14: 42. 1932.

*erocea Muhl., Cat. 11. 1818, nom. alt. + palustris Linn. (Poa crocata Michx.). New
t Pactend: New ‘Yo rk—P, palustris Lin

Poa jflexuosa sels ik: ce ; Des Gram. 148. 1817, deser. Virginia
Carolina, Chero « (Northern rote tes P. cutasiaie Muhl. ex Ell, Sketch 1: 159.
1816; ee Hitcheock. op. cit. 44.

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 59

Gag trees sane in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 161. 1793, nom. nud. Pennsylvania

a t
We suspect that this is the same as the s species described by Sprengel as Festuca

nutans Spreng., Mant. Fl. Hal. 34. 1807, non Moench (1794), which was based on a

Muhlenberg specimen = Festuca obtusa ee 1. c.; see Hitchcock, op. cit. 46.

Poa tobtusa Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.: Gram. 147, 1817, descr. New pages,

ew Jersey, Ponndyivite = Pectiee oben’ oe (1807) ; see Hitchco ck. th.
This was doubtless originally a Muhlenberg aptiolis i Sprengel’s species was based

On a specimen sent by the former. It is one of t y few species described in the

“Descriptio” where the binomial is followed by ne pate “mihi”, indicating that it

was Muhlenberg’s name

Poa ihe nee Muhl., Cat. 12, 1813; ed. 2. 11, 1818, nom. (P. amabilis Walt.) ; Desecr. Gram.

817, descr.; Muh’. ex Ell, Sketch f Mave 1816, descr. Carolina Eragrostis
ta (MuhL) Scribe: see Hiiicoek. op. cit. 43.
roe ere Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 161. 1793, nom. nud. Pennsylvania
r}

Poa *rubra Muhl., op. cit., 4: 436. 1799, nom. nud. Pennsylvania (Lancaster).

Poa juniflora Muhl., Cat. 11, boat ed. 2, 11. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 151. 1817, ae
New England, New Jers y= Muh lenbergia tniflora (Muhl.) Fernald in Rhodora 29:
10, “1927) see Hitchcowk ; = Bartonia 14: 44.

Poa *viridis Muhl., Cat. 11, 1813; ed. 2, 10. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 138. 1817, descr.;
Mu hy ex Ell. Sketch 1: 159. 1816, descr. Pennsylvania, fee er Cherok[ee] Gfonvers
Georgia) =P. viridis Schreb. ex Pursh. Fl. Am. Sept. 1: 79. 1814—P. pratensis Linn.
see Hitchenes. pg cit. 42.

Probably yee airdbd specific name was originated by Schreber, to whom he sent
specimens for identificatio

Rodalyria }bracteata Muhl., Cat. 42. 1813: ed. 2, 42. 1818, nom. nud. Carolina.

Podalyria * yd poet rene, Hort. Cantab. ed. 4, 94. 1807, nom. nud.; Muhl., Cat. 11. cc.,
nom. nud. Virgin

Polygala *nana Muhl., — e 1813; ed. 2, 66. 1818, nom. sub P. viridescens [sensu Walter

5 ore lutea Linn. var. nana Michx. FL Bor. Am. 2: 54. 1803] = P.nana DC., Prodr.
: 328. 1824. Caroline Gestaie.

Polygala jpubescens Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.: Muhl. ex Nutt., Gen. 2: 87. 1818, descr.;
Muhl. ex EIlL, "Ske tch 2: 180. 1822, ‘descr.: non Mart. (1815). Georgia =P, grandiflora
Walt. (1788) (Asemeia grandiflora ‘Sma Il).

Polygala *rosea Muhl., Cat. 11. $t nom. P. pubescens ogee raok senega Linn. var.
rosea Michx. Fl. Bor. Ais 2: 53. 1803]. "Cutolice Georgi

Polygonum *album Muhl., Cat. 40. 1813: aes 2, 40. 1818, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex Barton, FI.
Phila. Prodr. 47. 1815, descr. Pennsylva
Barton’s validating description is very short: “alb. foliis lanceolatis, acutis flo.

Septembri”. This mi ight be the same as P. acre H. B. K. or P. hydropiperoides Michx.
ontederia jlancifolia Muhl., Cat. 34. 1813: ed. 2, 33. 1818, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex Ell., Sketch
1; 382. 1817, descr. Carolina, Georgia = P. pas Sate (1818) vel. Pp. varie Linn.
Should Muhlenberg’s species prove to be the same as the one described by Nuttall,

then Elliott’s validation of it in 1817 antedates Nuttall’s description by one year.

Potamogeton *anceps Muhl., Cat. 18. 1813; ed. 2, 17. 1818, nom. nud. Pennsylvania.

60 BARTONIA

Potamogeton *nervosum Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 4: 236. 1799, nom. nud, Penn-
sylvania (Lancaster).

This was indicated as a new species.

Prenanthes *pumila Muhl., Cat. ed. 2, 72. 1818, nom. nud. Georgia = Lygodesmia aphylla

(Nutt.) DC.

This is doubtless the same as P. pumila Baldw. ex Ell., Sketch 2: 262. 1822. This name
appears in Elliott’s text as follows: “The specimen éf this plant [Prenanthes aphylla
Nutt.] which Dr. Baldwin sent me from St. Mary’s under the name of Prenanthes
pumila, is too imperfect to enable me to speak of it with much confidence. It appears
© me questionable, however, whether it belongs to this genus. It grows in the pine
barrens round St. Mary’s, Georgia.” Muhlenberg had a set of Baldwin’s specimens.

Prinos a peg Cat 3h, Rank ed. 2, 36. 1818 (Prinus), nom. nud.; Pursh, Fl. Am.
Sep 220. 1814 deser. New England, et fide Pursh, New York, Virginia = Ilex
leuk (Pursh) A Gray.

Here Pursh may ae appropriated Muhlenberg’s specific name; see p. 27.

Prunus *depressa Donn, Hort. Cantab. ed. 4, 114, 1807, nom. nud.; Muhl., Cat. 48. 1813, ed.
2, 49. 1818, nom. nud. Pennsylvania. Prob.=P. depr ressa Pursh, Fl. Am. Sept. 2: 332.
1814, “Canada to Virginia” = P. pumila Linn.

Pursh may or may not have taken the specific name from Donn.

*

Prunus *pubescens Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud. Carolina.

Senet etresrcties so gy Cat. 67. 1813; ed. 2, 70. 1818, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex Nutt.
8 104. 1818, nom. in syn. Cherokee (Northern Georgia) = ? P. onobrychis
( Orbexylum onobrychis Rydb.
Ee sag *obovata Muhl., . 11. ce., nom. nud. Georgia.

Pulmonaria *mollis Donn, Hort. Cantab. id 4, 34. 1807, nom. nud.; Muhl., Cat. 19. 1813;
ed. 2, a ‘1818, nom, nud. North Ameri

*oligocarpa Muhl., Cat. 49. 1813, ed. 2, 50. 1818, nom. (“ oligocarpa nana Donn y
edge: ese America].

We find no Pyrus “ oligocarpa nana” in any of the editions of Donn’s Hortus
Cantabrigiensis. .

Quercus jcastanea Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc, 4: 237. 1799, nom. nud., Neue Schr.
cog Naturf. = Aes 3: 396. 1801, descr.; non Nee (1801). Pennsylvania=
Q. muhlenbergii Engelm

cus +filiformis Muhl., Cat. 87. 1813; ed. 2, 91. 1818, nom. nud.; A. DC. in DC., Prodr.
16(2) : 21. 1864, nom. in syn. Pennsylvania = Q. bicolor Willd. (1801).

Quercus cola Muhl.,, Cat. . cc., nom. nud. ag Georgia = Q. montana
Willd, errs Torr., Cat. Pl. N. Y. 75. 1819 = Q. prinus

unculus {fascicularis Muhl., Cat. 54. 1813; ed. 2, 56. 1818, nom. nud.; Bigel., Fl. Bost
137. 1814, descr.; amie ex Barton, FI. Phi la. ’Prodr. 60. 1815, descr. Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts (Bige ow).

A valid species ca from New England and Ontario to Kansas, Georgia, and
Texas.

thirtus Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. (R. wy tees Michx.); Steud., Nomencl. ed-
2, 2: 433. 1841, nom. Pennsylvania, Virginia = R. hispidus Michx. @! 803 )-

fnitidus Muhl., Cat. 11. Muhl. ex Ell, Sketch 2: 60. 1821,
descr. Carolina = R. repens Linn., fide oon oe Gens, Fl. N. Am. 1: 21. 1838.

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 61

In describing this species Elliott states: “This plant, the R. nitidus of Muhlenberg’s
Catalogue, but not of Walter [1788] is nearly allied to the R. repens [Linn]...”. Eaton
described it in editions of his Manual (1817 to 1840); see Merrill and Reeder in
Bartonia 24: 70. 1947,

Ranunculus ee Muhl., Cat - ll. cc., nom. nud.; Eaton, Man. ed. 2, 397. 1818,
descr Prodr. 1: 40. 1824, nom. in syn. New England, New York, Delaware =

R. dion Poir. nt 4
Rhamnus *pubescens Muhl., Cat. 25. te ed. 2, 24. 1818, nom. nud. No locality indicated.

Prob. = R. lanceolatus Pursh (18
Rhododendron +catabiense nei Cat. 43. 1813; ed. 2, 43. 1818, nom. nud., sphalm—=

R. catawbiense Michx. Carolin
Ribes *atropurpureum Lewis ex Muhl., Cat. 25. 1813; ed. 2, 25. 1818, nom. nud. Missouri.

Prob. = R. aureum Pursh (1814).

n Muhlenberg’s unpublished manuscript, Obs. Bot. Fl. Am . sept. I: 20 he says:
“The deep purple currant found on the Missouri near the Nae Nation ores ty
material from the Lewis and Clark expedition.

Ribes *coccinem Lewis ex Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud. Jefferson River poeaiy

Perhaps this is the same as R. sanguineum Pursh (1814), but Pursh’s speci was
me the Columbia River. In Mu cearces unpublished manuscript this is saticated

“the scarlet currant of the River Jeffer
sees OO pseamaeere rs Muhl., Cat. 26, 1813; ed. 2, 25. 1818, nom. nud. Pennsylvania “H”,

hort. (cultivated).

‘ Wik unpublished manuscript this is indicated as “the deep purple goose-
berry of River Jefferson.” These Ribes species were described by Muhlenberg (MS) from
Plants grown by Mr. McMahon in Philadelphia, the seeds from the Lewis and Clark
expedition. R. spinosissimum flowered in Philadelphia, March 26, 1811.

Rosa tebrrokeensis Donn, Hort. Cantab. Bae te 128. 1809, nom. nud.; Muhl., Cat. 50. 1813;

ed. 2, 51. 1818, nom. nud. North A

Donn presumably had was the species popularly known as the Cherokee 1 rose
= Rosa laevigata Michx. (1803).
Rosa jserotina Donn, 1. c., nom. nud.; Muhl. 11. ee nom. nud.; Donn ex Thory, Prodr.

Monog. Rosier 142. hea. nom. nud. North Americ
Rosa *stricta Donn, 1. c., nom. nud.; Muhl. 11. cc., Nom. nud. North America.

Muhlenberg credits the species to Donn; the entry in Index Kewensis is Rosa stricta
Muhl. The form described and illustrated as Rosa stricta Muhl. by Lindley, Rosa. Monog.
42. pl. 7. 1820, is apparently a form of R. nitida Willd
Rubus *purpureus Muhl., Cat. 50. 1813; ed. 2, 52. 1818, nom. alt. R. flagellaris Willd. =

R. canadensis Linn
Rudbeckia *lobata Donn, Hort. Cantab. ed. 4, 196. 1807, nom. nud.; Muhl., Cat. 78. 1813;

ed. 2, 82. 1818, nom. nud. North America. Prob.=R. frilobata Linn.

*hastatulus Baldw. ex Ell., Sketch 1: 416. cil descr.; Muhl., Cat. ed. 2, 37. 1818,
gg (Ind. Kew ut “hastulatus Baldw.’ "). Geo

A valid species. New England to Illinois southward to Florida and Texas.

Sagittaria *graminifolia Muhl., Cat. 86. 1813; ed. 2, 91. 1818, nom. nud. Pennsylvania
Cotctiod Pr Prop, S. graminea Michx. (1803).

62 BARTONIA
Sagittaria separ fre Muhl., Cat. 11. cce.,. nom. nud. ; Pursh, Fl. Am. Sept. 2: 396, 1814,
descr. P heterophylla Pursh (1814
\ Pursh sonavens appropriated Muhlenberg’s ase name; see p. 27.
Salix jprostrata Muhl., Cat. 91. 1813; ed. 2, 95. 1818, nom. nud. New England.

lix jwashitana Muhl., Cat. 11. cc. nom. nud.; Raf., Fl. Ludovic. 138. 1817, nom. nud.
we Werle (Arkansas or Oklahoma).
Sambucus *atropurpurea Muhl., Cat. 33. 1813; ed. oe 23. 1818, nom. nud. Pennsylvania,
Virginia, Carolina. Prob.—S. pubens Michx. (1803).
—- *pinnatifida Muhl., Cat. ed. 2, 75. 1818, nom. nud. Louisiana, Pennsylvania (cult.).
rob. = S. chamaecyparissus Linn.
Scandix jdulcis Muhl., Cat. 31. 1813; ed. 2, 31. 1818, nom. (Myrrhis [claytoni] Michx.);
ursh, Fl. Am. Sept. 1: 196, yee nom, in syn. New York, Pennsylvania = Osmorhiza
claytoni ope C. B. Clar

Schoenus }fuscus L, Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 6. 1817, descr. New York
so Rh Bohs apelin pres? Kunth; see Gale in Rhodora 46: 230. 1944.

Schoenus *lithospermus Muhl. = fag Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 160. 1793, nom. nud. Pennsyl-
vania (Lancaster) = Scleria
This is “say as a new species. It has nothing to do with Schoenus ple Ses
Linn., Sp. Pl. ed. 2, 65. 1763, which was based on Scirpus lithospermus Linn., a3
1753, a species ae British India.

ee re, ‘Muhl., Cat. 5. 1813; ed. 2, 5. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 4. 1817,
des =Cladium mariscoides (Mu hl.) Torr. ‘(Mariscus mariscoides
O. ‘Reuitec):

Schoenus jsetaceus Muhl., Cat. 6. 1813; ed. 2, 5. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 6. 1817,
ar Pennsylvania — Rhynchospora capillacea Torr.; 3 see Gale in Rhodora 46: 126.

Scirpus jacuminatus Muhl., Cat. 6. 1813; ed. 2, 6. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 27. 1817,
descr. No locality indic ated — Eleocharis acuminata Nees-—=?E. co ompressa Sull.
(1842) ; see Sree i in Rhodora 34: 216. 1932.

There is no specimen in Muhlenberg’s herbarium fide Torrey and Svenson.

i jacutus Muhl., Cat. 7, 1813; ed. 2, 6. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 33. 1817.
descr.; Muhl. ex Bieck Fl. Bost. 15. 1814, descr.; Muhl. ex Barton, Fl. Phila. Prodr.
18. 1815, descr. New En gland, Pennsylvania.

Often reduced to Scirpus lacustris Linn., but now considered to represent a distinct
species, for which Muhlenberg’s name is used. Newfoundland to Alaska southward to
Texas and Arizona.

jbrunneus Muhl., Cat. 7, 1813; ed. 2, 7. 1818, bead nud.; Descr. Gram. 42. 1
— Muhl. ex EIL, Sketch 1: 87. 181 ew Jersey, Pennsylvania,
¢.

are= J. exaltatus Pursh ball ay, ebeekviles Vahl (1806).

teyperiformis Muhl., Cat 1813; ed. 2, 7. 1818, nom. — lupulinus Spreng.) ;
“oe Gen a 41. 1817, ae & lupulinus Spren ng.). New England, Penns ylvania,
peal-iame ae Cherokee (Northern Georgia) = Cyperus “Gliculmis Vent ar.
ilentus

Scirpus *debilis Muhl., Cat. 7. 1813; ed. 2, 6. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 34. 1817, descr.;
Muhl. ex EIL, Sketch 1: 79, 1816, descr. Pennsylvania, Carolina== S. debilis Pursh,
Fl. Am. Sept. 1: 55. 1814.

Apparently here Pursh appropriated a Muhlenberg binomial as his own; see p. 27.

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 63

sed yintermedius Muh 11. cc., nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 31. 1817, descr. Pennsyl-
ania = Eleocharis Ssspeaene (Muhi.) Schult. (E. reclinata Kunth, 1837).
A species extending from Quebec and northern Maine to Minnesota south to
Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. See Svenson in Rhodora 39: 262. 1937;
41: 67. 1939.

Scirpus *maculatus Muhl., Cat. 7. 1813; ed. 2, 6. 1818, nom. alt. S. acutus Muhl. Pennsyl-
vania= S. acutus Muhl.

Scirpus *monanthos Muhl., Cat. 7. 1813; ed. 2, 6. 1818, nom. nud. Delaware.

the specific name we suspect that some representative of the genus Eleocharis
R. Br. is indicated.

Scirpus tpendulus Muhl., Cat. 7. 1813; ed. 2. 7. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 44. 1817,
escr.; Muhl. ex EIL., "Sketch 1: 87. 1816, nom. ut syn. S. li: meatus. Miche. Pennsylvania,
Carolina, Charokes (Northern Georgia) = S. lineatus Michx. (1803).

— or Muhl., Cat. 7. 1813; ed. 2, 6. 1818, nom. nud.; Descr. Gram. 32. 1817,
ex Barton, Fl. Phila. Prodr. 17. 1815, descr.: non Grimm (1767).

irene Delaw e=S. verecundus Fernald in Rhodora 50: 284. 1948.

A valid species known from New England to Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Missouri,
but unfortunately Muhlenberg’s specific name was preoccupied whence the new name
published by Fernald in 1948
Scirpus jsubsquarrosus Muhl., Cat. 11. cc. nom bir Descr. Gram. 39. 1817, descr.

Pennsylvania, Georgia = Isolepis subsquarrosa (Muh Schrad. ex erat in Roem
Schult., Syst. Veg. Mant. 2: 64. 1824 = Hemicarpha ped (Vahl) Pax

cirpus jtrichodes Muhl., Cat. an 1813; ed. 2, 6. 1818, a . nud.; Descr. Gram. 30. 1817,
descr. “eapillacens Michx, S . pusillus Vahl) ; Muhl. ex Barton, FLL ‘Phila. Prodr. 7

1815, des Muhl. ex Ell, Sketch 1: 76. 1816, descr. as ea scan and fide Eliott,
South Copstion (Charleston) = Eleocharis acicularis (Linn.
Scleria *reticulata Muhl., Descr. Gram. 266. 1817, nom. in syn., sphalm.; Ell, Sketch 2:
560. 1823, anes sphalm. Carolina = S. reticularis Michx. (1803).
, Man. ed. 5, 486. 1829, also used the form Scleria reticulata, perhaps copying
from Mohn see Merrill and Reeder in Bartonia 24: 72. 1947.

Scutellaria {cordifolia Muhl., eg 56. 1813; oe zz caf 1818, nom. nud.; Eaton, Man. ed. 2,
433. 1818, descr.; Muhl. ex Nutt., Gen : 38. 818, nom. ut syn. S. versicolor Pe
yee ex EIl., Sketch 2: “ol. 1821, re > Benth pricy Bet ag me heey 1

arolina, Mississippi, cultivated in Pennsylvania =S. ov a Hill, ‘Hort. how.

od 2, "342, oL 8. 1768 (S. versicolor Nutt., 1818).

See Blake in Rhodora 17: 133. 1915. Fernald, op. cit. 44: 432. 1942, places S. versicola
Nutt. as a variety of S. ovata Hill. Eaton first validated S. cordifolia Muhl.; see Merrill
& Reeder, in Bartonia 24: 72. 1947
Scutellaria *parviflora Muhl., Cat. 56. 1813; ed. 2, 58. 1818, nom. nud. Pennsylvania,
Kentucky, Illinois.

Senecio *hirsutus Muhl., Cat. 73. 1813; ed. 2, 76. 1818, nom. nud. New Jersey.
Senecio *pusillus Muhl., Cat. 73. 1813; ed. 2, 77. 1818, nom. nud. New Jersey.
Senecio *spatulatus Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud. Pennsylvania.

uhl., i 65. 1813; ed. 2, 68. 1818, nom. nud.; Raf., Fl. Ludovic, -

Sesbania jmacrocarpa M
137. 1817, nom. nud.; Mu hl. x Ell, Sketch 2: 221. wees hin 9 Carolina, Mississippi =
S. emerus (Aubl.) Urb. in Repent "Sp. Nov. 16: 149. 1

64 BARTONIA

This is Small’s disposition of Muhlenberg’s species, Man. Southeast. FI. 702. 1933,
as Sesban *emerus (Aubl.) Britton & Wilson, Sci. Surv. Porto Rico 5: 395. 1924. Sesban
*sericea Britton & Wilson 1. c. is another unlisted binomial.

Silene jalba Muhl., Cat. 45. 1813; ed. 2, 45. 1818, nom. nud. ; Rohrbach, Monog. Bi
87. 1868, nom. in syn. Pen nsylva nia —=S. nivea (Nutt.) Otth in DCc.,. Prodr,’ 2° oe
1824 (Cucubalus niveus Nutt., 8).

This case is discussed by Merrill and Reeder in Bartonia 24: 57. 1947, sub Cucubalus
nivens Eaton.

Silphium *cordifolium Muhl. Cat. 79. 1813; ed. 2, 83. 1818, nom. nud. North America.

Silphium *varians Don eg Cantab. ed. 4, 198. 1807, nom, nud.; Muhl, Cat. 11. cc.,
nom, nud. North Ane

—_ jitenuifolium Muhl., Cat. 31. 1813; ed. 2, 30. 1818, nom. nud.; Muhl. ex Barton, Fl.

a. Prodr. 37. 1818, descr. Pennsylvani aS. suave Walt. (1788).

Solanum *exasperatum Muhl., Cat. 24. 1813; ed. 2, 23. 1818, nom. ut syn. S. nigrum Lone ;
Muhl. ex Barton, FI. Phila. Prodr. 32. 1815, nom. in syn. Pennsylvania S. nigru

inn

Sonety digi Mu “— Cat. 76. 1813; ed. 2, 79. 1818, nom. nud.; Torr. & Gray, Fl. N. Am

4. 1841, at syn. Pennsy vania= S. canadensis Linn. var. scabra A. Gray =
$ pie ‘Lin

Solidago jsquarrosa Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.: Nutt., Gen. 2: 161. ape, descr.; Muhl.

ex Ell., Sketch 2: 388. 1822, descr. New York, Pennsylvania, Georgi
valid species, New Brunswick and Ontario southward to North oe and pre-
vant Georgia. Nuttall in providing the first description did not credit the binomial
to Muhlenberg, pile: sta age “According to Muhlenberg’s Catalogue, it exists also in

Pennsylvania and Geo

Spartina jglabra Muhl., Cat. 8. 1813: ed. . 7. 1818, nom. i Descr. Gram. 54, 1817, — ms
Muhl. ex Bigel., Fl. Bost. 17. 1814, descr.; Muhl. x Ell, Sketch 1: 95. 1816, des
New — New Yo rk, Delaware, Carolina= S, allpniteka Loisel. (1807).

Piraea *corymbosa Muhl., Cat. 49. 1813, ed. 2, 51. 1818, nom. (S. nah igt ore Willd.).
Peanaivenia= corymbosa Raf, (1814 a fide Torrey, Fl. U.S
We suspect that this was a case i. Muhlenberg end se Be cataote and
that Dalaasaas netee it as his o
Stipa jmelanocarpa Muhl., Cat. 13. 1813; ed. 2, a 1818, a bss .; Descr. Gram. 183. 1817,
descr. ; MuhE ex FL Sketch 1: 146. 1816, nom. in syn. ia = Heteropogon melano-
nee pees Benth. (Andropogon mslatitordns Ell. vieIe) ile Hitchcock in Bartonia

Symplocos *montana Muhl. Cat., 67. 1813; <4. 2, 70. 1818, nom. nud. No locality indicated
mean rts (Linn.) L’Hér

Taxus “diffusa Muhl., Cat. 93. 1813; ed. 2, 98. 1818, io ut syn. T. canadensis Willd.
New England, Pennsylvania = T. canadensis Marsh. (1785).

Thalia *caerulea Muhl., Cat. 1. 1813; ed. 2, 1. 1818, nom. nud. Carolina==T. dealbata
Fraser (1794).

Thalictrum jpalmatum Walt. ex Muhl., Cat. 54. 1813: et. 2, 56. 1818, Lose nud.; Spreng,
Syst. a 674, 1825" Rede (T. ranunculinum Muh. x Willd., Enum. Hort. Berol. 585.
1809, descr.). Carolina = Trautvetteria carolinensis (Walt t.) Vail.

We cannot explain Muhlenberg’s use of Walter’s name as an authority for this
species, as he published only one species of Thalictrum, T. carolinianum Walt., Fl. Carol.

157. 1788.

WORK AND PUBLICATIONS OF HENRY MUHLENBERG 65

Thymbra *walteri Muhl., Cat. 56. 1813; ed. 258. 1818, nom. nud. Georgia. Prob. = Macbridea
carolintana (Walt.) Blake i in Rhodora 17: 132. 1915 (M. pulchra EIl.).

Tilia *argentea Muhl., Cat. 52. 1813; ed. 2, 54. 1818, nom. nud. Carolina. Prob. =
T. heterophylla Vent.

Trichodium {scabrum Muhl., Cat. 10. 1813; ed. 2, 10. 1818, nom. (Agrostis scabra Willd.) ;
Descr. Gram. 61. 1817, descr. Pennsylvania, Virginia = Agrostis hiemalis (Walt.)
Britton, Sterns, & Pogge nb.; see Hitchcock in Bartonia 14: 50. 1932.

oe Mi egersen ferum Muhl., Cat. 67. 1813; ed. oe 70. 1818, nom. nud.; Eaton, Man. ed. 2,
468. 1818, descr. Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylva
A valid species, the first description ani! “Suitilisthed for Muhlenberg by Eaton.
We interpret the “C” following Muhlenberg’s Pennsylvania record to signify that he
had the species in cultivation in Lancaster, although the species actually occurs in
Pennsylvania. See Merrill and Reeder in Bartonia 24: 76, 1947.
Ulmus *aspera Muhl., Cat. 29. 1813; ed. 2, a 1818, nom. (U. fulva Michx.). Pennsyl-
vania, Virginia, Carolina, Tennessee —=
esr: Mock; Muhl. in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 3: 165. 1793, nom. Ae americana Marshall,
inn.). Pennsylvania (Lancaster) (Ulmus fulva Michx., 803).
ihe case is discussed by Fernald in Rhodora 47: 203. 1945. The record is clear, and
Muhlenberg’s long overlooked but validly published name replaces the long used
U. fulva Michx.
Vaccinium *cespitosum Michx., Fl. Bor. Am. 1: 234. 1803, descr.; Muhl. Cat. 39. 1813, ed.
2, 39. 1818, nom. Canada — V’. caespitosum Michx. (1803).
ichaux actually published this as cespitoswm, but the form accepted by most authors
is ceesiena: and the entry in Index Kewensis is the latter.
Verbena *phrynoides Muhl., Cat. 57. 1813; ed. 2, 59. 1818, nom. nud. Carolina.
Viburnum *arboreum Bartr. ex Muhl., Cat. 32. 1813; ed. 2, = 1818, nom. (V. pyrifolium
Poir.). New Jersey, Besieutvanio ae V. prunifolium Lin
Viburnum *longifolium Muhl., —_ a ce., nom. nud. No locality indicated. pes V. longi-
folium Raf., Alsogr. Am. 56. 1
Rafinesque’s species ny represents Viburnum lentago Linn. The form that
Mubisabero named, but which he did not describe, may or may not be the same.
Viburnum *ulmifolium is Hort. Cantab. ed. 4, 62. 1807, nom. nud.; Muhl., Cat. 11. cc.,
nom, nud. North Amer
Vicia jlutescens Muhl., Cat. 65. 1813; ed. 2, 68. 1818, nom. nud. Carolina.
This is the same as Vicia —, Ell. (1822), on the authority of Le Conte cited
by Torrey and Gray, Fl. N. Am. 272. 1838
Viola jbarbata Muhl., Cat. 26. 1813, ed. 2, 25. 1818, nom. (V. sororia Willd). Pennsylvania
V. sororia Willd. ‘a 809).
Mee *pygmaea Donn, odie bas Cantab. ed. 4, 49. 1807, nom. nud.; Muhl., Cat. 11. cc.,
m. nud. North Amer
hreb.
Viola }uliginosa Muhl., Cat. 26. 1813; ed. 2, 25. 1818, nom. ut syn. V. yaa Se
Pennsylvania = V7. conspersa Reichb. (1823) (V. muhlenbergii Torr., 1824).
Viola asarifolia Schreb. ex Muhl. (1793) is a nomen nudum.

Viola *variegata Donn, 1. c. nom. nud.; Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud. North America.

66 BARTONIA

Virgilia *tinctoria Muhl., Cat. 42. 1813; ed. 2, 42. 1818, nom. (V. lutea Michx. £.).
Tennessee — Cladrastis *lutea (Michx. f.) K. ‘Koch, Dendr. 1: 6. 1869; Raf. ex Jacks.,
Ind. Kew. 1: 552. 1893.

Vitis *blandi Muhl., Cat. 27. 1813; ed. 2, 26. 1818, nom. nud. “ Bland’s grape... Calt. =

V. labrusca Linn.

This is a much earlier use of the binomial than Vitis *blandi Prince, Treatise Vine 177.
1830, nom. sub V. blanda [Sweet]. The reduction of Vitis blandi Prince was made by..b. Hi.
Bailey in A. Gray, Syn. Fl. N. Am. 1: 429. 1897; the form named by Muhlenberg is
undoubtedly the same as that of Prince.

Vitis jintermedia Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. (V. aestivalis Michx.). Pennsylvania, Virginia,
Carolina = V’. aestivalis Michx

Vitis jlabruscoides Muhl., Cat. 11. cc., nom. nud.; Raf., Med. Fl. 2: 127. 1830, descr. Penn-
sylvania. Prob.=V. " labrusca Linn.

This was apparently an original Muhlenberg name appropriated by Rafinesque;
see p. 26.

bean’ todoratissima Donn, Hort. ha np ed. 4, 50. 1807, nom. nud.; Muhl., Cat. 11. cc.,
om. nud. Penns ylvania = vulpina Linn., fide L. H. Bailey, op. cit. 422.
Vitis *verruco wen: hl, Cat. 11. cc. nom. (V. rotundifolia Michx.); Raf., Med. Fl. 2:

133. 1830, descr. Virginia, Carolina, Georgia, Cher[okee] (Northern Georgia) —
V. ee Pheri Michx. (1803).

This may have been an original Muhlenberg name appropriated by Rafinesque; .
see p. 26.

*recurvata Muhl., Cat. 36. 1813; ed. 2, 35. 1818, nom. nud. Georgia= Y. recurvifolia
Salish. (1806).

The Last Sickness of Rafinesque
Francis W. PENNELL

When recounting some four years ago “ How Durand acquired Rafinesque’s Her-
barium ”,1 I referred in a footnote to the paper that is now being peeeseteh which had
then for. some ee been awaiting publication in Chronica Botanica.2 A chan nge in
the kind of material handled by that journal (from short notes and sibides to large
studies and books) left this paper stranded; so, although it had already been marked
for the printer, I have recalled it for presentation now in Bartonra. So much interest
has been taken in Rafinesque, as to make the prompt appearance of its information
desirable.

When preparing my account of “The Life and Work of Rafinesque ” in the
autumn of 1940, I was able to trace from manuscripts on hand Rafinesque’s
activity up to May, 1840, and, since all the five parts of the “ Autikon Botani-
kon” and also “The Good Book, and Amenities of Nature” appeared in that
year, I surmised that “ his complaint: cancer of the stomach and liver, did not
become evident, or at least dominant, many months before his death.” An unex-
pected light has come to confirm his, and also to show that Rafinesque was not
so alone in his last months as has been supposed.

- In my address of 1940 I told of the wealth of Rafinesque manuscripts and
letters that had been presented to the Academy of Natural Sciences of Phila-
delphia by Dr. Samuel S. Haldeman in 1849, he having acquired Rafinesque’s
many papers. In recent years Dr. Haldeman’s grandson, Mr. Guy K. Haldeman,
has been giving us much from his grandfather’s library, and in the winter of
1943-44 produced a most surprising document. This is a copy of the Medical
Examiner for September 19, 1840, the first article of which, under date of
“October, 1840” and under the heading of “Transactions of the Pathological
Society ” is by Edward Hallowell, M.D., and =— of a “ Case of Cancer of the
Stomach and Liver.” The patient was given as “ C. F. Rafinesque se aetat.
fifty-seven,” a name certainly intended for C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz. Tt will
be remembered that Rafinesque frequently appended his mother’s rears name
to his own, after a usual custom of Latin countries.

1 Bartonia 23: 43-46, 1945, the reference being to footnote 3.

3 Medical Examin Devoted t S Penis Saat, and the Collateral Sciences, No.
38, Philadelphia, Salutes: Scpecuety 19, 1840, Vol. III.
67

68 BARTONIA

This paper, which was known to Haldeman but not to recent students of
Rafinesque’s career, says that he “ had throughout life enjoyed almost uninter-
rupted health until the winter of 1839-40, when he was affected with constipation
of the bowels, which continued until the end of the following spring. On the
15th of June he for the first time complained of nausea, with occasional vomiting
and pain after eating animal food, which occurred a short time after its entrance
into the stomach. Two weeks ago [evidently toward the end of August] he
observed, for the first time, a tumor in the right hypochondriac region, when he
also noticed a decided yellowness of the skin; since which he has complained
much of debility, and for the last week has been confined almost entirely to his
room.”

From this point Dr. Hallowell commences his own detailed observations and
prescriptions, with a record of the patient’s condition day by day. This is intro-
duced by the heading: “ Present state, Sept. 10th, 1840, when I was requested
to see him in consultation by my friend Dr. Ashmead.” It is pertinent to note
that both Dr. Ashmead and Dr. Hallowell were interested in natural history as
well as in medicine,* a fact which must have made them acquainted with Rafi-
nesque and the more acceptable to him.

Rafinesque died at 9 P.M., September 18th, and Dr. Hallowell’s account
proceeds: “ The following notes of the autopsy were taken by myself and Dr.
Ashmead, thirteen hours after death.” The examination, after telling of the

emaciated body, straw-colored skin, and greatly distended abdomen, deals in

much anatomical detail with the condition of the head, the thorax, and the abdo-
men. The liver, especially, was greatly enlarged. One wonders that the symp-
toms were not evident earlier.

Dr. Hallowell’s report is purely medical, and gives no information as to
where or how Rafinesque was living, how sadly his resources were being depleted,
what friends came to visit him, and many other things we should like to know.
But it does show that he received whatever help medical care could bring him.
Also, this explains why his body had been removed to another room, when Dr.
Mease brought Mr. Bringhurst, the undertaker, to obtain it for burial. And it
shows that Dr. Mease only appeared as the executor of Rafinesque’s estate, and
not. as I had surmised, as likely the physician in his last illness.

4 William rs ae ~~ -88), M.D., University of Pennsylvania, 1826, and Edward
Hallowell (1809 Univ. Penn., 1830, were both members of the Academy of
Natural Sebesines as “i as of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia. Dr. Hallowell
was the author of papers in herpetology = well as in medicine, and his diaries and other
manuscripts are preserved at the Academ

5 Thus seeming to refute the ugly rumour that was ont some thirty years after
Rafinesque’s death; see Transylv. Coll. Bull. 25: 63, 1942.

Notes on Various Flowering Plants

On the Occurrence of Franklinia in Cape May County, New Jersey.—
The attention of field botanists should be called to the possibility of finding
examples of Franklinia growing outside cultivation and under apparently natural
conditions at sundry points in Cape May County. Early in the fall of 1946 the
writer was surprised to find a cluster of several shoots in a dense thicket of
shrubs on the side of an old gravel pit, now largely filled with water, a few
hundred yards east of the railroad station at Palermo. One shoot was at least
six feet tall and bore a single wide-opened flower and several swollen floral buds,
as well as a small cluster of leaves. The same plants were seen and their identity
confirmed a few days later by two other observers, the late Otway H. Brown,
who took a sample for herbarium preservation, and Richard B. Chillas, Jr., who
took several photographs of the plants in situ. However, the next day a chance
meeting with the owner of the tract, W. M. Cameron of Ocean City, yielded the
fortunate, even if disappointing, information that the plants in question had been
set out some seven to eight years ago by the County Clerk, Stirling W. Cole,
the original cuttings having come from two trees growing at his residence in
Ocean City. Several weeks later, in a personal interview, Mr. Cole confirmed
this fact and added the further information that he had attempted to establish
the species at a few other points in the County, naming specifically Ocean View
(old gravel stripping, now largely a cranberry plantation, on the south side of
the highway to Sea Isle City and close to the salt meadow), Court House (low
moist tract, partly wooded, a slight distance west of Route 4, opposite the County
Farm), and a rather indefinite point on the gravel road between Court House
and South Dennis, apparently along a stream a short distance south of Goshen
Station. At this last station, according to Mr. Cole, the plants had either died
out or were in poor condition, but those opposite the County Farm were in 1946
in good condition, although, owing to the dense shade, they had made little
growth. At the Ocean View station he was uncertain of their fate, not having
visited the spot since the plants were set out. The present writer plans to search
for them at this latter station during the coming summer.

Henry Fox

bake, held in the adjoining County Park; while efforts to find the plants at Ocean View
have so far been fruitless. Additional cuttings put out in the spring of 1947 at several
points at Ocean View and near South Seaville failed to survive the ensuing summer which
was u lly hot and ;

again aaron ins, H. F., April 13, 1949.

Ocean View, N. J.

69

70 BARTONIA

Further observations on eastern Tiarellas.—In 1937 Miss Olga Lakela
published a monograph of the genus Tiarella,! recognizing in the eastern states
two species. Three years later the writer proposed a new variety (subspecies)
of one of these? A like period later Professor Fernald occupied 4 pages of
Rhodora * with a discussion of the features of these entities.

In order to obtain information on data as to which there semed to be a differ-
ence of opinion, the writer visited the type locality of T. wherryi in September,
1946, and collected 5 plants for cultivation. These were planted in a wild garden
at Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, close to a large clump from the type locality of
T. cordifolia collina (mistakenly given as in Patrick County, Virginia, in the
original description; actually Henry County). They survived the winter with-
out injury, the leaves remaining fairly evergreen, and bloomed well in the spring
of 1947.

As brought out in the illustrations already published, the leaves of the two
are strikingly dissimilar. Those of T. wherryi are relatively narrow and deeply
lobed, the major lobes acuminate, the lesser acute; they are, moreover, dull on
the surface and brown-maculate. Those of T. cordifolia collina are relatively
broad and shallow-lobed, the lobes acutish to obtusish; they are shining and non-
maculate.

The latter entity came into bloom first, its flowers maturing and fading
rapidly. The former opened its first flower only 5 days later, but flower-develop-
ment and maturation was slower, the earliest inflorescences being still in bloom
two weeks after those of the other entity; and in addition successive new flower-
ing stalks continued to appear over a period of several weeks, continuing well
into summer. Its lateness is then not due, as postulated by Professor Fernald,
to its growing in a “ relatively cool and backward area; ” it is an inherent trait.

The average sizes of floral organs proved somewhat less in 7. wherryi than
in T. cordifolia collina; in particular, the capsule valves of the former are only
about 3 as long as those of the latter. Their shape is essentially identical with
that of T. cordifolia austrina.

Segregation of the entities involved here is, then, not artificial as held by
Professor Fernald. Although there are evidently some intermediates between
them, the entities described as T. wherryi and T. cordifolia collina are too dis-
similar to justify merging in synonymy. A cytogeographic study of the series
would be interesting.

Epcar T. WHERRY
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

1 Amer. Journ. Bot. 24: 344, 1937.
?Notulae Naturae (Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila.) No. 42, 1940.
3 Rhodora 45: 445, 1943.

NOTES ON VARIOUS FLOWERING PLANTS 71

Trillium pusillum in Maryland.—When proposing the varietal epithet vir-
gintanum for the dwarf Trillium of southeastern Virginia, Professor Fernald 4
cited specimens from that state only. Actually, this entity had previously been
noted in Maryland, though under mistaken identification.

In their study of Pocomoke swamp, Beaven and Oosting ® listed on pages 374
and 385 Trillium sessile among the plants observed. A specimen reached the
herbarium of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadlephia and remained in
the T. sessile cover until its real identity was recognized by Mr. Stanley Smith,
who is monographing the genus.

The locality given, Carey’s Creek, could not be found on any map, but Mr.
Beaven in correspondence indicated its location, and on May 4, 1947, it was
visited by Dr. R. R. Tatnall, Mr. G. R. Proctor, and the writer. It lies 2 miles
east-northeast of Pocomoke City, Worcester County, Maryland, and is bordered
by an extensive swamp. Near the margin of this there are many hummocks of
humus with subacid to mediacid reaction (pH 6 to 5, active acidity 10 to 100).
Conspicuous on these were flowering plants of Anemone quinquefolia, and after
some search the Trillium was found on several of the hummocks. (It thus
resembles the northern 7. wndulatum in soil preference.)

Its range is thus extended not only into a new state but also from the western
to the eastern shore of the Chesapeake estuary.

Epear T. WHERRY

Un IVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

Postscript on eastern lilies.—In BarToniA, No. 24: p. 7, several epithets
which had been applied to variants of Lilium philadelphicum were assigned to
the status of forma, one being omitted because its place of publication had not
been ascertained at the time. Subsequently, through the kindness of Miss Mar-
jorie W. Stone of the Gray Herbarium and Miss Ethel Z. Bailey of the Bailey
Hortorium, the pertinent literature has been located. To the list of named forms
of Lilium philadelphicum andinum (Nutt.) Ker-Gawler there should accordingly
be added:

1870 (nomen nudum); validated by description by Baker in Journ. Linn. \
14: 236, 1874; L. philadelphicum var. waushariacum (Hort.) Bailey, Stand. Cyel.

1 Rhodora 45: 397, 1943.

? Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 66: 367, 1939.

3 Unfortunately too late for inclusion in Dr. Tatnall’s Flora of Delaware and the
Eastern Shore.

72 BARTONIA

In the Barronia article above referred to the close morphologic relationship
of Lilium michiganense to L. canadense was pointed out. Cytologic work pub-
lished after that article had gone to press bears this out: Stewart, in Am. Journ.
Bot. 34: 15 and 19, 1947, described the chromosomes of 5 plants of each of these
lilies, finding the flavum and rubrum variants of L. canadense to possess identical
karyotypes, and “ all were indistinguishable from L. michiganense.”

Epcar T. WHERRY
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lemna trisulea, a Southward Extension of Range on the

Atlantie Coastal Plain

N.J.: Pool on flood plain just south of Crosswicks Creek, about 100 yds.
east-northeast of bridge, 254 mi. south of Church and Main Sts., Allen-
town, Upper Freehold Township, southwestern Monmouth County, March
22, 1947, Stanley D. Wikoff 1066.

This was first found on September 15, 1946, while collecting Crataegus on the
inner Coastal Plain of central New Jersey. The pool, situated at the lower end
of a swale, is about 70 yards long by 20 yards wide and is connected by a brook
with the creek some 40 yards distant. Specimens have since been collected on
March 22, 1947; and also on January 30, 1949, occurring both on the bottom and
frozen in thin ice. These collections are in the herbarum of the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

Previously Lemna trisulea L. has been definitely known on the Atlantic
Coastal Plain only from Nantucket Island, Massachusetts (reported in M. L.
Owen, A Catalogue of Plants . . . of Nantucket, Mass., 56, 1888; and by E. P.
Bicknell in Bull. Torrey Club 36: 2, 1909, and 45: 373, 1918) ; Oakdale, Suffolk
County, L. I., New York (reported by W. C. Ferguson in Torreya 30: 11, 1930) ;
and Irish Creek, New Lots, Kings County, L. I., New York (G. B. Brainerd,
May 1866, in herbarium of Brooklyn Botanic Garden). This last may be the
Irish Creek now known as Mill Basin about 44 miles south of East New York
(New Lots) and within % of a mile north of Floyd Bennett Field. Although the
last two stations and perhaps the first are south of the terminal moraine, a con-
siderable proportion of the soil in these localities is outwash of glacial origin
(silty loam of arkose derivation). Inland, away from the Coastal Plain, the
plant is sometimes frequent, but wholly or chiefly in calcareous regions. It was
one of several species believed by Bicknell to occur on Nantucket and to be
absent from the New Jersey Coastal Plain, but of which some are now known
there.

Associated with it in the pool and brook are Lemna minor, Spirodela poly-

NOTES ON VARIOUS FLOWERING PLANTS 73

rhiza, Utricularia vulgaris, and Proserpinaca palustris. Around the pool and
_ brook are Betula nigra, Fagus grandifolia, Quercus palustris, Crataegus crus-
galli, Carya ovata, Carpinus caroliniana var. virginiana (Marsh.) Fernald, and
Platanus occidentalis. Nearby on the flood plain are Acer negundo, Staphylea
trifolia, Menispermum canadense, and Mertensia virginica. Nearby on the bank
surrounding the flood plain are Dicentra cucullaria and Panaz trifolium. The
locality is about 11 miles southeast of the “ fall line” and 7 miles northwest of
the Pine Barrens. The nearest station reputedly was Frankford, Pennsylvania,
about 28 miles west-southwest (old specimens in the herbaria of the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and
Science).

In many places greensand marl can be seen on the surface of the flood plain.
It is in the area attributed to Frenau loam, a soil containing greensand marl
washed from the Collington and Sassafras soils of higher ground. Geologically
it is in the area attributed to Englishtown sand which is not fossiliferous and
only sparingly glauconitic. Since the geological maps of the region do not de-
limit the surficial formations, the flood plain may actually be the Marshalltown
formation immediately above. This ranges from a black sandy clay to an argil-
laceous greensand (glauconite) marl and at some places is fossiliferous. Green-
sand mar! contains silica, iron oxides, about 7% glauconite (a silicate of iron,
potassium and alumina) and, in lesser quantities, other compounds of magne-
sium, calcium (as the carbonate, about 1%), phosphorus (about 0.4%), sodium,
titanium, aluminum, manganese, and nitrogen.

STanLeY D. WIKOFF
AcaDEMY oF Natura Sciences or PHILADELPHIA

Supplementary Notes on the Cladoniae of Pennsylvania
(With two Plates)
We boi

Since the writer published his “ Cladoniae of Pennsylvania” in a previous
number of Bartonia,! there have been discovered three privately printed lists of
Cladoniae of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania—two by Mrs. Amelia F. Eby in
1894 and the other by A. A. Heller in 1893. Mrs. Eby’s list records thirty speci-
mens with seventeen species; Heller’s list contains nineteen collections, three of
which are by Dr. J. K. Small, including seventeen species.

Some of the records of Mrs. Eby’s list are, however, open to question, espe-
cially such records as are not likely to occur in Lancaster County. The fact that
many of her phanerogams have never again been collected in this county indi-
cates a probability that some of her plants came from other territory. Conse-
quently, only such specimens as are now represented in her collection at the
Missouri Botanical Garden have been listed. These have all been examined by
Dr. A. W. Evans of Yale University, and the identifications either confirmed
or corrected.

A few new records of Pennsylvania Cladoniae are also included in an article
by Dr. John W. Thomson, Jr., in the Bryologist, September, 1944, on “Some
Lichens from Central Pennsylvania.”

In the Bryologist, June, 1948, Hugh N. Mozingo published a list of the lichens
of western Pennsylvania, a condensation of a thesis written for a degree of
Master of Science at the University of Pittsburgh.?_ This article, largely an ampli-
fication of the work of Giardini at the same place in 1922, lists a few species of
Cladoniae not accounted for in the Catalog of Pennsylvania Cladoniae. These
will be mentioned in the Supplement in connection with the individual species.

Mention should also be made of two articles by Dr. Evans in which he has
made some changes in the nomenclature of American Cladoniae. In his “ Micro-
chemical studies on the genus Cladonia, sub-genus Cladina,”* he has separated
C. submitis from C. mitis Sandstede, partly on the basis of chemical differences.
C. submitis also exhibits a tendency of the podetia to be more robust, with
shorter, more numerous, and less curved ultimate branchlets. It has also a more
restricted geographical distribution.

122: 32-62, 1943.

2 Bryologist 52: 38-46, June, 1948.

3 Rhodora 45: 417-438, November, 1943.

74

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 75

In “A Supplementary Report of the Cladoniae of Connecticut” Dr. Evans
recognizes the separation by des Abbayes of most of the material in the United
States now classified as C. tenuis (Floerke) Harm., but raises it from the rank
of subspecies to that of full species, as C. subtenuis (des Abbayes) Evans.

Among other changes in this work Dr. Evans has separated Cladonia atlantica
from C. squamosa, largely on account of the yellow reaction with P. He also
reduces C. mitrula to synonymy under C. capitata (Michx.) Spreng., and C. grayi
f. aberrans Asahina under C. grayi Merrill, and recognizes C. cryptochlorophaea
Asahina and C. merochlorophaea Asahina, separated from C. chlorophaea again
purely on chemical differences.

This Supplement follows the same general plan as the Catalog. Specimens
collected by the author will bear only the date of collection; others will carry
also the name of the collector. In addition to the collectors mentioned in the
Catalog the following have contributed material for this supplement: Miss
Gladys Beebe, Dr. Harold N. Moldenke, Hans Wilkens, Dr. George Zundel,
George R. Proctor, E. T. Moul, and J. L. Rodda.

The location of some of the specimens here listed is as follows: AS, Acad-
emy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia; C, Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pa.;
NY, New York Botanical Garden, New York City; SI, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D. C.; SMS, Herbarium of the Sullivant Moss Society, St. Louis,
Missouri. In the last herbarium are also the specimens of Mrs. Eby, Mr. Heller,
and Dr. Small, unless otherwise noted. The collections of Dr. Moldenke are in
the author’s herbarium. Nearly all the others are in the Osborn Botanical Labo-
ratory, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Again the writer is indebted to Dr. Alexander W. Evans of Yale University
for his kindness in examining practically all the new records of this supplement.

Species, varieties, and forms new to the state are indicated by an asterisk.
The numbers refer to species cited in the Catalog.

Subgenus 1. Cladina (Nyl.) Web.

1. Cladonia rangiferina (L.) Web.
LANc am: Fite’s ceed (Eby, 1887), Reinhold’s (Eby, 1894), Mountville (Eby,
1889). Warren: Sheffield (Moldenke, 1945). Wayne: Stockport (1943), Pocono Peak
Lake (1946), Indian reseed (1948).
*Cladonia rangiferina f. crispata Coem.
The peculiarity of this form is in its densely crowded and intricately entangled
branches.
Wayne: South Preston, Shehawken, Winterdale (1943).

*Cladonia rangiferina f. umbellata Anders.

In this form the ultimate branches appear as radiating whorls around open axils,
resembling very much the go Bac detail in C. cipbatres See plate 3. fig. 5.

ad

o

BARTONIA

Wayne: Scott Township (1943).

Cladonia rangiferina f. leucitica Flot.
Wayne: Shehawken (1943).
Cladonia silvatica (L.) Hoffm.
Dita NCASTER: Fite’s Eddy (Hby, 1889), McCall’s Sek (MacElwee, 1899). Susque-
Starrucca Station (1945). Warren: Sheffiel d (Moldenke, 1945). Wayne:
Tae Sons (1943 3).
*Cladonia silvatica f. setigera Oxner.

This form is marked by hair-like appendages growing from the tips of the branch-
lets or from the sides of the podetia.

Wayne: Shehawken (1943).

*Cladonia silvatica f. subspumosa Sandst:

In this form the nee branchlets are short, crowded, scarcely nodding, and
whorled around op:

WayYNE: sae (1946).
Cladonia mitis Sandstede.
he specimen of this species reported from Shehawken, Wayne County, in the
Catalog belongs to C’. mitis in the restricted sense. The following new records should
be added:
SUSQUEHANNA: Starrucca Station (1946). Wayne: Island Lake (1940)..
*Cladonia submitis Evans.
An account of this new species is given in the introduction.
Wayne: South Preston (1943), Shehawken (1946).
oe subtenuis (des Abbayes) Evans.
Dr. Evans nelieres that all the North American specimens agg ig — as
C. tenuis eee o this species. Accordingly, all a records for C. the
— should By pantie 4 C. subtenuis. New records follow
ERKS: aap eae (1943), Joanna (1943), cic hin wee (Wilkens
1946), ). Lancaster estoga (Eby, 1894), Mt. Gretna (Eby, 1889), Reinhold’s (Eby,

1884), Russell Hill en 1895), Martic forge and Welch Mt. (Small, 1892), McCall’s
Ferry (MacElwee, 1899). Wayne: Equinunk (1948).

Cladonia alpestris Me ) eceegieos

YNE: w. of Island Co shia n.w. of Scott Center (1944), e. of vee ‘City
(194s). Lawrence: East Newcastle (John Bright, 1929). Reported by Mozingo.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 77

*Cladonia evansii des Abbayes.
Lancaster: Fite’s Eddy (Eby, 1887).

The sar on which this record is based was labelled C. rangiferina v. alpestris,
d

Ss specimens which proved to be C. subtenuis. If t - specimen was
really collected i or Lancaster Count Pit is far out of its supposed range which is more
southern. Dr. Evans has identified it as such with some gape sad notes that it

lacks the characteristic tufted shape of both C. alpestris and C. e

Subgenus 2. Pycnothelia Ach.
6. Cladonia papillaria (Ehrh.) Hoffm.
Kae Joanna (1943), Friedensburg (Wilkens, 1946). Wayne: Lake Como
3).
Subgenus 3. Cenomyce (Ach.) Th. Fr.
Section 1. Cocciferae Del.
Subsection 1. Subglaucescentes Vainio
7b. Cladonia floerkeana v. carcata (Ach.) Nyl.
Wayne: Scott Township (1944).
8. Cladonia bacillaris (Ach.) Nyl.
Berks: Joanna (1943). Warren: Sheffield (Moldenke, 1945).
*Cladonia bacillaris f. subseyphifera Vainio.

In this form the podetia have narrow, irregular cups, with siege apothecia on
their margins. This is the first collection of this form in Am

Wayne: 1 mi. n. of Island Lake (1946).

9. Cladonia macilenta Hoffm.

Warren: Warren (Moldenke, 1943). Wayne: Lake Como (1943), Bigelow Lake
(1945).
Cladonia macilenta f. styracella (Ach.) Vainio.

Wayne: e. of Forest City (1948).

*Cladonia didyma f. squamulosa Robbins.
This form is characterized by the presence of squamules on the podetia.
: Nature Camp (Thompson, 1939). This record was inadvertently
omitted from the Catalog. York: Ewingsville (EZ. T. Moul, 1946).
Subsection 2. Stramineo-flavidae Vainio

[11. Cladonia coccifera (L.) Willd.
The speci Sag’ listed in oo Catalog from Kittaning, Armstrong County, collected

by Dr. Sumstine in 1902 proves to be C. pleurota. Consequently this species should

be removed from ahs list of ‘Seraayivania Cladoniae.

12. Cladonia pleurota (L.) Web.

es

Mee

ae

BARTONIA

Huntinepon: Warrior Ridge (7. C. Porter, 1890).
Cladonia . f. decorata Oliv.

CHEs' verhart’s Woods (No data. Probably collected by Michener). War-
REN: Sheffield ‘ oldenke, 1945).
Cladonia deformis (L.) Hoffman.

WarreEN : Sheffield (Moldenke, 1945).

Cladonia cristatella Tuck.

All the following records, except those of Saas Dr. Sumstine, and Mrs.
Eby were inadvertently omitted from the Cata log

cg eswnng Johnetta (O. EH. Jennings, 1921, C.) Bram: Tyrone (Jennings, 1904,
C.). Burt: ae: ixon Station ag gab 1917, C.). Center: Scotia (Jennings, 1905,
C.). Crap out cis (D. R. Sumstine, 1947). Crawrorp: Pymatuming Swamp

} C : s Cc RIE

‘ e€ Huntin Lance
McCall’s Ferry (A. A. Heller, 1892, NY), Conewago (Heller, 189 4 SDS Ghee Hill
(Eby, 1894, MBG). Lawrence: Wolf — Valley (S. H. Williams, 1921, ‘
Monroe: Water Gap (Evans, a: NorTHAMPTON: Bethlehem (Muhlenberg, as
“Cenomyce digitata”). PHmapeLpHia: Philadelphia (Miss Morris, NY). KE:
Bushkill Falls (1940). Som Sorat Somerset (Sumstine, 1905, C.). Sutiivan: nee
and Forksville (Nearing, 1939). WasHincton: Manlin (Jennings, 1908, C.).

Cladonia cristatella f. beauvoisii (Del.) Vainio.

Berks: Scarlett’s Sees (1943), Friedensburg (Wilkens, 1946). Exx: Glen Hazel
(Moul, 1 Huntinepon: Union Furnace (G. h, Proctor, 1947). LANCASTER:
Little Conestoga (Eby, 1887, MBG), Chestnut Hill (Eby, 1894, MBG). era |
Ellenton Bape 1939), a (1941). NorrHampron: Little Gap (J. L.

Rodda, . Warren: Sheffield, Warren, (Moldenke, 1943). Wayne: Pleasant
Mount (1943).

Cladonia cristatella f. vestita Tuck.
Berks: Scarlett’s coca (1943). Lancaster: Mountville (Eby, 1894, SMS). Ly-
COMING: Ellenton (Nearing, 1939), Hepburnville (1941). NortHampton: Bethlehem
(Schweinitz, as “ Candiave yee digitata”, AS). Porrsr: Cadena (Gladys Beebe,
pee WanrkEN : Sheffield and Warren (Moldenke, 1943). Wayne: Mount Pleasant
Cladonia cristatella f. squamulosa Robbins.
Berks: Scarlett’s Mills (1943).
Cladonia cristatella f. ochrocarpia Tuck.
Bucks: Washington’s Crossing (1947).
Cladonia cristatella f. seyphulifera Sandst.
Warren: Warren (Moldenke, 1945).

16. Cladonia incrassata Floerke.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 79
Warren: Warren (Moldenke, 1943).

Section 2. Ochrophaeae Vainio
Subsection 1. Unciales (Del.) Vainio
17. Cladonia uncialis (L.) Web.
: Scarlett’s Mills (Wilkens, 1946). Wayne: 1 mi. n. of Shehawken (1944),
e. of | Hoaondals (1948).
18. Cladonia caroliniana (Schwein.) Tuck.
Lancaster: Chestnut Hill veel 1890, stats The material reported from
Venango County by Mozingo proves to be C.u
Cladonia caroliniana f. dilatata Evans.
Berks: Scarlett’s Mills (1943). Bucxs: Yardley (1948).

Cladonia caroliniana f. tenuiramea Evans.
Berks: Friedensburg (Wilkens, 1946).

*Cladonia boryi f. lacunosa (Bory) Tuck.

waciaiace ed Fite’s Eddy (Eby, 1899, MBG).

The a in this form are Niobe with blunt ultimate branches, and their wall
pedatatet in pel i ti speeimen

Subsection 2. Chasmariae (Ach.) Vainio
Group 1. Microphyllae Vainio
19a. Cladonia furcata v. racemosa (Hofim.) Floerke.
ASTER: Chestnut Hill (Eby, 1890, MBG), Hopewell (Eby, 91894, MBG),

Sumney’s Woods (Eby, 1803, MBG). Warren: Sheffield (Moldenke, — Wayne:
Pocono Peak Lake (1946).
Cladonia fureata v. racemosa f. corymbosa (Ach.) Vainio.

Wayne: Lake Como (1943), Stockport (1943).

Cladonia furcata v. racemosa f. furcatosubulata (Hoffm.) Vainio.

Warren: Warren (Moldenke, 1943), Sheffield (Moldenke, 1945). Wayne: Star-
rucca Borough (1943).
peer furcata v. racemosa f. squamulifera Sandst.

TER: Chestnut Hill and Reinhold’s (Eby, 1894, MBG), Little Conestoga

Gui (Small, 1894). ‘Sumney’s Woods (Eby, 1893, MBG). Monroe: n. of Marshall’s
Creek (1944). Warren arren (Moldenke, 1943).
*Cladonia furcata v. pinnata f. truncata.

The podetia in this form are often laterally fissured, and produce apothecia in
corymbose clusters on the terminal branches.

Huntinepon: Nature Camp (Thompson, 1937).
Cladonia fureata v. pinnata f. turgida (Scriba) Sandst.
Wayne: Scott Township (1945), Starrucca Borough (1943).

80

BARTONIA

20a. Cladonia scabriuscula f. farinacea (Vainio) Sandst.

25.

Wayne: Shehawken-Starrucca Road (1943), Equinunk (1948).

*Cladonia scabriuscula f. elegans Robbins.
Wayne: Mt. Bren, elevation 2600 ft. (1947).
This form was grow ing on the face of a moss-covered sandstone cliff. It is a very
striking form of this species, ee resembles somewhat a heavily — form of
C’. furcata. But the podetia are more robust, less Siswiren

The
tips are without the usual soredia. . Evans reports that he as collected this form
in the United States only in northern Mew. England. (Plate 2 , ig. 3.)

*Cladonia peas (Ach.) Flot.

utd: This i is the first Sal pias in rel a The always tt cortex of
C. crispata will usually separate it from the somewhat similar forms of C.. squamosa
which exhibits areas of aaa (HO cortex. From C. furcata it can be separated
by its negative reaction to P. (Plat

Wayne: Island Pond (1945).
Cladonia squamosa (Scop.) Hoffm.
Carson: Little Gap (Rodda, 1942). Exx: Glen Hazel (Moul, 1946). Ay Peuevs
ag bak “Hil (Eby, 1884, 1893, 1895, MBG), Mountville (Eby, 1886, MBG), Pen
tar , 1890), Welch Mt. (Small, 1892). Warren: Warren, Sheffield (M Pahoa! ey
Cladonia squamosa f. denticollis (Hofim.) Floerke.
Wayne: Shehawken-Starrucca Road (1943).
Cladonia squamosa f. levicorticata Sandst.
Huntinepon: Warrior Ridge (T. C. Porter, 1890, AS).
*Cladonia _— Evans f. ramosa Evans.
Ky
largely a the se of its yellow reaction to mosa is negative. This yellow

Waction: is probably due, according to Asahina, to the presence of baeomycic acid.
-Dr. Evans does not point out any morphological differences, but mentions a more
: Big

_» Bucks: cca. sate ee «Si (1947). ale deg - ture Camp
(Thompson, 1939). Monroe: Mt. G Godfrey, Naomi Pines, Pocono Pines (Evans, 1941).
Pixs: Bushkill Falls (1940). SusquEHANNA: Starrucea Station (1941). Wayne: She-
hawken (1939-40), Scott Township (1941, 1943, 1948).

*Cladonia atlantica f. ramosissima Evans.
The podetia of this form are more compactly branched than those of f. ramosa,
and they are practically cupless.
Wayne: Starrucca Boranak (1943).

Cladonia delicata (Ehrh.) Floerke.

BARTONIA No. 25 PLATE 2

x
‘

. Se
ie wR oe,

“>,

Baty
4

tar “Agee bs F

. Cladonia cornuta f. cylindrica, (without squamules). C. cornuta f.
1 ryllotoca (with squamules). X 1.25. Fic Cladonia pityrea v. zwackhii f.
cepaica ulifera (with squamules ), C. pityrea zwackhii f. subacuta (without
agg cS. Cladonia scabriuscula f. elegans Robbins. Habit
Ja.

—_
4}

—e

IGS:
Si ingle podetium. Figs. x.
W

Photographs by A. Delwin

arden

BaRTONIA No. 25 PLATE 3

Fic. 1. Cladonia i f. hirer cles x 25. (., cilis v. ra
Fic. 3. C. conista f. centra hie 4 ©: cenotea f. crossota tions Cie 042-3 3
Fic. oC. ranoitering £ irabatinia Figs: (2-5 X15

Photographs by A. Delwin Warden

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 81
Warren: Warren (Moldenke, 1943).
Cladonia delicata f. quercina (Pers.). Vainio.

Huntinapon: Nature Camp (Thompson, 1937).
26. Cladonia caespiticia (Pers.) Floerke.

Wayne: Scott Township (1944).

Group 2. Megaphyllae Vainio

27. Cladonia apodocarpa Robbins.

Bucks: Black Eddy (Proctor, 1946). Exx: Glen Hazel (Moul, 1946).
28c. Cladonia turgida f. squamulosa (Rabenh.) Theobald.

Wayne: Scott Township (1944).

Subsection 3. Clausae Vainio
Group 1. Podostelides (Wallr.) Vainio
Subgroup 1. Helopodium (Ach.) Vainio
*Cladonia capitata (Michaux) Spreng.

As indicated in the introduction, Dr. Evans has reduced Cladonia mitrula Tucker-
onymy under the above species. His reason for doing so is that “C. le
: - r

tophylla and C rula represent the same species d that both have been pro-
nounced syno m capit ichx.” which was transferred the
genus Cladonia in 1827 by Sprengel. This removal of C. mit from the nomencla-

a is a
that species listed in the Catalog should be transferred to C, capitata
sponding forms. The file additional collections are here listed:

-*Cladonia Sgt f. imbricatula (Nyl.) Evans.
Ber Friedensburg, Pricetown (Wilkens, 1946). FranKiin: between Ship-
pensburg ae Fayette (Dr. Geo. Zundel, 1935). Prxe: n. of Marshall’s og gah.
*Cladonia capitata f. microcarpa Evans.
i This form is characterized by its minute podetia in cromdied terminal clusters.
ate.)
_ SusqueHaNNA: Starrucca-Thompson Road (1943).

30a. Cladonia clavulifera f. nudicaulis Evans.
Bucks: Washington’s Crossing (1946).

Cladonia clavulifera f. subvestita Robbins.
Wayne: Pleasant Valley Road, Starrucca Borough (1943).

Cladonia clavulifera f. pleurocarpa Robbins.
Wayne: South Preston (1943).

3la. Cladonia subcariosa f. evoluta Vainio.

82 BARTONIA
Berks: Joanna (1943). Warren: Warren (Moldenke, 1943).

*Cladonia subcariosa f. ramosa Dix.
4 Bryologist, Vol. 46, Sept., 1943.
This form is separated from f. Ag 49 by its habit of branching and proliferating
from the tips and the sides of the podeti

Bucks: Morrisville (1943).
*Cladonia brevis Sandst.

Huntinapon: Nature Camp (Thompson, 1937). Monroz: Mt. Godfrey (Evans,
1941).
oth these records for C. brevis, the bap ones from Pennsylvania, were inadvert
ently omitted from the Catalog. C. brevis can de distinguished from its associates by
its reaction to K an K- and yell ow. Often the podetia are conspicuously
as in C. cariosa which is K yello

[Cladonia ere Merrill.

rial of this specimen reported by Mozingo from erg County shows
a definite acnrcnth with K, and therefore should be C. subcarios

32. [Cladonia cariosa (Ach.) Spreng.

None of the collections reported by Mozingo prove to belong to this species. As
the ie meron listed under this species in the Catalog are included among those in his
hi . cariosa must be pecan Sain 99 at least, removed from Pennsylvania Cladoniae]

Group 2. Thallostelides Vainio
34. Cladonia gracilis (L.) Willd.
Warren: Sheffield (Moldenke, 1945).
*Cladonia gracilis f. chordalis (Floerke) Schaer.
variety, if cups are present, they are much narrower than in v. dilatata;
when ee the podetia are narrowly cylindric, and terminate in long acuminate
bear proliferations. (Plate 2.)

Lancaster: Hopewell (Eby, 1894, MBG). Wayne: pe Township (1944).
Cladonia gracilis v. dilatata f. anthocephala (Floerke) Vainio.

Porrer: Coudersport (Beebe, 1944). Wayne: Scott Township (1943).

35. Cladonia verticillata (Hoffm.) Schaer.

Crarion: Cook Forest (Sumstine, 1937). F. inal 1907, C.
Omitted hae Catalog). ). Farerre: Ohiopyle (Jennings

Cladonia verticillata f. evoluta (Th. Fr.) Stein.
N: Warrior Ridge (Porter, 1890, AS). NorrHAMPToN:

(Ri Rodda 1942). Porrer: Little Gap
Cond rt (B 2cb wisven
( Moldenke, 1943). ersport (Beebe, 1944). Warren: Sheffield and

Cladonia verticillata f. apoticta (Ach.) Vainio.
Prxe: Porter’s Lake (1944). Wayne: Equinunk (1948).

Cladonia verticillata f. aggregata (Del.) Oliv.
Wayne: South Preston (1943), Equinunk (1948).

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 83

37a. Cladonia degenerans f. phyllophora (Erhr.) Flot.
Wayne: Scott Township (1943).

*Cladonia degenerans f. cladomorpha (Ach.) Vainio.
Wayne: Island Lake (1947).

39a. Cladonia pyxidata v. neglecta (Floerke) Mass.
ERKS: Pricetown (Wilkens, 1946). Carson: Little Gap (Rodda, 1942). Lancas-
TER: Conewago (Small, 1889). Wayne: Lake Como (1943).
*Cladonia pyxidata v. neglecta f. peritheta (Wallr.) Robbins.

The podetia of f. apttessane are proliferous from the outer surface of the cups and
from the surface below the

Huntinepon: Nature Ces (Thompson, 1938, omitted from the Catalog).
WAYNE: Gemrunea Borough (1943).
40a. Cladonia chlorophaea f. simplex (Hoffm.) Arn.
napon: Nature ons! 4 Se at 1937, omitted from the Catalog).
ee geen (Proctor, 1947). LaNncaSTER: Mountville (Eby, 1885, 1887, MBG).
NROE: Water Gap (EF. bs Rau, 1874, ~AS), n. of Marshall’s Creek (1944). WARREN
Wares (Moldenke, 1943).
Cladonia chlorophaea f. carpophora (Floerke) Anders.
Wayne: Pleasant Valley Road, Scott Township, and Mt. Pleasant (1943).

Cladonia chlorophaea f. prolifera (Walir.) Arn.
Erx: Glen Hazel (Moul, 1946). Wayne: Mt. Pleasant (1943).

4la. Cladonia grayi f. simplex Robbins.
Porrer: Coudersport (Beebe, 1944). Warren: Warren (Moldenke, 1943).

Cladonia grayi f. carpophora Evans.
Berks: Joanna (1943. Wayne: Stockport (1943).

Cladonia grayi f. cyathaformis Sandstede.
Frankun: Black Gap (Zundel, 1935). Hunttnapon: Warrior Ridge (Porter,
1890, AS).
42a. Cladonia conista f. simplex Robbins.
Huntinapon: Warrior Ridge (Porter, 1890, AS). Monrog: Stroudsburg (1943).

*Cladonia conista f. centralis, scyphis secundis ex centro scyphorum pri-
morum enatis.
is form has secondary cups growing from the center of the primary cups. It is
ne Sd to C. a. v. iat f. centralis. (Plate 3, fig. 3.)
The type of this form, the author’s collection from "Scarlett’s Mills, is in his
herbarium te
Pike: Scarlett’s Mills (1944). Monror: Lake Minisink (1945).

i
Oo

as
or

be
a

BARTONIA

ae fimbriata (L.) Fr.
apon: Warrior Ridge (Porter, 1890, AS). Warren: Warren, Sheffield
(Moldethe 1943).
Cladonia nemoxyna (Ach.) Nyl.
WarrEN: Warren (Moldenke, 1945).

Cladonia nemoxyna f. fibula (Ach.) Vainio.
KS: Yardley (1947). Lancaster: Martic Forge (Small, 1892, rare This
specimen is one labeled onia cenotea on a sheet in the Missouri Botanical Garden

National Herbarium at Washington. Accordingly the record for 24. C. cenotea in
Lancaster County is cancelled. Monroe: Porter’s Lake (1944). Siac cnt Little
Gap (Rodda, 1942).
Cladonia nomoyxna f. rei (Schaer.) Anders.

Wayne: Winterdale (1943).
Cladonia ochrochlora Floerke.

SusqueHAnNnaA: Nicholson (1947), Wayne: Stockport (1943).
Cladonia ochrochlora f. ceratodes Harm.

FAYE hiopyle (Jennings, 1907, C). Omitted from the Catalog. This speci-
men doubtiew’ represents C’. coniocraea f. ceratodes (Floerke) Dalla Torre et Sarnth.

*Cladonia cornuta f. cylindrica (Schaer) Vainio, and f. pryllotoca (Floerke)
Vainio.

Wayne: Island Lake (1945).

This species is new for Pennsylvania. It often grows in ge erect, usually
sorediate a e upper part of the branches, and occasionall mulose toward the
ba cups are present, they are small, with dentate or proliferate margins, the
cavity see. and sorediate. In f. phyllotoca ‘the base of the podetia is covered with
squamules. (Plate 2, fig. 1.)
ee coniocraea (Floerke) Spreng.

Glen Hazel (Moul, 1946). Porrer: Coudersport (Beebe, 1943). WARREN:
Waree™ (Moldenbe. 1943).
sabre coniocraea f. ceratodes oes Dalla Torre et Sarnth.
avon: Shaffersville, Union e (Proctor, 1947). ScuuyrKir: Port
Clee, ‘(Wilkens, 1946). Warren: Shefficta (M oldenke, 1945).
Cladonia coniocraea f. phyllostrota (Floerke) Vainio.
Huntinapon: Shaffersville (Proctor, 1947).

\

. Cladonia borbonica f. cylindrica Evans.

CentER: State College (Sumstine, 1947). Lancaster: Mountville (Eby, 1889,
MBG). Susquenanna: Starrucca-Thompson Road (1943), Nicholson (1947).

. Cladonia pityrea v. zwackhii Vainio.

Warren: Warren (Moldenke, 1943).

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON THE CLADONIAE OF PENNSYLVANIA 85

Cladonia pityrea v. zwackhii f. subacuta Vainio.
Monroe: Stroudsburg (1943). Warren: Sheffield (Moldenke, 1945).

Cladonia pityrea v. zwackhii f. squamulifera Vainio.
Carson: Little Gap (Redda, 1942). Wayne: Scott Twp. (1947). (Plate 2, fig. 2.)

Group 3. Foliaceae (Bagl. & Garest.) Vainio
*Cladonia Robbinsii Evans.

s new species was described by Dr. Evans in his Supplementary Report of the
SPAS oc and C.
oliacea, growing in large mats and seldom exhibiting podetia. It can, however, be

Cuester: Nottingham (Nearing, 1940). Monroe: Delaware Water Gap (Evans,
1941), ca. 10 mi. n. of Marshalls Creek (1943). Pmrry: Sterrett’s Gap (1941).
51b. Cladonia piedmontensis f. squamulosa Robbins.
Wayne: Scott Township (1945).

In this Report two species listed in the Catalog, C. coccifera and C. cariosa,
have been eliminated from the Cladoniae of Pennsylvania. Eight species new
to the state have been reported; C. submitis, C. evansit, C. boryti, C. atlantica,
C. brevis, C. crispata, C. cornuta, and C. robbinsi. This makes a total of 57
species now found in the state, exclusive of two recent segregations from the
C. chlorophaea group, C. cryptochlorophaea and C. merochlorophaea. Also, about
12 forms new to the state, and one new form described by the writer, have been
listed.

Three counties, Adams, Cameron, and Cumberland, still remain without any
reported collection of Cladoniae. Many counties in the northwestern and west-
central part of the state are represented by only four or five specimens. The
most thoroughly represented counties are Wayne with 50 species, Monroe with
38, and Pike with 35. Species not yet found in the state and to be looked for
are: C. impexa, C. glauca, C. cariosa, C. norrlini, C. cornutoradiata, and possibly
C. foliacea.

Shorter Notes

A plastic spray for coating herbarium specimens.—There has recently
been placed on the market a plastic spray, under the name of Krylon. One
presses the top of the can, and a fine stream of the material comes out and
deposits on any object held near. The film is colorless and transparent, and so
flexible that herbarium sheets coated with it can be rolled into a cylinder, and
when unrolled again the plant specimens are undamaged. At last we have a
means for keeping hemlock and spruce needles attached to the stems when
pressed! Teachers of taxonomy can hand a sheet around to any number of
students without the plant material crumbling (as happens in unprotected or
cellophane-covered sheets).

Epnaar T. WHERRY
Lee Sowden

The Philadelphia Botanical Club lost one of its members of long standing
through the death of Lee Sowden on July 28, 1947.

Mr. Sowden was born in Philadelphia, July 22, 1874. He attended Central
High School and then Cornell University for two years.

He was well known in banking circles and served as president of the North
Philadelphia Trust Company for a period of twenty-eight years until 1946 when
he retired as president and was elected chairman of the board in which capacity
he served until the time of his death. He was one of the founders of the Title
Company of Philadelphia and served as its president from 1927 to 1929. He was
also a director of the Commonwealth Title Company of Philadelphia.

Mr. Sowden was active in the affairs of the Episcopal church. He was a
vestryman of the Memorial Church of the Good Shepherd and a member of the
Church Club of Philadelphia.

Mr. Sowden took a life-long interest in botany and joined the Philadelphia
Botanical Club in 1901. He served as its secretary from 1910 to 1918 inclusive.
He became the Club’s second treasurer in 1939 when he was elected to succeed
the late Arthur N. Leeds, and he continued to serve in this capacity until the
time of his death.

In his earlier years his favorite collecting ground was along the Wissahickon
Creek near Philadelphia. After he joined the Club he went on trips with Steward-
son Brown, 8. 8. Van Pelt, Joseph Crawford, and others, to some of the classic
collecting spots along the Susquehanna River in Lancaster County, Pennsyl-
vania, in the Cape May, New Jersey, region, and elsewhere. During his annual
vacations he visited sections of the United States and Mexico and always took an
interest in the flora of the region visited.

After his death his collection of local plants was donated to the Philadelphia
Botanical Club and his general collection to the Academy of Natural Sciences.

Water M. BENNER
86 Z

Program of Meetings during 1946

Date Subject Speaker Attendance
Jan. 24 -Mount Shasta Rambles: ... dig vcce 43 Jaze William Bridge Cooke 31
Feb. 28 Some Interesting American Botanists ....... Howard W. Elkinton 15
Mar. 28 Kodachromes of oe, _ Flowers (20.605 Samuel A. Tatnall

Problems of the — eee ee Dr. Samuel C. wales 36
Apr. 25 Four Seasons in the Yukon ................ Prederick C. Schmid

Sixteen Days at Pe eek Al naka the eer i . Stair 3
May 23 Plants of Nearby Ponds, Streams and Sea .. Ruth Patrick 23
faetieh er ST ob a Folie ee vic Snel ala a UR Salers David R. Sumstine 33
Oct. 24 The North American Species be Mimulus ... Francis W. Pennell 30
Nov. 21. Australia—Her Flowers as Seen byan Amateur John W. Hess 50
Dec. 19 Native Plants of Hortidtltural get eens Edgar T. Wherry 5

Program of Meetings during 1947

Date Subject Speaker Attendance
an, Bo ° Moésthy- Lilies a. orice ke Mrs. J. Norman Henry 50
Feb. 27. Marvels of Myxomycetes and Fungi ........ Charles E. Mohr 26
Mar. 27 Flowers of the High Tropical Andes ........ Pe aa Penzell 28
Apr. 24 Botanizing on the Gaspe Peninsula ......... George R. Proctor 31
May 22 Plants of the Red Plains of Texas .......... Richard W. Pohl 35
Sept. 25 sang s by Members on Summer Work

Local Siocon of Aster: 2. iii eee George R. Proctor 25
Oct. 23 Local Species of Eupatorium .............-- Walter M. Benner
me Problems of Fern Study ........-...-- George R. Proctor 25
Nov. 20 Flora of the Cape Cod Peninsula .......... Edwin T. Moul
Two Local Species of Utricularia ..........- Theodore P. Haas 30
40

Dee. 18 Studies of North American Ericaceae ..... < er T. Wherry

Program of Meetings during 1948

Date Subject Speaker Attendance
Jan. 22 Flora of the Carolina Blue Ridge ........-- Ralph M. Sargent 26
Feb. 26 More Native Plants at Gladwyne .......... Mrs. J. Norman Henry 42
Mar. 25 Studies of Shale Barren Plants ...........-- Robert B. Platt 25
Apr. 22. Botanizing in Indiana John H. Wallace 21
May 27 Flora of Northampton County, ed ees Robert L. Shaeffer, Jr. 23
Sept. 23 Reports by Members on Summer Work

The Genus Bidens in the Local Area ......- George R. Proctor 13
Oct. 28 Historic Plant ii aiage at the goqmon A of
Natural Scien .. Edward E. selene and
Francis W. Pen a>

Nov. 18 Wild Flowers of the Alleghanies ........ ic. BP. Seem 37
Dee. 16 From Popayan to the Putumayo .........-- Victor W. von Hagen 32

List of Officers and Members, 1946-1947-1948
Francis W. PENNELL, President
Mrs. J. Norman Henry, Vice-President
Watter M. Benner, Secretary
Luz Sownen, Treasurer until July 28, 1947
Harry W. Truvewu, Treasurer from Sept. 25, 1947
Bayarp Lone, Curator
Francis W. PENNELL, Editor of BARTONIA

ACTIVE MEMBERS
(as of September 1, 1949)

Elected
J. W. ApaMs, 32 Pleasant ws, Prien Pa os. ee Ee 1925
Watrer AINSwortH, 3202 Hamilton St., Philadelphia MORO ie Ose 1946
D. Curry ARMSTRONG, 124 Bridge St., MOP ee ee ee 1946
Mrs. A. C. Barnes, Latch’s Lane, pane Pa, Lina e Pee ARIS cine CESS) Ores ce i cere 1942
Epwiw B. Banraam, Bushkill, Pa... ......-....cciceec0e5050.0 5, eee PGE Ry ely ape ees 1906
J. Russert Besrer, 6245 Wissahickon Ave, Pulladeoua. 44 Pas. 1919
Dr. Warter M. Benner, 5636 Loretta Ave. Pee TE Pa. 1912
Jasrer T. Bentiey, 201 W. Chestnut Hill Ave. Philadelphis 18 Pa... 1933
Dr. Davin Berkuermer, 518 Elm St. MM, PR ee a es 1943
Cart E. Briss, 2106 Overbrook Read. Enkewood, ON pio oo as 1924
Miss Rurx Boygr, 2039 (ferry S Philadciphiie 3 Pap ot 5, os ee 1946
JoHN Bricut, 511 Cheltena Awe, Jenkintown, Paice. oy ee PB 1943
Miss Eruer Brusaxker, “The Fairfax ” , 43rd & Locust Sts., Philadelphia 4, Pa. ....... 1939
Wurm C. Brumpacu, midi Nahe OP ee oe 1943
Ricuarp B. Cumxas, 233 Winona Ave. Poe A Pe CS 1942
Pror. M. A. Cunystz, ME, CONG i sc es 1931
F. Van Buren Connex, “ Hollybrook ’ ’, Brookside Ave., Wayne, Pa. ................ 924
JosepH Deviin, 4030 4030 Bleigh St., Philadelphia Oe PW a 1946
D. E. Dimnicx, 21 N. 7th PU ee a 1946
We Dak, 801 Crown Sty Moriaville, Pe: ic ee 1942
Rosert R. Dretspacu, 301 Helen St + mente Wiles ey set ae ea A 1922
Iss Evizap Chester Ave., Philadelphia 4, Pa. .................... 1935
Howarp W. Erxinton, 6514 Germantown Ave , Philadelphia me Pee eet 1931
Mrs. Neti ErisMan, 1821 Mt. Vernon St; Phimdelhia 80, Pa
Mrs. Harorp Evans, “ Awbury ”, E. W. hingitis Lane, Philadelphia me Ph Se 1931
Ricuarp Brossom Fartey, “Sarobia ”, Eddi are ee 1931
Cart W. Fennincer, 1632 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, ag a eae 1947
Avsert J, Ferxer, 1101 N. 63rd St., Philadelphia Se, PR iS ioiss oe a ee 1948
Miss H. Fravetz, 142 W. Chelten Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pa. ............... 1946
Dr. Joun M. Foas, Jr., Leleersite of Pennsylvania, Peeibiphia 6 Pas...) 1921
Farman R. Furness, ‘Media, WM So ress)s yeus bee lt we es 1935

88

LIST OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS, 1946-1947-1948 89

Miss Exizaperu A. Gest, R. D. 1, Deltona, Pas 2 TA PO A Cee 1944
JoHN Gut, 2 Linden Ave., Haddonfield; Ned Ge ae ee 1939
Mrs. Joun Girprn, Sugar Loaf Orchard, Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia Be, Wks oe 1
Dr. Tuomas S. Giruens, Cambridge Apartments, School Lane and Wissahickon Ave.,
ce reap tet eoardiany sho OU RITE AT Gaby 1945
Dr. Rosert B. Gorvon, 415 Sharpless. St., West. Chester, Pa. ..........................
Dr. THEoporE P. Haas, Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science, Philadelphia 4,
41S Dd ho HU evga We oy ials bh wie le sn BY oy CAMERA Uae EGL UU EO caecui on Be: oe
Louis E. Hanp, 8061 Fairview St., Philedelphis' 8: Passcok. weve ic ik, eee oe 1936
Miss ANN Harsison, “The Barclay ”, 18th St. & Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia 3, Pa. 1944
James H. Harpy, 537 Country Club Lane; Havertown; Pa. 2.2626 ce oe 1947
Mrs. J. Norman Henry Gladwyne, Pas iii, cdc oes Coe ae i eo tet 1932
Miss JosepHine DeN. Henry, Gladwynt; Pas CsneGo st RE 38
Lee P. Hynes, 36 West End Ave., Haddonfield; No Jie iy ote Re 1939
Miss Nancy E. James, 4043 Baltimore Ave, Pines 4, Pa. ices: 1942
Cuartes F. Jenxins, Kitchens Lane, Philadelphia 10.-Paos 61 ho eB oc
Pror. Marion A. JoHNSON, Dept. of Botany, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N. J. 1946
Miss Natarie B. Krmper, 538 E. Locust Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pass. 30200 eo
EV. WitxiaM U. Kisrizr, 118 Main St., Penmabien, Pa igi esis oso iW oo a Os Oe x 1911
Dr. Henry A. Larsste, 5900 Market Gt, Fitintelpee Oe, Pas i oe
Mrs. Ipa K. Lanoman, 2316 Delancey Place, Philadelphia 3, Pa. 1937
Morris E. Lerps, 1025 Westview WG, FINO ania TG Pi ici ie een ive es bes Founder
Dr. Harry A. Lroyp, 200 N. 35th Sh Pulonnin: 4. Par oe Avtar Si 1
Bayarp Lone, 250 Ashbourne Road, Elkins Park, Philadelphia 17, Pa. ................ 1906
Joun R. McIntosu, 304 Winona Aye, Philadelphia 44. Pai os sca. oo. 5s oe 945
Dr. Epwin T. Mout, Dept. of Botany, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N. J. ...... 1945
Mrs. Georce B. Orr, Willowbrook WO, POR PR i ee 1935
Miss Exiasern G. Ostermer, Jenkintown, Pa. ...........00-000cc0eccccecceeceeceee
Dr. Samuer C. Parmer, 26th & Chestnut We, es PA 1929
Dr. RutH Parricx, Academy of Natural Sciences, Phiadephia 6 Pao. ccc. os 1937
De. Friston: W. Panwa: Moyhin: Pero 6 oo os a ee a 1910
Dr. Roserr B. Prarr, Dept. of Biology, Emory University, Ga. .............-.2.--..-. 1947
Dr. Ricnarp W. Pout, Dept. of Botany, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa ............. 1940
Harorp W. Prez, 123 S. 17th St., PIM Free iis eh ee ke 1909
Georce R. Proctor, 108 Atlas Drive, Collins Park, New Castle, Del. .................. 1944
Miss Heten Ramsey, 1328 Jerome wey KM OO, ES es 1945
Mins Abwe Rowiawy, Meadowbrook, Pa. 2... 6.0556 os osscbde isch bdeccss oboe a 1948
Mrs. Kart Rucart, 612 Bryn Mawr Ave., Penn Valley, Narberth, Pa. ................ 1942
Dr. Ratpu M. Sarcent, 4 College Circle, PIANO ORD, Phe coe. ie ee 1948
Dr. Rosert L. Suarrrer, Jr., 32 N. 8th St., Allentown, Pa. 1938
Dr. J. R. Scuramm, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 4, Pa. .. 1937
Henry Skinner, Morris Arboretum, Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia 18, Pa. .............. 1
Mr. & Mrs. Roserr V. Speck, Apt. 117-B, Haddon Hills, Crystal Lake Ave., Haddonfield
ae ee Seb iov eles. EME a Rasa 1947
Leste D. Sram, 141 Fern Ave., Collingswood, N. J. 1944
Dr. Watrer Sreckseck, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 4, Pa. 1925
Dr. C. I. Srrrerer, 507 Welsh St, Chester, Pa. 1945
F. Josepx Sroxes, 1012 Westview St., Philadelphia 19, Pa. ......... 1947
Mrs. F. Josep Sroxes, 1012 Westview me Pron 1 Pe ee 1947

90 BARTONIA

Dr. Ropert R. TaTnacr, 236 Lancaster Ave.. Wynnewood, Pa. ...............000 scenes 1928
Horace E. THompson, 5016 Schuyler St., Philadelphia 44, Pa. 1920
Wo. 5 eae Jr., Leroy Court Apartieate, #403, 1700 S. 60th St., Philadelphia 42,

R. 3 Terniiwow, 6317 N. Nocwacd BE” Philadelohia Mi Pa. SoG. .4s kaa bsaes 1942
Harry W. Trouper, 303 Highland Ave., Abington, Pa. ............ .» 1915

Dr. Paut R. Waaner, Ursinus College, Collegeville, Pa. ..........0.c0ceeeeeceeeeeeees 1935
Warren H. Wacner, Dept. of Botany, University of California, Berkeley, California ... 1942
E. Peror Warker, 511 Lynmere Road, Bryn Mawr, Pa. ...........0.c.0ccecceeeeceees 1939
Mrs. Marcurrits L. Warnxs, 142 S. Logan Ave., Audubon, N. J.

Bien Evers Wetts, Biological Abstracts, Universtiy of — Philadelghix 4, oo

aes 7
Rosert F, Wersu, 325 Chestnut St., Philadelphia 6, Pa. . 1909
Dr. Evcar T. Wuerry, Dept. of Hota, nies of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 4, Pe 1925
mares Woeews, €56 8. 15th Bt, Reading Pass 3).3 Aico d nd’. 0d. sa cices te eva is 1928
Wurm H. Wirrs, Riegelaville. Pa. Ri ~ Ld Aira | sues in aE) eee ee ee 1898
mowen Woon, Ja...“ Aloha”, B.D. 1, Conshohocken, Pa. 065 ovcwet veces Gs casino
Miss Mary F. Waicut, 231 Winona Ave., Philadelphia 44, PRES . ent bo nk lenovo 1928

HONORARY MEMBERS

Cuartes M. B. Capwaraper, Academy of Natural Sciences, recta = eg caine yee 1944
Dr. Epwarp E. WitpMan, 4331 Osage Ave., Philadelphia 4, Pa. .................-0000: 1931

CORRESPONDING MEMBERS

Dr. Joun H. Barnuart, New York Botanical Garden, New York, N. Y. .........-.++: 1936
Pror. M. L. Fernarp, Gray Herbarium, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. .......- 1929
Dr. Josepx §. Irricx, State College of Forestry, Syracuse, N. Y. ..............0-e008- 1925
Dr. Hur-Lin Lt, Dept. of Botany, National Taiwan University, es Taiwan, China .. 1944
Dr. Ermer D. Meret, Arnold Arboretum, Jamaica Plain 30, Mass. .............++--: 1945
Dr. Harorp Sr. Jon, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, T. H. ...................0-0+2- 1927
Dr. Wirr1am Ranpotpu Taytor, University of Mighinas: Bi AYOOE. BAGH. 4. ox ions 0 1921
Dr. Camppett BE. Waters, Chevy Chase, Washington, D. C. ............c0c ese cee eeees

Dr. Heser W. YouncKEN, Massachusetts College of racntaey Boston,: Mass,.¢.. a5... 1918

RECENTLY DECEASED MEMBERS

Died
Bs Pe ek ee th 8 Eh ape May 23, 1948
Wh idee dias el eas, eS sei, weepeeks . July 28, 1947

Miss Marie Curtas, Active
Lee Sownen, Active

Index to Genera

Abama, 58; Abies, 58; Acacia, 11, 39; Acer, 73; Acerates, 44; Achillea, 25, 41; Adonis,
10; Aeschynomene, 25; Agrimonia, 39; Agrostis, 23, 39, 40, 44, 65; Aira, 23, 40, 41; Allionia, 41;
Allium, 41; Amomum, 10; Amorpha, 25, 41; Ampelopsis, 10, 41; Amphicarpum, 56; Amphi-
stelma, 13; Amsonia, 27; Anchusa, 41; Andromeda, 11, 25, 27, 41, 42; Andropogon, 24, 25, 42,
50, 64; Angelica, 42; Annona, 42; Anthoxanthum, 24, 25, 50; Aplectrum, 57; Arabidopsis, 43;
Arabis, 42, 43; Arenaria, 43; Arethusa, 43; Argemone, 43; Aristida, 43, 45; Arsenococcus, 41;
Arundinaria, 43; Arundo, 40, 43, 44; Asarum, 44; Asclepias, 13, 25, 44; Asemeia, 59; Aster, 11,
27, 44, 87; Atheropogon, 34; Atragene, 45; Aureolaria, 52; Avena, 45

Bartonia, 23, 25, 26, 34, 45; Batschia, 41; Beckmannia, 49; Benzoin, 54; Betula, 73; Bidens,
87; Blandfordia, 10; Blitum, 20; Boltonia, 45, 50; Bossiaea, 10; Brachyelytrum, 56; Brassica,
45; Bryanthus, 56; Bulbostylis, 49; Bumelia, 45; Bunias, 38

Caladium, 45; Calamagrostis, 40, 43, 44; Caltha, 22, 45; Campanula, 22, 45; Cantua, 45;
Cardamine, 42; Carduus, 45, 46, 48; Carex, 13, 14, 46; Carpinus, 73; Carya, 54, 73; Cassia, 10,
11, 46; Castanea, 24; Ceanothus, 25, 27, 46; Celastrus, 10; Centaurella, 23, 26, 45; Cerastium,
24, 46, 47; Ceresia, 58; Ceropegia, 13 ; Cerothamnus, 56; Chamaecrista, 46; Chelone, 47; Cheno-

ium ionanthus, 20; Chironia, 47; Chrysocoma, 47; Cimicifuga, 47; Circaea, 20;
Cirsium, 45, 47, 48; Cladium, 62; Cladonia, 74-85; Claytonia, 47; Clematis, 10, 11, 45, 47;
Cleome, 47; Cliftonia, 55; Clinopodium, 47; Cnicus, 25, 27, 45, 46, 47, 48; Convolvulus, 25;
Conyza, 27, 48; Corydalis, 27, 48; Crataegus, 10, 48, 73; Cucubalus, 64; Cyclamen, 48; Cym-
bidium, 57 ; Cymophyllus, 46; Cynanchum, 13, 14, 48; Cynoctonum, 13, 57; Cyperus, 38, 48, 49, 62

Dalibarda, 49; Dasystephana, 52 ; Dentaria, 49; Desmanthus, 39; Desmodium, 53; Dianthera,
54; Diapedium, 54; Dicentra, 48, 73; Dichroma, 49; Digitaria, 49; Dilepyrum, 56; Diodia, 49;
Dioscorea, 49; Diospyros, 49; Dolichos, 10, 49; Draba, 49; Drosera, 28

Echinochloa, 57; Edisonia, 48 ; Eleocharis, 62, 63; Eleusine, 49, 50; Elliottia, 34, 50; Ellisia,
53; Elymus, 50; Epipactis, 50; Eragrostis, 59; Erianthus, 24, 25, 50; Erigenia, 53; Erigeron,
25, 48, 50; Erinus, 50; Eryngium, 50; Erythronium, 38; Euonymus, 27, 51; Eupatorium, 87;
Euphorbia, 51

z
&
2
°

Fagus, 51, 73; Festuca, 14, 38, 51, 59; Franklinia, 52, 69; Frasera, 26, 51; Fraxinus, 6, 51;
Fumaria, 10

Galactia, 51; Galax, 10; Galearis, 57; Galeorchis, 57; Galium, 23, 24, 51; Gentiana, 10,
52; Gerardia, 13, 25, 52; Geum, 24; Gilia, 45; Glechoma, 52; Glycine, 10, 52; Gonolobus, 48;
Gordonia, 52; Gratiola, 52; Gymnopogon, 42; Gyrophora, 9

Habenaria, 57; Hedysarum, 53; Helleborus, 53; Hemicarpha, 63; Heteranthera, 22, bk
Heteropogon, 64; Heuchera, 27, 53; Hibiscus, 10, 53; Hippuris, 20; Holcus, 53; Houstonia, 10,
11, 53; Hydrangea, 25; Hydrocharis, 53; Hydrocotyle, 53; Hydrophyllum, 53; Hypericum, 10,
25, 53, 54; Hypnum, 9

Ilex, 60; Impatiens, 24; Inula, 10, 11, 25; Isolepis, 63; Ixia, 54

Juglans, 6, 10, 54; Juncus, 54; Justicia, 27, 54

Knowltonia, 10; Kyllinga, 54
91

92 INDEX TO GENERA

Lactuca, 54; Lathyrus, 38, 54; Laurus, 10, 25, 27, 54; Lecanora, 9; Lecidea, 9; Ledum,,.
11, 54; Lemna, 72-73; Leptanthus, 53; Leptochloa, 50, 51; Leptoloma, 57; Leucothoe, 42;
Lichen, 9; Lilium, 11, 71-72, 87; Limnobium, 53; Limodorum, 55; Lindera, 54; Lindernia, 55;
Linum, 27, 55; Lobelia, 10, 55; Lonicera, 55; Lygodesmia, 60; Lyonia, 13, 14, 41, 55; Lythrum,
10, 11

Macbridea, 65; Malva, 55; Mariscus, 62; Marshallia, 27, 55; Mecardonia, 52; Melampyrum,
56; Melananthera, 56; Melanthium, 10; Melica, 56; Menispermum, 56, 73; Menziesia, 10, 11,
56; Mertensia, 73; Mespilus, 10, 48; Metastelma, 13; Mikania, 56; Milium, 56; Mimosa, 10, 1]1,.
39; Mimulus, 87; Monotropa, 56; Muhlenbergia, 34, 40, 56, 59; Myrica, 56; Myrrhis, 62

Narthecium, 58; Nemophila, 53; Neottia, 38; Nepeta, 52; Nicotiana, 10; Nycterium, 10

anthe, 56; Ophiorrhiza, 57; Ophrys, 10, 50, 57; Orchis, 38, 55, 57; Oryzopsis, 57 >

Osmorhiza, 62; Oxypolis, 56

Pagesia, 52; Panax, 73; Pancratium, 10, 11; Panicum, 14, 49, 57,58; Parmelia, 9; Paspalum,
13, 56, 58; Pastinaca, 58; Pedicularis, 58; Peltandra, 45; Persoonia, 55; Phaca, 25; Phacelia,.
27, 58; Phalanguim, 58; Phalaris, 49; Phaseolus, 49, 58; Philadelphus, 58; Phlox, 10, 58;
Phivihinthes. 58; Picea, 58: Pieris, 41; Pinus, 58; Diack 25, 58; Platanus, 73: Platylobium,
10; Pluchea, 48; Poa, 14, 58, 59; Podalyria, 10, Th 59; Sesion o03 Polygali, 59; Poly-
gonum, 59; Polypodium, 28; Pontederia, 59; Ponthieva, 50; Porina, 9; Potamogeton, 59, 60;
Prenanthes, 25, 60; Prinos, 10, 27, 60; Proserpinaca, 73; ae 10; Prunus, 11, 27, 60;
Psoralea, 60; Pulmonaria, 10, 11, 60; Pyrus, 10, 60

Quercus, 6, 10, 60, 73

Ranunculus, 60, 61; Rhamnus, 61; Rhododendron, 61; Rhus, 25; Rhynchospora, 62; Ribes,
61; Rosa, 10, 11, 25, 61; Rubus, 10, 61; Rudbeckia, 10, 11, 61; Rumex, 38, 61

Sabatia, 47; Sabulina, 43; Sagittaria, 28, 61, 62; Salicornia, 38; Salix, 6, 62; Sambucus,
62; Santolina, 62; Sarracenia, 10; Saxifraga, 11; Scandix, 62; Schizaea, 39; Schoenus, 13, 62;
Scirpus, 13, 28, 49, 62, 63; Stletie: 63; Scotetlarta: 10, 42, 63: Senecio, 63; Sesban, 64; sien
25, 63; Seutera, 13, 14; Silene, 64; Silphium, 10, 11, 64; Sisymbrium, 43; Sium, 64; Solan
10, 64; Solidago, 64; Spartina, 64; Sphenopholis, 40, 41; Spiraea, 13, 26, 27, 64; Spirodela, 73.
oaeiey 40; Stanleya, 45; Seactiyles! 433 Sielloria, 43; Stipa, 40, 64; Streptanthus, 45;
Symplocos, 22, 64

Taxus, 64; Thalia, 22, 64; Thalictrum, 24, 64; Thymbra, 65; Thymus, 10; Tiarella, 70;
Tilia, 65; Tipularia, 55; Trautvetteria, 64; Trichodium, 40, 65; Trifoliom: 10, 65; Trillium,
71; Triplasis, 51

Ulmus, 36, 65; Uraspermum, 38; Usnea, 9; Utricularia, 38, 73, 87

Vaccinium, 10, 11, 41, 65; Verbena, 25, 65; Veronica, 10, 20; Viburnum, 10, 11, 65; Vicia,
65; Vigna, 49; Vincetoxicum, 14; Viola, 10, 11, 65; Viorna, 47; Virgilia, 66; Vitis, 11, 27, 66

Waldsteinia, 49; Warea, 47

Xanthoxylum, 38; ccikneeape. 55

Yucca, 22: 66

Zapania, 25; Zingiber, 10

:
:

:
FE eee ene re

a oat

At,

BARTONIA

JOURNAL OF THE
PHILADELPHIA BoTANICAL CLUB

CONTENTS
Memorial Meeting for Dr. Francis W. Pennell, February 28, 1952 ............. 1
Mary G. Henry, Hucw E. Sronz, H. A. Prssry, Cyrm Harvey, Harry W.
Trupett, Davi D. Keck, A. C. SmirH, MAxrmmino Martinez, E. T. WHeErry.
Writings of Francis W. Pennell ........ Venta T. Puiutres and JosepH A. Ewan 12 =
Obituaries: Francis W. Pennell, Morris E. Leeds .......... WALTER M. Benner 16

The Pine Barrens of New Jersey | ee
Introduction .. oat & Sa
What Can be Inferred from Pollen Profiles of Bogs ..............J. E. Porzcsx 20 eas
Soil Conditions in the Pine Barrens J. C. F. Teprow 28
Ground Water in the Pine Barrens Area | Henry C. Barxspare 36
The Place of Fire in the Ecology of Pines ..... nea H. H. Carman 39
Silvicultural Objectives and Methods on Upland Sites ebseesucuae) .S. Lrrmz 44

oe seeeerede E. Cawttow and M. F. Bue 48

PLATE 1. Francis Whittier Pennell, 1886-1952,

BARTONIA

JOURNAL OF THE PHILADELPHIA BOTANICAL
CLUB

No. 26 1952

Memorial Meeting for Dr. Francis W. Pennell
February 28, 1952

This meeting of the Philadelphia Botanical Club in memory of Dr. Pennell
is held to honor his name and so that we may hear from some of his fellow
workers about the various phases of his scientific accomplishments.

There are many here who knew Dr. Pennell longer than I did, but my as-
sociation with him extended over twenty years. I admired immensely his vast
store of knowledge, appreciated his warm friendship and his unfailing kindness
and courtesy —Mary G. Henry, Vice-President.

The death of Dr. Pennell has taken from the Academy and from all of us
present a valued friend and leader. His lifework in botany is far above my
ability to comment upon, but his work as a friend and adviser was outstanding.

I have gone to him many times for help and advice during our years of ac-
quaintance and he was always so kind, so cordial. He personified the true spirit
of the Academy in his unselfish efforts to guide and encourage. So many times
I have interrupted his work for help to look up a specimen—a reference; many
times we lunched together, went on trips to woods and barrens of nearby counties
and New Jersey. My file of Bartonias is filled with articles of interest—sci-
entific and historical—which he contributed and I value the pamphlets and other
literature which he passed along to me through the years. His influence has
done much for the success of this club which has grown in efficiency, as a club,
since the early 1890’s when I was first a member.

In those old days of the founders—a bunch of good fellows—we would get
together here, talk informally, show a few specimens, discuss past trips, plan
others—there seemed to be little preparation for the meetings. There is no crit-
icism possible of the wonderful work those older botanists did personally and the
evenings together were delightful, but as a club meeting there seemed to be a lack
of the planning which we now enjoy.

2 BARTONIA

In memory of Dr. Pennell’s efforts for our club and his interest in its success,
let us carry on the work in a way which he would approve and try to use some
of his persuasive influence and enthusiasm to enlarge and improve its work.—
Hueu E. STone.

Though my acquaintance with Dr. Pennell dates back to about 1910, I did
not know him well until we spent the summer of 1934 and 1935 together in Mexico,
collecting plants and snails, and again in Peru in the winter of 1948-9.

It is a good test of the qualities of a companion to share months afield, usually
in rough country, and occasionally in conditions of some hardship. In a long
life I have had few field companions equal to Pennell. He was even-tempered,
his equanimity not disturbed by bad luck. If nightfall found us far from camp,
the long trudge would be shortened by his interesting talk. Sometimes if I would
quote a line or two from a poem, he would take it up there and finish it. He
had an unusual memory for poetry and history as well as for plant taxonomy.

His working knowledge of colloquial Spanish often stood us in good stead.
In some Indian village where an inquiry would loose a flood of Spanish with such
a Quechua accent that I could scarcely get a word, Francis generally understood
the gist of it and got the information needed.

Nothing was allowed to interfere with the gathering of specimens. Travelling
by jeep in Peru, where it is often a long distance between towns where an American
can find tolerable accommodations, Francis would often call to the driver, “ Uno
momentico ”, hop out before the car had stopped, to get some Calceolarias that
caught his eye. Then sit by the roadside to put them carefully into the plant
press. Of course there were stops also where it looked good for land mollusks,
so we usually reached the destination planned some hours later than we intended.
Finally we would get some food and get settled, several times in a room with a
door on the street and no windows. By candle light the daily chore of changing
dryers on the plants and preparing snails would then go on, the door open for air,
but crowded with chattering children watching the crazy North Americans. When
the collecting had been heavy, it was sometimes well past midnight when the last
dryers were changed.

Pennell’s hardest trip was in northeastern Peru in company with a Peruvian
botanist. I was not with him, having gone to the Cuzco region. On his return
Francis really looked ill. His weight had fallen 16 pounds; but a week in Lima,
with rest and good food, brought him back to his usual form, and he was delighted
with the Calceolarias he had gathered, in spite of heavy rain and terrible roads.

It is a great loss to science that he did not live to work up his huge Peruvian
and Mexican collections. As a scholarly, erudite and tireless worker, he will be
sadly missed by the Academy staff. Those of us who have had the good fortune
to work with him in the field, feel that this staunch, generous and companionable
spirit cannot be replaced in our lives——H. A. Pitspry

MEMORIAL MEETING FOR DR. FRANCIS W. PENNELL 3

Thinking over our two trips to Mexico, in 1934 and 1935, I shall jot down
between classes some impressions of Francis Pennell.

First, he was an indefatigable, meticulous explorer in the unknown realms of
botanical implications. He often worked the clock around, collecting all he could
in daylight hours, only to change blotters all night to insure against mildew.

At the time of collecting, in spite of weather, comfort or time hazards, he
insisted on statistics on the spot, e. g. barometric reading, temperature, soil, accur-
ate geographic location, etc. There was only one way to collect: the right way
to acquire all knowledge possible.

At mealtime or bedtime we would frequently ponder such problems as relation
of lime concentration to the needs of his pet plant group, “the Scrofs”, or the
mechanism of evolution of flower structure or color in relation to the interest of
bees or humming birds.

He never wasted time. On the way to a given area he perused maps so that
he needed nothing but his photographic memory while on the job.

He knew his ecology so well that random treasure-hunting would have been
boring as well as a waste of time. He would look over a habitat and read off a
list of plants we would soon find—even NEW ones.

He was patient with plants, people and plain forces in the world. He accepted
what had to be cheerfully and when people or animals were involved, kindly.

In Durango he carried on vivacious interesting conversation with a telegraph
operator who was 45 minutes late from his noon siesta, although Francis knew he
would be up 45 minutes later with necessary blotter changing that night as a
result of the wasted time.

Although his love for “ pure science ” was strong and the acquiring of money
a necessary side interest, he was scrupulous in keeping to a budget day by day
on a trip. He looked upon trip monies as a definite trust. He even hesitated
to “pad the expense account” with afternoon snacks or sundaes.

Having been interested in the field of botany at a tender age, he was eager
to expose the lures of the field to as many children as possible. He took Friends’
Central Junior High classes through his department every year for 15 years. He
always had time to explain the wonders of plant life to curious young folks,
especially when in the field.

He was more than a scientist, he was a real lover of man. On our expeditions
we adjusted our tempo, whenever he thought it wise, to the Mexican way. We
were encouraged to be Mexican while in Mexico. We ate their food, slept in their
hotels and attended masses, weddings and funerals. We also visited schools.
Although a pacifist himself, he maintained warm, friendly relations with the
military on more than one occasion. Because of his beautiful Castilian Spanish,
and gentle understanding spirit, he was an excellent public relations man for
Quakers, the Academy and the U.S. A—Cyrit Harvey.

4 ) BARTONIA

I have been actively associated with Dr. Pennell since February 1949. Help-
ing in the Academy Herbarium to distribute new accessions to the collection,
and returning to their places sheets that had been sent out to other institutions.

At that time Dr. Pennell had been much distressed by the accumulations of un-
filed specimens which in that condition were of little value for interested persons.
He was very busy on other tasks and could not get around to doing any of this
work himself. Dr. and Mrs. Robert Speck had volunteered their services and
also the late Mr. Stair of our Club, had put in some time on this work. I arranged
to devote at least one day each week and from the beginning found it very
agreeable and pleasant working with Dr. Pennell and it was seldom that he failed
to thank me for coming in, upon my arrival as well as when we parted for the
day. The work became monotonous but in yiew of his continued gratitude and
apparent pleasure I continued the service.

When I found myself up against some technical difficulty or question, he was
most prompt and painstaking to “put me on the right track”. He was ever
patient and I do not remember a single incident where he made an unkind
criticism of any one and there were instances where he would have been fully
justified in doing so. I found myself frequently benefited from his excellent
knowledge of Latin.

The three years of association with him has been most pleasant and profitable
to me and has deepened my regard and admiration for the principles of the
Quaker faith as practiced by him whom we hereby recall a kindly and outstand-
ing gentleman.—Harry W. TRupELL.

Francis Whittier Pennell—Authority on the Scrophulariaceae

Dr. Pennell was one of America’s foremost plant taxonomists. A brief his-
torical sketch of the taxonomic field as a whole may be useful in showing where
his contribution fits into the larger picture.

The progress of plant taxonomy has been remarkably rapid since the time two
centuries ago when Carolus Linnaeus started it off on a modern footing. The
task of systematizing our knowledge about the kinds of vegetation that cloak the
earth has been formidable indeed. If there are some 200,000 species of flower-
ing plants alone, as is currently believed, it is obvious that the task of presenting
an orderly arrangement of them is a job for specialists.

The Swiss botanist, Augustin Pyrame de Candolle, organized and initiated
the last complete flora that attempted to classify and describe every species of
seed plant then known. He brought forth the first 7 volumes of this work, the
Prodromus, through his own efforts, while the last 10 were written by others
and published after his death. The entire undertaking took the half century
from 1824-1873 to bring to print. De Candolle had the advantage that most
of the known species were represented in herbaria fairly accessible to him.

MEMORIAL MEETING FOR DR. FRANCIS W. PENNELL 5

Bentham and Hooker, writing their monumental new system of classification
in a 3-volume work entitled Genera Plantarum in the latter part of this period,
likewise were able to bring under their personal gaze examples of the majority
of known kinds of seed plants. A man of comparable energy to these giants in
the history of plant classification was the German botanist, Adolph Engler. He
succeeded in guiding to completion Die natiirlichen Pflanzenfamilien (1887-1899) ,
a work written by numerous collaborators, by means of which the known genera
of all plants, cryptogams and phanerogams alike, could be identified. But his
monographic treatment of the species of seed plants, Das Pflanzenreich, proved
to be too large an undertaking for the present century even though the help of
innumerable specialists was solicited and many thousands of pages of valuable
taxonomic product were gathered into the more than 100 parts that were pub-
lished in the half century until World War II finally brought it to a halt, far
from completion. By this time the literature and the collections of systematic
botany had become so widely distributed over the earth that it was exceedingly
difficult to gather the data together in order to present a fresh treatment of so
large a scope from a world point of view. Monographie work on smaller parts
of the plant kingdom has become the modern aim.

The total number of monographers in the botanical field has never been large.
As a result, each worker is constantly faced with demands upon his time that call
for more commitments than he can hope to fulfill conscientiously. Many taxon-
omists do their best work under the stimulus of their association with members
of first one family of plants and then another. Others have found it more profit-
able to learn more and more about a few plant families or even a single one.
These people have found no lack of problems to engross them, and there is an
additional advantage: As one becomes known as the authority on a group, the
mailman beats a path to his door with successions of packages containing often
the choicest selections of specimens in his chosen field that are sent him for
identification from all quarters of the globe. This flood of material enriches the
study collections available to him to the point where his facilities for naming
plants of the group are keeping abreast of the superior knowledge he is gaining
of their classification, until the point is soon reached where his colleagues auto-
matically turn to him almost alone for help with the identification of critical
collections in his chosen field.

Francis Whittier Pennell was such a specialist in the Scrophulariaceae, a
family in which are found many of our garden favorites, such as the snapdragons,
linarias, foxgloves, penstemons, and calceolarias, and larger numbers of some of
our most interesting genera of wildflowers, such as the paintbrushes, veronicas,
pedicularises, monkey-flowers and gerardias. Pennell worked devotedly and
almost exclusively on this family for a third of a century. Truly he loved it!
He felt that for himself this family indeed was the most fascinating of all. He
took particular delight in tracing out possible evolutionary trends in this family
where modifications of the flowers are profound. To the connection between

6 BARTONIA

such modifications and the insect visitors which effect pollination of the species
he gave constant attention, and in this point of view he received much inspiration
from the comprehensive work of Robertson on the subject.

Dr. Pennell’s maturing philosophy on the relationships within the family
Scrophulariaceae found its most complete expression in his well-known classic
monograph published by the Academy in 1935, The Scrophulariaceae of Eastern
Temperate North America. While this work treated of the genera of Scrophu-
lariaceae limited to one geographic area, Pennell brought forth an improved
arrangement of the tribes and genera in the family that has been favorably
received. With clear logic he has pointed out the weaknesses of the older classi-
fication and presented convincing evidence for his proposal, among others, that
the tribe Gratioleae is to be considered more primitive than the Digitaleae which
was previously considered to be in that position.

It is a great pity that the companion volume to this one, the proposed work
on the Scrophulariaceae of Western Temperate North America, remains incom-
plete. In it we should have had on record Pennell’s ideas on the relationships
between and within the genera that most caught his fancy—Penstemon, Castilleja,
Mimulus and Pedicularis.

It is to be hoped that this manuscript, with its very excellent series of
illustrations which were being prepared for him by the artist who drew the family
for Abrams’ Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Mrs. Janish, is well enough
advanced so that it can be brought to publication. I think Dr. Pennell con-
sidered it his magnum opus. Suffice it to say that it would have been a thoroughly
fine monument to the industry of one man who was in the very forefront of his
field, because his talents and training, together with a keen perception engendered
by a real love for the task, put him there.

Very fortunately he was diverted long enough from this task to prepare the
account of most of the family for Abrams’ Flora mentioned above, and one
can learn from that comprehensive treatment something of the way the final
treatment would have developed.

This note of mine was planned to cover some of the taxonomic aspects of
Dr. Pennell’s contributions, but I must add that his strength as a taxonomist lay
in no small part in his combination of solid research in the herbarium and a broad
knowledge of the plants in the field. I had a long and heavy correspondence
with him on the genus Penstemon. One debate concerned the merits of certain
species of the Pacific Northwest which I had studied in the field and he had
not. But no sooner did Dr. Pennell see these species growing, than he and I
reached agreement on the question. Dr. Pennell was firm when he needed to be
firm, but he had a sense of humility that not only permitted, but demanded, a
correction of viewpoint when new evidence pointed out its desirability. This
characteristic was one of many marks of greatness in the man. His friends
everywhere know that his passing has left a gap in the ranks of plant taxonomists
that will be most difficult to fill—Davi D. Keck.

MEMORIAL MEETING FOR DR. FRANCIS W. PENNELL 7

Dr. Francis W. Pennell’s Botanical Work in South America

Members of the Philadelphia Botanical Club and other botanists whose
primary interests are in North America, are principally acquainted with Dr.
Pennell’s work through his meticulous papers dealing with North American
Scrophulariaceae, or perhaps through his collections from the United States and
Mexico, or through his consuming interest in botanical history, especially as it
pertains to the Philadelphia region. However, among taxonomists who work
with South American plants, Dr. Pennell’s first claim to preéminence is based
upon his invaluable Andean collections and his studies of one of the most difficult
tropical plant families.

It was not until 1917 that Dr. Pennell, then in his thirty-first year, received
his first glimpse of tropical vegetation. So firmly is Pennell fixed in our minds
as a part of the Philadelphia Academy that we forget the formative period he
spent, from 1914 to 1921, as a staff member of the New York Botanical Garden.
Here he must have received both instruction and inspiration from such leaders
of American taxonomy as Britton, Small, Rydberg, Howe, Seaver, and Barnhart,
and it was doubtless Britton’s increasing concern with tropical floras that led
to Pennell’s first trip to Colombia. This was made in company with Britton’s
friend and collaborator, H. H. Rusby, whose position as an eminent pharmacol-
ogist did not dim his enthusiasm for tropical taxonomic study.

It is characteristic of Pennell’s already developed preoccupation with the
Scrophulariaceae that the first three tropical plants he deemed worthy of note,
in his report to Britton, represented the genera Buchnera, Capraria, and Scoparia.
On this first Colombian trip, Pennell, either in company with Rusby or alone,
visited all three Cordilleras and ascended numerous mountains to investigate
the paramo vegetation, which immediately fascinated him. The trip resulted
in the collection of 4700 numbers, of which duplicates have been distributed to
many herbaria.

The success of the Rusby-Pennell trip led to the elaboration of a program for
the botanical exploration of northern South America that involved active col-
laboration between the New York Botanical Garden, the Gray Herbarium,
the Smithsonian Institution, and later the Philadelphia Academy, a program
that has greatly broadened our knowledge of the region. One of the first results
of this collaboration was the Colombian expedition of 1922, during which Pennell,
in company with E. P. Killip and T. E. Hazen, assembled about 7200 numbers
of herbarium specimens with ample duplicates for each of the contributing
institutions. On this trip the botanists again visited all three Cordilleras, con-
centrating on the rich Cauca Valley area and the adjacent highlands.

His studies of the Scrophulariaceae led Pennell to look farther south, where
the family is perhaps even better developed than it is in Colombia. His trip.
of 1925 took him to the central and southern Departments of Peru and to Chile;
to support this trip the Field Museum (now the Chicago Natural History

8 BARTONIA

Museum) was also drawn into the inter-institutional cooperative scheme. Fol-
lowing the Peruvian trip, Pennell turned his field efforts again to the United
States and Mexico, but his interest in the southern continent was unflagging and
he gave ready attention to the specimens which other collectors sent him for
identification. A final South American trip, in 1948, again took him to Peru,
this time in search of critical specimens that would permit the completion of
one of his cherished projects, a revision of all the Scrophulariaceae of the Andean
countries. It was a source of great satisfaction to his many botanical friends,
as to Pennell himself, that a substantial part of this work was carried through
to publication at the end of 1951, when his penetrating and comprehensive study
of Calceolaria in the north Andean countries was printed.

During his four South American trips, Pennell prepared many thousands of
herbarium specimens that are unexcelled representations of a rich and varied flora.
The patient and competent manner that he brought to every botanical problem
is shown in the high quality of his specimens and field notes. His earlier trips,
it must be recalled, were made before roads had penetrated far into the rugged
Andean country, and during the long trips by mule or on foot, Pennell showed
a serene determination to reach botanically unknown areas. It is a matter of
regret that he has not left more accounts of his Andean trips in the vein of his
charming description of the Péramo de Chaquiro in northern Colombia. One
suspects that the lure of new or rare scrophulariaceous plants was the magnet
that drew him up to the alpine meadows in so many parts of the Andes.

However, Pennell’s collections were not slanted toward his “ scrophs ” to the
exclusion of other groups. He had an uncanny ability in his South American
collecting to obtain unusual specimens in every family, perhaps because he so
assiduously visited out-of-the-way localities regardless of the effort involved.
Every sizable group of Andean plants has been better comprehended, if not
increased, by Pennell’s material. If I may give an example from my own studies,
Pennell, either alone or in collaboration, collected 98 Colombian numbers of a
tribe of Vacciniaceae that I revised in 1932. Of these 98 specimens, 20 served
as types of new species, and several of the remainder also represented novelties
but were not selected as types. I do not imply that Pennell neglected to collect
common and widespread species as well, but he definitely avoided “ running up
numbers ” by indiscriminate repetition. In every respect his Andean collections
are models of what a monographer desires when engaged in the “ alpha ” taxo-
nomic studies that are still essential in South America.

Dr. Pennell’s death, at a time when his long study of South American
Serophulariaceae was beginning to bear fruit in publication, is a serious loss to
our science; his place as a specialist in this complicated group of plants cannot
be filled. The even more severe loss of a good friend and valued counselor is
felt not only by the members of this Philadelphia Botanical Club, but by the
fraternity of plant taxonomists throughout the world—A. C. SmrrH.

MEMORIAL MEETING FOR DR. FRANCIS W. PENNELL 9

REFERENCES

Pls. 213, 214.
To the Param o de Chaquiro. Amer. Fern Jour. 33: 81-96. Pl. 1. 1943.
———. The genus rae Sh og a Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela. Proc. Acad. Nat.
Sci. Phila. 103: 85-196. Figs. 1-33; eld i Fs 51.
Kiturep, E. P. Botanical exploration in Colombia. Smithsonian Miscel. Collections 74(5):
70-79. Figs. 70-81. 19
otanical exploration in South America. Smithsonian Sci. Series 11: 353-377.
Pls. 87-97. 1931.

npc agen sW. A wei expedition to Colombia. Jour. N. Y. Bot. Gar. 19: 117-
38. 191

Es de veras lamentable le muerte del Dr. Pennell. Siempre es muy dificil
y casi imposible llenar el lugar de un especialista. Es una gran perdida para la
ciencia botanica.1— Pror. Maximino Martinez, Secretary of the Botanical
Society of Mexico.

1 The death of Dr. Pennell is truly to be lamented. It is always oe almost impossible,
to fill the place of a specialist. Botanical science has suffered a great

A Last Wish Concerning the Scrophulariaceae

The plant family Scrophulariaceae to which our late President devoted his
scientific life, is a large and complex one. The broad outlines of its division into
subgenera, sections, tribes, etc. were worked out by George Bentham in the 1840’s
before Darwin directed the attention of taxonomists to the significance of the
evolutionary viewpoint. Bentham had available only a limited number of
_ Specimens, and scanty information as to the geographic distribution of the
members of the family, and deserves much credit for his success in bringing its
taxonomy into a reasonably logical system. Indeed, the conservative Asa Gray
in the 1870’s and Richard von Wettstein in the 1890’s did not introduce any
essential changes in the Bentham scheme.

Upon taking up the detailed study of this family in the 1900’s, Dr. Pennell
had the advantages of access to copious material in the vast modern herbaria,
of field acquaintance with many of the taxa in the New World, and of appre-
ciation of the fundamental importance of the evolutionary approach to taxonomic
problems. He early realized the need for a thoroughgoing revision of the classi-
fication of the groups within the family, and did succeed in making a start in this
direction. On more than one occasion he confided to me that he hoped to crown
his career by carrying this plan to completion, a hope that alas was not to be
fulfilled.

One of Dr. Pennell’s more important contributions consisted in the straighten-
ing out of the taxonomy of the Tribe Buchnereae, which included also what

10 BARTONIA

Bentham had classed as a distinct tribe, Gerardieae. Since he discussed with
me the problems involved on various occasions, I am offering here some notes
upon them.

Confusion in both nomenclature and taxonomy has unfortunately affected the
members of this tribe from the earliest days. In 1703 Plumier coined the genus
epithet Gerardia in honor of the famous John Gerarde, to apply to a tropical
American member of the family Acanthaceae. In 1753 Linnaeus took up this
genus, naming Plumier’s species Gerardia tuberosa, and in the fifth edition of his
Genera Plantarum, published the following year, he gave the features of that
species as typifying the genus itself.

Unfortunately, however, Linnaeus mistakenly included in the same genus a
Gerardia purpurea, based on a North American plant which we now realize
belongs to a different family. Then when Bentham had to make a choice, he, for
reasons difficult to understand, discarded the Plumier-Linnaeus interpretation
of the genus Gerardia, and applied this epithet to the North American member
of the Scrophulariaceae which Linnaeus had added by mistake.

The late Dr. John K. Small, who believed that nomenclatorial rules should
not be allowed to perpetuate gross errors, refused to accept this procedure on the
part of Bentham and his followers and in his Manual of the Southeastern Flora
returned to the original Linnaean interpretation of Gerardia as a tropical member
of the Acanthaceae.

On the other hand, two English workers, Hitchcock and Green, in the course
of selecting what they considered “ Standard species for Linnaean genera ” re-
affirmed Bentham’s erroneous viewpoint, and made Gerardia purpurea typify
the genus.

In Dr. Pennell’s earlier writings on this series of plants, he was impressed by
the insight shown as to their relationships by that erratic genius Rafinesque.
The latter had clearly distinguished a group with narrow leaves and purple
flowers as the genus Agalinis, and one with broader leaves and yellow flowers
as Aureolaria, and these were treated as distinct genera in Pennell’s thesis on
Agalinis and Allies in North America, published in the Proceedings of the
Academy of Natural Sciences in 1928 and 1929. In preparing the manuscript
of his Monograph, Scrophulariaceae of Eastern Temperate North America, he
naturally retained these genera; but feeling that the dicta of Hitchcock and
Green should be accepted, he changed the name of Agalinis back to Gerardia,
though recording that he did so “ under protest ”’.

Dr. Pennell’s careful study of evolution in relation to geography in this series
had shown convincingly that the purple-flowered “American Foxgloves ” origi-
nated far down in South America, and migrated into our eastern seaboard region
by way of Mexico. On the other hand the yellow-flowered ones represent an
ancient group of the Appalachian plant refuge. The two are thus not at all

closely related, their general similarity in flower shape being the result of parallel
evolution.

MEMORIAL MEETING FOR DR. FRANCIS W. PENNELL 11

A great disappointment to him was the treatment of these plants in the 8th
edition of Gray’s Manual: Ignoring all the cumulative research of half a century,
Fernald there lumped together these and other more or less unrelated taxa with
the mere statement that he was returning to the generic concept of Bentham and
others. This ultra-reactionary procedure, because of the way in which many
workers turn to “ The Manual ” as authoritative, will seriously delay the work-
ing out of the real inter-relationships in the group. One of the last subjects
I discussed with Dr. Pennell, three days before his death, was whether, in the
Flora of Pennsylvania, which is now in preparation, it might not be possible
to deviate from the Manual treatment. In so far as I have any say in the matter,
his desires will be put into effect—Epcar T. WHERRY.

In closing the meeting, I will remark that the Philadelphia Botanical Club
is extremely grateful to those who have made addresses and read letters this
evening, and I feel sure we will always remember this meeting dedicated to a
very great botanist, whose name will live always.

Mary G. Henry, Vice-President.

Resolution on Dr. Francis W. Pennell

At a meeting of the Philadelphia Botanical Club, held at the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, February 28th, 1952, the following Resolution
was unanimously adopted and ordered to be spread on the minutes, a copy
being duly forwarded to Mrs. Pennell.

RESOLVED, that in view of the death of Dr. Francis W. Pennell on February
3, 1952, the members of this club express their profound sorrow for his loss, and
deep appreciation for his many years of service.

Dr. Pennell first joined the club in 1910, and served as its President from
1942 till the time of his death.

He was Editor of Bartonia since 1924.

Since 1921 he was Curator of Botany at the Academy of Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia.

He travelled extensively in North and South America, collecting material with
especial attention to the Scrophulariaceae, in which group he was considered the
world’s leading authority.

Besides being an eminent scholar in his specialty, we remember Dr. Pennell
for his genial and kindly personality and for his willingness to advise and help
his colleagues in any problems that they brought to his attention. His en-
thusiasm was an inspiration to all.

1909
1910-11
1911
1913

1916

1919-20

Writings of Francis Whittier Pennell

Compitep By VeNntIA T. Puitiips AND JosePpH A. EWAN

fe) Sen
ag ‘inp: yee te barrens ee’ ‘southeastern Pennsylvania. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci
a., v. 62, pp -
A new Gerardia from Nee Jersey. Torreya, v. 11, pp. 15- =
Some records from the Potomac district. Torre ¥a,-V¥o.11, pp. 130-13
Asplenium angustifolium in Louisiana. A n Jour., 5
the fl f the Conowingo or Serpentine barrens of southeastern

ania. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 64, 1912-13, pp. 520-539
Studies ; in the Agalinanae, a subtribe of the Rhinanthaceae. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club,
vol. 40, PP. 119-130, 401-439.
communis, Asiatic day-flower. Addisonia, v. 1, no. 2, pp. 39-40, col. pl.
Dasystephana porphyrio, pine-barren gentian. Addisonia, v. 1, no. 4, pp. 69- 70, col. pl.
nine on plants of the southern United States—I. Bull. Torrey Bot. Clu b, v. 43

Noses B Plants of the southern United States—II. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, v. 43,

a % yn a at trip to the central Rocky Mountain region. Jour. New York
ard

Notes on plants of the southerd United States—III. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, v. 44,
pp. 337-362.

A peo expedition to Colombia. Jour. New York Bot. Garden, v. 19, pp. 117-
382

Coceessiens of names a Colombian plants. ond New York Bot. Garden, v. 19, p. 319.
The flower of Agalinis—a correction. Rhodora, v. 20, pp. 199-
Notes on plants of is southern United States IV. "Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, v. 45,
pp. sgh
ea for Aureo laria, Rhodora, v. 20, pp. 133-137.
Symphoricarpos Symphoric ricarpos. Coral-berry ry. Addisonia, v. 3, no. 4, pp. 61-62, col. pl.
rie tomsncioe us of the speien ot Kneiffia, pets the barmbiaion of a new allied
3,

us.
Concerning duplicate Ah Torreya, v. 19, pp. 13-14.
Eysenhardtia. North American Flora, v. 24, pp. 34-40.
Fagelia diversifolia, Cut-leaved slipperwort. frien v. 4, no. 4, pp. 73-74, col. pl.
Notes on ag of the southern United States—V. Bull. Torrey Bot. Clu b, v . 46,
pp. 183-18
cent calycosus. Long-sepaled beard-tongue. Addisonia, v. 4, no. 2, pp. 31-32,
1.

- BD
Penstemon ten ares fark Slender-flowered white beard-tongue. Addisonia, v. 4, no. 4,
pp. 79-
Some books pad Colombia, Jour. New York Bot. Garden, v. 20, pp. 7-10.
Some remarks imosella. Torreya, v. 19, pp.
Scrophulariaceae of the local flora, I-V. Torreya, v. 19, pp. 107-119, 143-152, 161-171,
205-216, 235-242.

Scro; phulariaceae of Colombia—I. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 72, pp. 136-188.
Ser ariaceae of the oe Rocky Mountain states. Contr. U. S. Nat. Herbarium,
v. 20, pp. 313- we Vii-vi : :
Scrophulariaceae of the kat TEES United States. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila.,

v. 71, pp. 22:
Soil preferences of ‘Scrophulariaceae. Torreya, v. 20, pp. 10- Abc: 4
enstemon secundifiorus. Lavender-pink beard-tongue. Addisonia, v. 5, no. 4,
1.

: -p
“Unrecorded” genera of Rafinesque—I. Autikon botanikon (1840). Bull. Torrey

Bot. Club, v. 48, pp. 89-96.
“Veronica” in North and South America. Rhodora, v. 23, pp. 1-22, 29-41.

12

|

1932

|

1933

WRITINGS OF FRANCIS WHITTIER PENNELL 13

apg ae i of the west Gulf States. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 73, 1921,

pp

Some overlooked Scrophulariaceae of Rafinesque. Torreya, v. 22, pp. 77-84.

Plant nomenclature. Jour. Bot v. 60, pp. 112-118.

Scrophulariaceae of Cuba. rosa he ad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 75, pp.

ae a ek. expedition to Colombia. Bull. Pan Amer. Union, Sept. 1923,
pp. Ki

ae the Andes of western Colombia. Annual Rept. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1922,

Nee bic paint botanica a Colombia. Boletin Unién Panamericana, June, 1924,
pp. 545-556, 8 figs

The pollination of a tidewater so ue opm Bartonia, no. 8, pp.

The Beans Afzeha: a — nomic study in evolution. Proc, Acad. Re “Sch Phila.,

T.94, 335-373, 10 fi

The genus Allophyton of southern Mexico and Guatemala. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci.

Phila., v. 77, pp. 269- ene

Allophyton mexicanum; purple Allophyton. Addisonia, v. 11, tin. vi ‘pp. 13-14, col. pl.

Botanical travel in Peru and Chile. Yearbook Acad. "Nat. Sci. Phila., 1925, pp. 5-18,
4 figs. (published verbatim, with 1 extra fig. in Bull. Pan Amer. Gana. 1926,
pp. 1226-1239).

The ed ae plant-collection and the mystery of his Floras. Bartonia, no.
9, 1925-26, 17-

aera aa i fol Rough- stemmed Agalinis. Addisonia, v. 12, no. 3, pp. 47-48,

col.

Through the Andes of toning Colombia. Jour. N. Y. B =) Gard., v. 28, pp. 186-189.

Maszus japonicus. Oriental Mazus. Addisonia, v. 12, no. 2, pp. 25- 26, col. pl.

Agalinis and allies in hoe th America—I. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 80, pp.
339-449. 17 maps, charts

Notes on 5S pp. sg a8 of. the northwestern United States. Bull. Torrey Bot.

lub, v. 55, pp. 315-

Agalinis and allies in North America—II. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 81, pp.
111-249. Maps 18-52, charts C-F.

Charles D. Lippincott. facaoas, no. 10, 1927-2 53. :

The genus Chelone of eastern yt rth America Colt E. T. Wherry). Bartonia, no.

c 3 -
John William Harshberger. Bartonia, no. 11, pp. 51-55.
dya from Arizona. Jour. Wa sh. Acad. Sci., v. 19, pp. 69-71.
Genotypes of the Scrophulariaceae in the first edition of Linné’s “ pasion plantarum”.
cad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. p. 9-26.

n some critical species of the serpentine waa oe no. 12, 1929-30, pp. 1-23.
Aureolaria Rafin. anzenareale, ser. , p. 9, maps 7-

otanical results of the T vigr- Dickie soe ok Bapdolsulariancae, Bull. Torrey Bot.

Club, v. 58, p. ; :
Escobedia—a neotropical genus of the Scrophulariaceae. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila.,
Hes oe see rae ant 12, 1930, 54-55.

ng. artonia, no. pp.

Minas ringens. Violet monkey-flowe r. Addisoni nia, v. 16, no. 2, pp. a 32, col. pl.
The botanical interest of Dr. Henry etic Bartonia no. 13, 1931, p. 53- 54.
Gift of Schweinitz record-books. Bartonia, no. 13, 1931, sing
* sey ie gan ” in eastern North America. Bartonia, no. 13, 1931, pp. 7-17,

,

Some islated scoters bicabe to my revision of Veronica in America. Rhodora, v. 34,
151,

Wittiara Trimble (1847-1932). Bartonia, no. 14, pp. 53-54. :
eens oe ae a sedge peculiar to the serpentine barrens. Bartonia,

no. ’ P- . J . . .
Polygala verticillata alee ‘the problem of typifying Linnean species. Bartonia, no. 15,
A penilon of Synthyris and Besseya. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 85, pp. 77-106,

2 maps.

BARTONIA

Castilleja in Alaska pe northwestern Canada. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 86,
pp. 51 1 fig., aps.
Hay field study can modify older taxonomic concepts. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, v. 61,

A goes on ‘the, Geeebagon of Synthyris schizantha. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila.,
v. 86 5

Scrophulariaceae of the en United States—II. Pedicularis of the group
Bracteosae. Bull. Torrey Bot. ov . 441-448.

The Scrophulariaceae of eastern temperate North America. Monograph Acad. Nat.
ci. Phila. no. 1, 650 pp., ont figs., 155 maps.
Botanical results of the Archbold ae-giooe ipa 7, New and noteworthy Papuan
i ittoni 177-1

Elias Durand and his association with the Academy of Natural Sciences of Phila-
delphia. Bartonia, no. 17, 1 9. ‘
Manual of the s outheastern Pi (A review of J. K. Small’s 1933 work). Bartonia,

no.
Leahy nied senile collections of Thomas Nuttall. Bartonia, no. 18, pp. 1-51, 5 pls.

Indices ‘of sakes, places and railroad routes of Mexico. Pehla to Helen Burns
Davis’ Life and work of Cyrus Guernsey Pringle), 14 NP: ;
A caylee ane ena aen ia Mount Rainier (with G. N. Jones). Proc. Biol. Soc.

A cece Species "ot Syuthyris from Idaho (with F. W. Gail). Amer. Jour. Bot., v. 24,

Castilleja i e the Charleston Mountains, Nevada. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 89,
1937, PP. 419-424,
“Commelina communis” in the eastern United States. Bartonia, no. 19, 1937,

Pp.
Correcied : as to the altitudinal occurrence of Buchnera. Brittonia, v. 3, p. 95.
An English obituary account of Thomas Nuttall. ee no. 19, 1937, Ln ae 53,
A new club-flower from Nevada. Proc. Acad. Nat. 90, p
Taxonomy and distribution of Aragoa, and its bearing oe n the geological saad - the
northern Andes. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 89, 1937, pp. 425-432, 1 fig., 1 map.
What is Commelina communis? Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. v. 90, pp. 31-39, pl. 8.

— aceae. II. Jour. Arnold Arbor., v. 20, pp.
new Veronica from New Guinea. Not. Nat. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil Ue. no. 23, 20
On the a of Linnean species as illustrated by Poisons verticillata. hinswen.

pp.
Arthur N. Leeds. eo. no. 20, 1938-39, pp. 30-32,
The botanical work of ae r Stone. hoor no. 20, 1038-39, pp. 33-37.

New light on Rafinesq Chr ron. Bot., v. 6, pp. 125- 126. :
New species ioe Srtaniesis moons from Arizona. Not. Nat. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila.,
no. ‘
— ar fans be of Scrophulariaceae from Guiana. Not. Nat. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila.,

The ‘function of flowers. Frontiers, v. 5, pp. 116-119, 3 figs.

New Scrophulariaceae ne rh ae n—I. Mimulus and Penstemon. Not. Nat. Acad.
Nat. Sci. Phila., no. 71,

—— of en Texas. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 92, 1940,

pp.
Benjamin Smith Barton as naturalist. Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., v. 84, pp. 108-1
Botanical collectors of the Philadelphia local area. Bartonia, no. 21, 1940- rt pp.

-57, 64.
The aif and work of Rafinesque. Transylvania Coll. Bull., v. 15, no. 7, pp. 10-70,

New ge eee a from Oregon—II. Castilleja. Not. Nat. Acad. Nat. Sci.
Phila., no. 74, 11

Some new Scrop hulariaceae from Montana and ances Idaho and Wyoming. Not.
Nat. Acad: Nat: Sei Phila., no. 95, 11 pp., 2 figs

1943

1952

WRITINGS OF FRANCIS WHITTIER PENNELL 15

Botanical collectors of the Philadelphia local area (Concluded). Bartonia, no. 22,
1942-43, 10-31, 66.

The era of the western Himalayas. Monograph Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila.,
no. pp

A second summary re bn Scrophulariaceae of New Guinea. Jour. Arnold Arbor.,
v. 24, pp. 243- tes

To the Paramo d Ag eat Amer. Fern ‘pea v. 33, pp. 81-96, 1

Concerning “ Pied otypes”. Science, v. 99, n 0. 2573, pp. 320-321.

Critical index, with explanatory ae ae Ito} Py life of travels, by C. S. Rafinesque.
Chronica botanica, v. 8, no. 2,
he en eee in pee ir Peru. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 97,
pp ei

Historical ats ( - Frans Verdoorn’s Plants and plant science in Latin America,

p. Dp

acquired Rafinesque’s herbarium. Bartonia, no. 23, 1944-45, pp. 43-46.
acc eration of the a en problem of the Scrophulariaceae. Proc.
Sci. Phila., v. 98, p
ene = S ae ia ree a eae (Serophlariaene) Ps the coast of Ecuador and
no: . Not. Nat. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila.
A a, of plants = "Yakutat, phi (with Leslie D. Stair). Bartonia, no.
1s

A naturalist in the making {Review of Lady Nora Barlow’s two books Charles
rwin’s diary of the tet Map of H.M.S. Be wie and Charles Darwin and the voyage
. the Beagle]. Frontiers, v. 12, no. 1, pp.
Otway H. Brown (with W. M. Benn er). Barton nia, no. 24, 1946, pp. 80-81.
Sone hitherto undescribed Scrophulariaceae of the Pacific States. Proc. Acad. Nat.
i. Phila. v. 99, pp. 155-199,
Quaker botanists. Bull. Friends’ Hist. Assoc., v. 37, pp. 3-13, 63-82.
The eg significance. of an understanding of floral a Brittonia, v. 6,
301-
The last sickness of Rafinesque. ag no. 25, pp. 67-68.
oward a simple and clear nomenclatu mer. Jour. Bot aes Pp. 19-22
Castilleja nivea, snowy Indian paint- tc Fe ie at species from
e northern Rocky Mountains (with Marion Ownbey). Not. "Nat. Acad. Nat.
Sci. Phila., no. 227, 3 pp.
Cordylanthus capillaris, a new Bird sheet (Scrophulariaceae) from California. Not.
t. Aca i. Phila., no. 223, 2
Historical seid pete ior “se a the American Philosophical Society and the
ig a ha Sciences of Philadelphia. Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., v. 94, 1949,

». 137-15
The Pee of Seanslorela Chodat. Li a v. 23, pp. 61-62. :
The genus Calceolaria in Ecuador, ae a and Venezuela. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci.

Phila., v. 103, pp. 85-196, pl. L 6-7 34 fi

A new Indian paint-brush from the , Mogoiton Plateau of Se yey (Castilleja: Scro-
phulariaceae). Not. Nat. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., no.

A new velvety oekey -flower from California ae \Eccrabulotaneee. Not.

Scrophulariaceae Sage Penstemon and Orthoc ey. erm Leroy Abrams’ Illus-
trated flora of the Pacific States, Waskinetce, Oregon and California, v. 3, pp.
686-733, 770-810, 819-859, figs. 451 6-4637, 4 4729-4822. )

Studies of plants, especia ally se the family of Scrophulariaceae. (Report on grants
from funds administered by the Amer. Phil. Soc.) 1934-1949. Yearbook Amer.
Phil. Soc., 1950, pp. 176-180.

The united-leave d ’Calceolarias of the saie > ge er middle Andes (Scrophulariaceae).
Not. cad. Nat. Sci. Phila., no. 236,

The genus yc (Srophulariaceae) of Se oe South America. Not. Nat. Acad.
Nat. Sci. Phila., no. 244, 4 p:

Francis Whittier Pennell

Francis Whittier Pennell, President of the Philadelphia Botanical Club, died
of a heart attack while talking to a group of persons, in the Friends Meeting
House, at Media, Pennsylvania, Sunday, February 3rd, 1952. He had been in
poor health for several weeks but his death came unexpectedly, as he had been
at his desk in the Academy of Natural Sciences as late as February 1st. His
home was at Moylan, near Media and he is survived by his wife, Anne W., a son
Francis C. and by several brothers and sisters.

Dr. Pennell was born August 4th, 1886, on a farm near Wawa, Delaware
County. He was educated at Friends Westtown School, in Chester County and
at the University of Pennsylvania, where he received his bachelor’s degree in
1911 and his doctorate in 1913.

At an early age Dr. Pennell showed an interest in Nature and it was through
Dr. William Trimble of Concordville, Chester County, that he was made ac-
quainted with the native flora of that region.

In 1905 and 1906 he was a student assistant in the Herbarium of the Academy
of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. In 1908 and 1909 he became interested in
the Serpentine Barrens of Delaware and Chester Counties, making extensive
collections which helped to form a basis for a paper “ The Flora of the Serpentine
Barrens ”, published in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences
for 1910 and 1912.

While attending the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Pennell came under the
influence of the late Dr. John M. Macfarlane, then head of the Department of
Botany, who persuaded him to take up Botany as his life work. Dr. Macfarlane
was much enthused over Darwin’s views concerning evolution through natural
selection, especially as applied to the Scrophulariaceae and suggested study of
members of this family as a topic for a doctoral thesis. This led first to a special
study of the “ Gerardia ” group and eventually to his becoming an international
authority on this complex plant family, the Scrophulariaceae.

Dr. Pennell served as associate curator at the New York Botanical Garden
from 1914 to 1921 and since 1921, as Curator of Plants at the Philadelphia
Academy of Natural Sciences.

In later years he kept his interest in the local flora and published studies in
various groups of plants, but gave most attention to the Scrophulariaceae in all
parts of the world. He became so engrossed in this work that at times the very.
thought of also being “ Curator of Plants ”, seemed to be quite annoying to him.
He delegated most of the curatorial work to other members of the staff and to
volunteer workers.

16

OBITUARIES: FRANCIS W. PENNELL, MORRIS E. LEEDS 17

Next to his favorite family of plants his interest was in botanical history.
He possessed a remarkable fund of information on this topic and was especially
well informed on the history of botany in Philadelphia and vicinity. He was a
prolific writer and a bibliography of his writings appears elsewhere in this issue.

Besides numerous botanical expeditions to various parts of the United States,
he visited Mexico in 1934, 1935, 1937, 1938 and 1940; Colombia in 1917-18 and
1922, Peru and Chile in 1924-25 and Peru in 1948. The 1948 trip to the Peruvian
Andes was made just a few months after recuperating from a heart attack. He
spent over four months on this trip and traveled the entire distance to and from
Peru by airplane—his first experience with this type of travel.

Dr. Pennell was quiet, modest and reserved yet easily approached. He had
a very active mind and those who accompanied him in the field were impressed
by his keen observations of phenomena and relationships among plants and not
only those of his chosen family. He was always ready to discuss any botanical
topics and could do so in a most pleasing manner. His willingness to help any
one who showed interest in botany, encouraged a number of beginners in the
subject.

He was a member of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, The Botanical Society of America, The American Society of Plant
Taxonomists, of which he was president in 1942, The Torrey Botanical Club,
The Pennsylvania Botanical Society and Philadelphia Botanical Club since 1910
and has been its president since 1942 also editor of Bartonia since 1924.

His loss is keenly felt by professional botanists and by his many friends.—
Water M. BENNER.

18 BARTONIA

Morris Evans Leeds

Morris Evans Leeds, the last survivor of the group of founders of the Phila-
delphia Botanical Club in 1891, died February 8, 1952, at Lake Wales, Florida.
His home was in Mount Airy, Philadelphia. Surviving are his wife Hadassah
M. and two daughters, Esther Hallett and Mary Maule.

Mr. Leeds was born in Philadelphia, March 6, 1869. He attended Westtown
School, Chester County and Haverford College where he received his Bachelor
of Science degree in 1888. From 1888 to 1890 he taught at Westtown School.
It was during this early period that he was most active in the pursuit of botany,
although he retained his membership in the Philadelphia Botanical Club until
his death.

In 1892-93 Mr. Leeds attended two semesters at the University of Berlin.
His interests shifted to engineering and eventually to manufacturing and he was
founder of the Leeds and Northrop Company, Philadelphia, manufacturers of
electrical instruments, serving as president from 1903 to 1939 and as chairman
of the board since 1939.

Mr. Leeds was awarded the Edison Medal of the American Institute of Elec-
trical Engineers in 1949 for his development and production of precision measur-
ing instruments and controls. Other awards were the Edward Longstreth Medal
of Merit of the Franklin Institute, the Henry Lawrence Gantt Medal of the
Institute of Management and the Medal of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. In 1936 the Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute conferred on him the
honorary degree of Doctor of Engineering.

Mr. Leeds was also actively interested in civic affairs having served as a
member of the Philadelphia Board of Education from 1931 to 1950 and as its
president from 1938 to 1948. He was an authority on industrial relations and
served with the Business Advisory Council of the Department of Commerce from
1933 to 1939. He also served on President Roosevelt’s Committee on Economic
Security—Wa.tter M. BENNER.

The Pine Barrens of New Jersey *
INTRODUCTION

JoHN A. SMALL
New Jersey College for Women, Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey

This symposium was arranged through the cooperation of Section G of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Ecological Society
of America. It appropriately deals with the Pine Barrens because they are near-
by, the Philadelphia Botanical Club has studied them for years, and there is to
be a field trip to see them on December 30.

The Pine Barrens represent a large area, some 2,000 square miles, on the
coastal plain of southern New Jersey. Here will be found dry, rapidly drained
sand and, at the other extreme, bogs and meadows. It is after all a misnomer
to call the area Pine Barrens. It includes thousands of acres of pines, but it is
not really barren. Rarely will a place be found where the canopy is not closed.
There is an abundance of ground plant species, though their density may be
low. Besides pine, the canopy in some places consists of oaks, and in still other
places, along the streams, it consists of southern white cedar. There is a con-
siderable variety in the soils, though sand will always be in sight.

The Pine Barrens has long been a favorite study area for classes and re-
search workers among botanists and other scientists. The University of Penn-
sylvania, Princeton, and Rutgers classes visit the pine barrens regularly. One
of our panel members is from Yale, another is from Butler University, indicating
that in some respects the pine barrens may be better known outside of the State
than they are by our residents.

The Pine Barrens are at something of a crossroads. They have been on the
main stream of eastern seaboard commerce since Colonial times. Ship build-
ing, charcoaling, the bog iron industry, sphagnum gathering, cranberry culture,
and most recently blueberry plantations, have competed with real estate de-
velopments, recreation, water reserves, forestry, and various other agricultural
attempts. Not all of these uses are mutually compatible and it is of the utmost
importance that, with the imminence of expanding industrial and residential
activity, long-range planning for the area be considered.

It is not expected that final solutions will be reached today or that any
resolutions will be drawn up. Our panel is made up of authorities in their re-
spective fields. It is our hope that these papers, not all of which are in agree-
ment, will stimulate careful thought and long range planning for the best use
or uses of this area.

* Symposium presented during the 118th meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, the Philadelphia Municipal Auditorium, December 29, 1951.

19

20 BARTONIA

What Can be Inferred from Pollen Profiles of Bogs in the

New Jersey Pine Barrens

J. E. Porzcrer

Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana

In 1944 the writer (8) made a study of eight bogs in the Pine Barren region
of New Jersey and was surprised at the total lack of a successional trend in the
forest history. All bogs rather suggested from the very beginning a highly
mixed forest cover in which northern conifers were associated in a minor way
with southern broad-leaved genera. The more the pollen profiles were studied
critically the more the conclusion seemed justified that unglaciated New Jersey
was during Wisconsin times a refugium for southern broad-leaved trees, with
intrusions of the association by such boreal genera as spruce and fir.

The peat examined for the 1944 study was collected by WPA workers under
the direction of Dr. 8. A. Waksman. The material always gave every evidence
of careful collection, free of any contamination. To Dr. Waksman the writer
is also indebted for the core from Tuckerton Tidal Marsh.

During August of 1951 a special trip-was made to the Pine Barrens to get
first-hand impressions, to become familiar with the peat deposits of southern
New Jersey, especially with respect to the basins where the peat had accumu-
lated, and to collect personally some additional cores. The aim was to select
bogs which would geographically represent a transect from the Cape May region
to the terminal moraine north of New Brunswick. It was hoped that such plan
would assure discovery of possible patterns of forest associations, but specifically
would show where typical climatic succession made its appearance in southern
New Jersey.

The writer and his assistant, Robert G. Lipscomb, express their gratitude
to the following persons: Dr. John A. Small and Dr. M. F. Buell for hospitality
extended and for personally conducted field trips to suitable locations; to Mr.
Silas Little of the Lebanon State Forest for valuable information on the Pine
Barrens and for permission to make our headquarters at his office; to various
members of the Botany Department of Rutgers University for information and
assistance. For figure 1 we thank Mrs. Margaret Esther Potzger.

Concepts oF CENTERS OF Post-GLACIAL PLANT DISTRIBUTION

During the time antedating that of work in pollen analysis, relic communities
and philosophic interpretations formed the bases upon which plant migrations
and centers of distribution were interpreted. Outstanding contributions during
this period were papers by Adams (1), Gleason (2), Transeau (11) and Harsh-
berger (5). The last gave special consideration to plant migration in New
Jersey. These philosophies favored in general one large distributional center

* This is publication 252 of the Botanical Laboratory of Butler University.

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY 21

in the southern Appalachians, from which the individual tree species, or asso-
ciations of species, fanned out north and northwestward. From numerous pollen
studies which yield concrete evidence of both qualitative and quantitative
nature we have learned about other refugia, nearer to the margin of the ice,
where southern species persisted during the occupation of areas in northern
latitudes by the ice cap. The study of pollen records in peat from the Pine
Barrens in 1944 led to the conclusion that this region was such a center of
distribution from which, perhaps, the forests to the north and northeast origi-
nated. Never before had the writer found such great contrasts in the history
of forests within short geographical distances, as those encountered in un-
glaciated and lower glaciated New Jersey. However, one does not always have
the good fortune to find satisfactory peat deposits in unglaciated border areas
as in New Jersey.

GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS

From the geological reports of Salisbury (10) and of Kiimmel (6), as well
as from the publications of Antevs (2), one can get a faint picture of the com-
plexity of topography of New Jersey, especially of the southern part of the
state, with which this paper is chiefly concerned. In the present study one
of the most significant problems deals with the age of the peat, i.e. whether
these sediments are of glacial or post-glacial dates. Waksman et al. (12),
quoting Shaler and Johnson, estimated the time that certain salt marshes of
New Jersey required to develop as 2,000 to 2,300 years. On basis of age of
peat at the 8-foot level of a bog in Minnesota, and of peat from an Indiana bog,
determined by Libby (7) with radiocarbon dating, this estimate seems much
too low. In Minnesota nearly 750 years were required for accumulation of
one foot of peat.

Another perplexing question is whether fresh water sediments were covered
by salt water (Tuckerton Tidal Marsh) because of raising of the ocean level
or because of sinking of the shoreline. Antevs (2) favors the former concept.
In his estimation sufficient water had been removed from the oceans to have sea
level lowered about 300 feet. He says, “ New Jersey probably extended some
80 miles beyond the modern coast line . . . “the transgression leading to the
modern state of affairs no doubt was essentially brought about by the rise of
the sea level as the last ice sheets melted and the water was restored to the
oceans .. . “the existing relation of land and sea was at least nearly attained
6,000 to 3,000 years ago.”

DESCRIPTIONS OF THE Bocs

The Bidwell Tidal Marsh is perhaps a half mile wide where highway 49
crosses the small Dias Creek. It is typical of the brackish river valleys so
common along the New Jersey coastal region. Sedges and grasses constitute
the vegetation to-day, and the main creek channel is broken up in an anasto-

23 BARTONIA

mosing series of channels of open water. The boring was made about 200 feet
west of the highway, about 1,000 feet north of the creek.

The North Branch Bog is a densely wooded valley of the north branch of
Mount Misery River. Boring was made about 1,000 feet west of the road in
the Lebanon State Forest.

Tuckerton Tidal Marsh is a vast expanse of brackish sedge-grass marsh.
Fresh water peat is overlain with marine sediments. Peat totalled 19 feet,
and a foot of sand was included in the core.

Helmetta Bog is located near the village of that name. It has all appear-
ances of having developed from a shallow lake. To-day it is covered by a
quaking mat with a dense growth of Sphagnum. Chamaedaphne and other
shrubs are well established on the mat. Boring was made in the deepest place,
determined by numerous trial borings. This proved to lie close to the center
of the bog. It was the only bog studied where green-sand constituted the bottom
layers. Two feet of the sand were included in the core, and boring was dis-
continued when the borer struck gravel mixed with sand.

Ash Swamp lies just within the terminal moraine, about 15 miles north of
New Brunswick, near Plainfield. It is at present covered by dense deciduous
forest. The peat has an extremely dark color, and it is composed chiefly of
leaves of mosses, with no evidence of having ever had a Sphagnum mat.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PEAT DEPOSITS

To the worker in pollen studies of eastern North American the bogs of
southern New Jersey are at first bewildering, especially to one who has built up
the concept that the ideal bog, free of post-shedding transport of pollens, is
the kettle-type depression of limited area. Such “ideal” bogs are not found
in the Pine Barrens, nor in southern New Jersey in general. The one at Helmetta
may be an exception. In this region peat accumulated chiefly in fresh water
of river valleys, or in submerged valleys now covered by brackish water, where
fresh water sediments are overlain by marine deposits. The Tuckerton Tidal
Marsh and the Bidwell Tidal Marsh are of this type. It is very striking that
the small streams of the Pine Barrens have extremely wide valleys. The ac-
cumulation of peat, frequently four to five feet in depth, must mark a decline
in volume of water in these valleys. Naturally, one wonders when this took place.

To-day many of the peat-filled valleys have a dense cover of southern white
cedar (Chamaecyparis), but the pollen of this tree apparently does not preserve
in peat. Such an omission in a pollen profile is very much regretted. Occasional
layers of charcoal overlying the sandy bottom seem to indicate that fire played
a part in the forest history even in primeval times. It would make interpre-
tation of pollen records less difficult if we knew the physiographic recent past
of the valleys in southern New Jersey.

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY 23

MeETHOps

A Hiller-type borer was used to take the samples. Small amounts of the
sediment were placed into 4-dm vials, which were then labelled and closed with
a stopper. Each sample represents not more than about one-inch in depth at a
given foot-level. In the laboratory a portion of the peat was placed into a small
vial and boiled in KOH. The sample was washed six times, allowing for
complete settling after each washing. At the close of washing, alcohol was
substituted for water and one per cent gentian violet was added as stain.
Mounts were made in glycerine jelly. While 150 to 200 pollen grains were
counted for most foot-levels, when pollen was very sparse, so that even after
settling out from an agitated solution only one or two pollen grains were found
on a slide, smaller numbers of grains were counted. This was the case at
the following places: Ash Swamp: 214’ (75), 7’ 8” (50), 7’ 10” (50). Bidwell:
6’ (90), 634’ (40).

Tuckerton Tidal Marsh is considered typical of Pine Barren pollen profiles,
since the forest history here is almost identical with that recorded in the bogs
within the present-day Pine Barrens. This bog must have existed during all
or most of the Wisconsin times, to account for its great thickness of freshwater
peat covered by marine sediments.

All pollens of birch were measured and those at least 28 microns across the
widest point, rounded in outline, were recorded as Betula lutea. Betula papyri-
fera may measure 28 microns but the outline of the grain is strikingly triangular.
Betula pumila, B. populifolia, and glandulosa have rounded grains but are less
than 28 microns in diameter.

RESULTS

The records from the five bogs studied as a transect of southern New Jersey
are so near the anticipated outcome as to be difficult to believe. It was assumed
that if the Pine Barrens and adjacent southern New Jersey constituted a
refugium during Wisconsin times, a mixture of boreal and southern broad-leaved
genera should characterize the vegetation of this area. As one proceeded north-
ward and approached the terminal moraine spruce and fir should become more
prominent in lower levels; a poorly defined climatie succession should make its
appearance, and at the terminal moraine typical succession from spruce-fir,
to pine, to broad-leaved forest (chiefly oak) should be encountered. This has
previously been reported by Potzger and Otto (9) for northern New Jersey.
Figure 1 shows how well reality approximates the hypothesis. Fir, spruce, both
black and white, are recorded to the southernmost tip of New Jersey, and asso-
ciated with them are southern broad-leaved genera, of which Liquidambar,
Castanea and Carya should perhaps be named specifically.

Oak and pine are the dominant genera. Changes in species of pine are
indicated as one proceeds from lower to upper levels. The extremely small
pollen grains have all appearances as being those of Pinus banksiana, but no
way was discovered by which an absolute separation of the various species could

24 ; BARTONIA

be made. Overlapping in size of grain, especially between P. banksiana and
P. virginiana, would make a distinction between these subject to considerable
possibility of error. The high peak of birch at the 17-foot level of the Tucker-
ton Tidal Marsh and the charcoal overlying the bottom layer of sand in the
North Branch Bog point to a series of fires or to one large regional fire.

Succession in the strict sense of the term is wanting, but the two lowermost
foot-levels in the Tuckerton Tidal Marsh (Fig. 1) indicate a southern type of
forest cover followed by intrusions of a few boreal genera, thus hinting at a
deteriorating climate. The Helmetta Bog (Fig. 1) records no southern broad-
leaved genera in the lower levels. The initial forest is an association of coni-
fers, and broad-leaved genera enter later as climatic succession occurred. Spruce
does not exceed 20 per cent but pine was extremely prominent while the lower-
most foot-levels were being deposited. About 15 miles northward, just within
the terminal moraine near Plainfield, succession proceeds beautifully from an
initial spruce-fir-pine association to pine, to broad-leaved genera, chiefly oak
associated with hemlock and hickory.

A very unusual feature in the Tuckerton Marsh is the abundance of fern
sporangia and spores of Dryopteris and Osmunda at the 17-foot level, and the
abundance of grass pollens at nearly all foot-levels. Quite abundant also were
Ilex, Corylus, and Alnus in the five lowermost levels. All but Alnus were absent
in the upper three-fourths of the marsh profile. Pollen of Ilex and spores of
Sphagnum were the most abundant non-tree microfossils at the North Branch Bog.

DiIscussION

The geologic history of southern New Jersey is still not definitely under-
stood, but the various views seem to agree at least on the assumption that the
southern part of the state was not submerged, or at least not entirely, during
Pleistocene times. In the present study the major problem concerns itself with
at least some land above sea-level during Wisconsin time. That this assumption
is correct may also be inferred from the uninterrupted pollen profiles in the
20-foot deep Tuckerton Tidal Marsh. All other bogs studied are shallow, but
even in these we have no indication that a part of the vegetational history is
omitted because of truncated lower portions of the profiles (Fig. 1). The deep
Tuckerton Tidal Marsh records essentially the same forest history as the bogs
of the Pine Barrens studied at this time and those considered in 1944. It is, of
course, not easy to detect truncation because the vegetation lacked typical suc-
cessional trends, but is very uniform from bottom to top. For that reason the
Tuckerton Tidal Marsh was designated as type.

In southern New Jersey the forest appears to have been of a decided mixed
type in which conifers and deciduous species, representing both boreal (in low
percentage representation) and southern tree genera participated in the forest
complex. Picea glauca, P. mariana, Abies and Tsuga are no longer extant in the
Pine Barrens, but their former range encompassed all of the southern section

uMoUyun
X1J0]
Bilt
snuiif)
ot hal
essky
snjndog
suzignp
‘ynb1y
snuixedy
sapey
1994
won
‘Aded
Bin}aq
vourjsy?)
ehies

snI4anh

eons]

‘dds
snuld

BuelJe wd

vonels
varld

solqy

il

t.. lei.
Un S-lsel-lels

StH SR

Ash dwamp

ll

Helmetta Bog

North Branch
Bog

i

~~ Tuckerton
lidal Marsh

tually:

so

op co mi 08 # Co

a
a
s
2
cee
a
°o 1

10 © © 20 30 40 50 9 10 O 10 20 30 40 $0 60 10 0 10 Oo 10 20 3040500100 002029000 0M 010700000 08

Denncun «= ©
&
a\t

; e's
ano

*

Bidwell
Tidal Marsh

¥
”

Percentaées
Pollen Profiles from the Pine Barrens of Southern New Jersey.

Ficure 1.

26 BARTONIA

of New Jersey. One should, however, point out that spruce and fir are repre-
sented in all bogs, and in some of them persist to the topmost foot of peat. This
suggests their very recent disappearance in southern New Jersey. A question
which always troubles the interpreter deals with the cause of the wide river
valleys, decline of water in streams, and subsequent deposition of peat. It is a
troublesome question because it poses the second question whether the peat is
actually of Wisconsin time origin. In this maze of unsolved physiographic
history one involuntarily turns to the Tuckerton Tidal Marsh with its 20 feet
of sediments. If submergence of the coastal area was of post-Wisconsin date,
as assumed by Antevs (2), then the southern New Jersey coastal plain must
have been above sea level, and must have had a forest vegetation, otherwise the
Tuckerton Marsh could not have fresh water sediments with pollen content
representative of a mixed coniferous-deciduous forest complex.

It is very difficult to correlate the profiles from the Pine Barrens and New
Jersey coastal plain with Deevey’s (3) climatic and vegetational cycles for
Connecticut. This would be expected since we cannot find much similarity
between the vegetational history of southern New Jersey and that near the
terminal moraine. There is, however, some similarity between the Helmetta
profile and those of Connecticut. At Helmetta the spruce-fir period is some-
what submerged by high pine and some oak, and Deevey’s oak-chestnut is
represented by pine-oak-chestnut at the Helmetta Bog. At the Ash Swamp
correlation with the Connecticut profiles is very good except at the closing period,
which at the Ash Swamp is pine-oak-hemlock, resembling somewhat the closing
eycle in a New York location quoted by Deevey (3) or a combination of his
inland and coastal Connecticut successions. In reality, his initial spruce-fir is
similar to that at Helmetta and Ash Swamp, i.e. a pine-spruce-fir association.
In support of this interpretation we quote his QN-1; L-2; L-14; L-9; L-10;
T-1; JPK-3 profiles.

We know too well from field studies of present day forests that the micro-
climate of physiography may easily modify macroclimate to a degree that will
result in new combinations of pre- and post-climax species, in which the climatic
control may still be obvious or, on the other hand, be very much submerged.
We have a good example of this latter relation in the vegetation of the Pine
Barrens of to-day.

SUMMARY

1. The paper presents results of a pollen analysis of five bogs representing
geographically a line from the Cape May region to the terminal moraine near
Plainfield, New Jersey.

2. In the Pine Barrens and adjacent southern New Jersey areas the forest
history indicates very little change during the centuries that pollen records ac-
cumulated in peat. It was rather more or less uniform or static during the entire
time. It wasa mixed forest in which pine and oak played the most prominent role.

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY 27

3. Associated with oak and pine were such boreal species as fir, black and
white spruce. The second minor element in the association complex were south-
ern broad-leaved genera, i.e. Acer, Nyssa, Liquidambar, Castanea, Tilia, Carya,
and Juglans.

4. Fluctuations in forest type are small and this suggests little change in
climate while sediments accumulated.

5. Presence of spruce, fir and hemlock to topmost foot-levels points to a
rather recent elimination of these genera on the Pine Barrens and coastal plain
of New Jersey.

6. A definite initial spruce-fir forest cover with succession to broad-leaved
genera is shown south of New Brunswick at the Helmetta Bog, and is expressed
typically in the Ash Swamp Bog within the terminal moraine.

7. The 20-foot deep Tuckerton Tidal Marsh records essentially the same
uniform forest conditions as the shallow bogs of the Pine Barrens proper. Since
freshwater peat is here overlain by marine sediments it must include in the
record the forest history during Wisconsin as well as during post-Wisconsin
times while the coastal areas of New Jersey were being submerged by marine
invasion. This tidal marsh, therefore, is considered a reliable type with which
to compare forest history in the more shallow bogs in the Pine Barrens.

8. Results of the present study add additional credence to the conclusion
reached in 1944 that the Pine Barrens and southern New Jersey in general con-
stituted a refugium during Wisconsin times for southern broad-leaved trees.
From this distributional center waves of migration of climatically controlled
forest types, beginning with the boreal spruce-fir forest, fanned out north an
northeastward.

LITERATURE CITED

—
.

— C. C. Postglacial origin and migration of the life of northeastern United States.
r. Geogr. 1: 352-357... 1

serv ii pee Development, y San ae
aede Willa rd F. Radiocarbon Dating. The Uni v. Chicago Press. 1952.
Potzger, J. E. The Pine Barrens of New Jersey, ‘a refu ugium during Pleistocene times.
Butler paeg Bot. Stud. 7: 182-196. 194
9, ——____ ame: . Post- deel forest succession in northern New Jersey
s shown wage pollen records from five bogs. Am. Jour. Bot. 30: 83-87. 1943.
10. Siliamany. Rollin D. Geological Survey of ga Jersey. Vol. 5, Glacial Geology. 1902.
A n the st distribution and ecologi sig a of the bog plant
societies of por Sha North America. Bot. Gaz. 36 ): -420.
- Waksman, S. A., H. Schulhoff, C. A. Hickman TG Fagin S. T. Stevens. The
aru ‘of New Jersey and their utilization. Dept. facet aor Development, Trenton,

a Peo eg "onal The Last Glaciation. Am. Geogr. Soc., Research Series 17, New York.
1928.

3. Deevey, Edward S. Studies on Connecticut lake sediments. Am. Jour. Sci. 237: 691-724.

4. Gleason, H. A. The vegetational history of the Middle West. Ann. Assn. Amer. Geogr.
12: 39-85. Sago

5. aeeiae ay 2 Jee ‘ Pip icecoe ane Survey of North America. 1911.

6. Kii ry B. The Geology w Jersey. Bul. 50, Geologic Series. Dept. Con-

re

8.

tet
bho

28 BARTONIA

Soil Conditions in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey
J. C. F. Teprow !

Scientists have studied the Pine Barrens in New Jersey for more than half a
century, yet no single explanation as to their origin has been entirely satisfactory.
The object of this paper is to show the distribution of the soil types and their
relation to the lithology of the parent materials, and the distribution of the pine-
barren area. It is believed that the presence of the Pine Barrens can be explained
on the textural composition of the soil materials, which are responsible for:

1. True Podzol (Lakewood).

2. Low moisture-holding phage of the soil.

3. Low nutrient status of the so

4. Low growth rate of the caeeaiin.

GEOLOGY

The Pine Barrens lie entirely within the limits of the Coastal Plain province.
Geologic materials consist mainly of unconsolidated sands and gravels occurring
in beds that dip gently seaward. Elevation is usually less than 200 feet. Topog-
raphy is undulating to gently rolling. Of the numerous geologic formations
that have been identified, only the following are pertinent to this report:

Quaternary — Cape May
Bridgeton
Tertiary — Cohansey
Kirkwood

Several workers have tried to relate the pine-barren area with certain geologic
formations, but the critical review of Lutz (8) showed that there is no good
correlation between the two. Stone (12) recognized that the soil is an important
factor in the distribution of the pine-barren flora.

Sorns ©

The soils of the Pine Barrens are formed from extremely sandy materials, at
times with considerable amounts of well-rounded quartzitic gravel. The mature
soils of the area are, with few exceptions, true Podzols. In a sense, this great
soil group is geographically out of place. Under the climatic conditions found
in southern New Jersey, one would expect a Gray-brown Podzolic regional soil.
Instead, a true Podzol is found with well-developed features. The reason lies in
the unusual characteristics of the soil materials, as a result of which the soils
deviate from the normal climatic type.

_1 Paper of the Journal Series, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers
niversity—the State Uuiversty of New Jersey, Department of Soils.

-LATE 2. Left tas center pe ioe as show highly podzolized Lakewood soil profiles. Photograph at the right shows a type
locality where the St. Johns soil is found.

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY 29

The podzolic process is both chemical and physical. Under high leaching
conditions the soluble and exchangeable materials, such as Na, K, Ca, and Mg,
have been largely removed from the solum, except for those remaining in the
crystalline state. The less soluble elements, such as Fe, Al, and Ti, have been
partly leached from the upper layers and reprecipitated in the subsoil. During
the podozolic process, while organic matter is accumulating on the surface (Ao and
A, horizons), mineral matter is leached from the soil (Az horizon) and redeposited
in part in the subsoil (B,; horizon). Some of the colloidal material of the A»
horizon also tends to be translocated into the B horizon. With the unusually
sandy soil materials of the Pine Barrens, percolation is rapid and leaching is
intense. The resultant product is a true Podzol. The mineral makeup of the
soil also contributes to its highly podzolized nature. Nearly all of the materials
are extremely siliceous and are easily podzolized. Siliceous material is very
stable in podzolic soil development and, because of this, a white bleached earth
(Bleicherde) layer soon forms in the Ag horizon.

Though the soils of the Pine Barrens are true Podzols, those in close proximity
to the barrens are Gray-brown Podzolic. Marbut (10), in discussing the soils
of this region, reported that where there is not much material to leach from the
upper layers, soil will reach an advanced stage of development in a relatively
short time. The morphology of the mature soils of the subject area, which are
mapped as the Lakewood series, consists of the following:

A, 1-2 inches — black carbonaceous organic material mixed with mineral
matter.
A, 8-20 inches — white or nearly white sand of single-grained structure.
B, 1-3 inches — coffee-brown sand or loamy sand, often becoming indu-
rated (sometimes absent).
B. 8-15 inches — light yellow sand of single-grained structure.
Cc — light yellow to yellow-brown structureless sand and gravel.

Tree roots appear to be concentrated in the A, and B, horizons, where the
few available nutrients that are present are concentrated.

The coarseness of the material produces a low moisture-holding capacity of
the soil. Because of high percolation rates and low moisture retention, in only a
few hours the soils again reach a high pF value. The Lakewood soil contains
little nutrient material for plants. Joffe’s (4) analysis of the Lakewood series
shows more than 98 percent SiOz and 1.4 percent Fe.0; and Al,Os. The pH
value of the Lakewood soil usually varies between 3.5 and 4.0,a value low enough
to bring Al into solution in toxie quantities. Forest fires are common in the Pine
Barrens. This is evidenced not only by history but by the presence of charcoal
fragments in the surface soil. Excessive drainage results in conditions that offer
little opposition to the burning and spreading of fires.

B8) BARTONIA

CORRELATION OF PINE BARRENS WITH SOIL CHARACTERISTICS

The soils of the Coastal Plain may be generalized as follows:

ORDER Great Sor Group SERIES
[ Podzols Lakewood
(sands)
Say 4 Sassafras
(sands, silts and clays)
Gray-brown
Podzolic Collington
(sands, silts and clays
with glauconite)
Intrazonal Ground-water St. Johns
Soils Podzols sands

Figure 1 shows that the Cohansey formation lies almost entirely within the
pine-barren area. This material is very sandy, and the soils on it are highly
podolized. The cedar swamps are mapped as St. Johns soil. These wet areas
result from a high water table rather than from low permeability of the soil.

Near Millville is an area of Cohansey sand that is not included in the pine-
barren area. Inspection of this former area revealed that the soil materials are
slightly heavier and less highly podzolized, which accounts for their better agri-
cultural qualities. The Pine Plains are located on a part of the Cohansey forma-
tion. In this particular area the geologic materials have a greasy feel, and
appear to be kaolinized, a condition which is not present in other areas of the
Cohansey formation. The sands have a firm consistency and become rather
tough when dry. Chemical analysis of the Cohansey formation in the Pine
Plains showed 50 pounds of soluble Al per acre, while the same formation in the
Pine Barrens showed 25 pounds present. These quantities are sufficient to have
a serious toxic effect on vegetation of the area. Whether these differing charac-
teristics are inherited from the geologic materials or have been acquired through
soil development is not known.

Only in certain locations is the Cape May formation within the Pine Barrens.
MacClintock and Richards (9) divided the Cape May formation into two
terraces, one at 40-60 feet elevation and a second at 20 feet. The lower terrace
may be further subdivided into two phases, marine and fluvial. The higher
terrace is very sandy and excessively drained, like the Cohansey formation, and
is invariably included with the pine-barren area. This higher terrace exists
mainly on the seaward side of the Pine Barrens. The Cape May formation in
southern Cape May County is not a part of the pine-barren area. The terraces
here seldom have an elevation of more than 20 feet, and the soils are mapped
mainly as the Sassafras (2) series. Although there is little difference in the soil
material from that found on the higher terraces, the low position is associated
with a high natural water-table, which produces better moisture conditions 1

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY 31

A MAP OF
NEW JERSEY p
SHOWING |
CLNERALIZED C£0LOCY

COSTAL FLAIN 3
SCALE IN MNES
renee
o£ 8 SEF y

MEW! YORK
erny

WASSER yy
PAR AX

PAILADEL PATA

Rcesern

CAPE MAY

QUATERNARY “ee
BRIDGETON

COMANSEY
TERTIARY
KIRKWOOD
ocy wmont LEWIS Ff KUMMEL CRETACEOUS
PINE BARREL MRE
APOAA PA AAS BEM OE FR

PINE BARREN AREA

PAU ES BA Ga

Fig. 1—The areal distribution of the Pine Barrens in relation to the major geologic
formations.

32 BARTONIA

the soil. In a few areas the soil materials are heavier, with resulting better soil
conditions. Therefore, though the soil materials remain fairly constant, a change
in moisture levels of the two terraces determines whether or not the pine-barren
type of environment is present. The second phase of the lower Cape May terrace
along Delaware Bay also produces good soil conditions because of lower eleva-
tions and the presence of some finer textured materials. The Delaware Bay
phase of the lower Cape May formation is fluvial and marine. Erratics indicate
that much of the material has been derived from glacial outwash from the
Delaware Valley (5). Although it is not shown in Figure 1, this terrace in many
places caps the Cretaceous along the Delaware River.

The Bridgeton formation (9) is thought to be of terrestrial, estuarine, and
marine origin. Although it consists primarily of sand and gravel, it contains
enough silt and clay in the matrix to result in the formation of a Gray-brown
Podzolic rather than a true Podzol. The Bridgeton, except where the materials
are especially coarse textured, is not included in the pine-barren area. The
10 to 20 percent of silt and clay is sufficient heavy material to prevent the for-
mation of a highly podzolized soil in this locality. Inspection of the soil maps
(1) reveals that the soils have some natural agricultural potentialities. In
fact, this is one of the vegetable-producing areas of New Jersey. The silt and
clay present offer a greater surface exposure per unit weight than is found in
the Pine Barrens. This gives rise to better moisture relations and higher cation
exchange capacity than is found in the lighter soils.

The Kirkwood formation, which roughly borders the southeast side of the
Cretaceous formations, is split longitudinally by the pine-barren border. No
‘correlation whatever exists between the areal distribution of this formation as
a whole and the pine-barren vegetation. As the Kirkwood formation dips slightly
seaward, the upper part of the formation is exposed toward the seaward side
and the lower part on the Camden side. Kiimmel (5) mentions that the upper
Kirkwood is very sandy, whereas the lower Kirkwood often grades into silts
and clays. Field observations substantiated this. Where the soil materials
grade from the coarse textured to the fine textured, there is the line of demar-
cation of the Pine Barrens. To show this relationship, an area in the vicinity
of Wrightstown which was selected has about the widest areal distribution of
the Kirkwood, and the formation is exposed rather uniformly from top to
bottom. Figure 2 shows these relationships of stratigraphy to the soils and
pine-barren vegetation. The stratigraphy of the Wrightstown area along the
traverse indicated in Figure 2A and B is shown in Figure 2C. Figure 2C, taken
from the New Jersey Geologic Map, shows the stratigraphy of the various for-
mations. The Cohansey, Cape May, and Upper Kirkwood have at least one
important property—extreme sandiness—in common. Where the Kirkwood
grades into silts and clays, pine-barren conditions cease to exist. The line
of the Pine Barrens has been taken from Harshberger’s (3) work. The gener-
alized soil map in Figure 2A, taken from the U. S. Department of Agriculture

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY

SO/L ASSOCIATIONS OF THE
WRIECHMTS TOWN AREA

25°90

20,09 Ptoed
°
©6208

COLLING TON ASSOCIATION
SASSAFRAS -—SHRE WS BURY
ASSOCIATION

SASSAFRAS (SANDY)
LAKEWOOD ~ST TOHNS
ASSOCIATION

PINE GARREN AREA
TRAVERSE

A

CFRONI US.0.A. SOM SURVEY SHEETS )

FRAVER. —— oe i
pes LISTEO (NN CLOLOCICAL TIE SHAUENCE
KRowt

SURFACE CGEOLOEY OF THE
WRIGHTSTOWN AREA

CONANSE Y

KIRKEWWIOOD
CRETACEOUS MAINLY
MI LAUREL
COMANSEY-8BRIDGETON COMPLEX ey

PIOF2 MESES TOW - VINCE!
MANASQUAA COMPLEX

PINE GARREN AREA

YvwrYy

Sie
LEWIS EF KONMIMEL

) 2B

STRUCTURAL

CGLOLOGVY OF FRAVERSE

SHOWN IN AO AND BS

WMSY
ELEVATION
200°

NON PINE BARREN AREF |

PINE GARREM AREF

COLL INGTON SASSAFRAS

| LAKEWOOD — ST TOHNS

Cun paar aren ews € Kimntee)

eC

_ Fic. 2.—A shows the close
soil materials contain appreciab
that the Cohans

an
the heavier formations

.

give

correlation of the Lakewood : ne
le amounts of silt and clay, better soil conditions
the Kirkw rmations are p en - 2

more productive — and Collington soils. C shows

soils to the pine-barren area. When
result. B shows
materials,” whereas

rise to
the structural geology of the traverse indicated in A an

34 : BARTONIA .

Soil Survey Maps, shows this same relationship. Where the soils are within
the confines of the pine-barren area, they have been mapped as the Lakewood
and St. Johns. Following the traverse northwesterly, where the lower Kirkwood
is exposed, the soils have been mapped as the Sassafras and Shrewsbury (6, 7)
series, and the limit of the Pine Barrens is at the junction of these two groups
of soil series, which have widely diverging properties. Northwest of Wrights-
town, where the glauconite of the lower Tertiary and Cretaceous formations
is present, the Collington soil is found. Wind activity should not be overlooked.
Local fine-grained deposits brought in by northwesterly and southwesterly pre-
vailing winds may have been derived from the Cretaceous.

OF SEVERAL GEOLOG.

. a
PSST SEAS ET OS ZT OLE EIS DRESSES TT OPS EL ET
CONAN SEY CAPE MAY AIRKV/OOOD KIRKWOOD PRIIEETOM
(UPPER) (Lower)
4 FINE AND MIEOIWN? CRAVEL S-/ MAT TEXTURAL OROUPINE
RSE SAN. /- OF THE PARENT MATERIALS
[EDI At — O.5-O.25 DAM A SANO

4. FINE SAN. 0.25-9./0 MAT 2 SAND : PINE GARRENS
SI VERY poster SANO 2./0-0.05 MI e AN
6. $F O.05-0.002 MM Oo SANDY LOAAT
Zz CLAY 0.002 MAT £ LOAMY SAND

Fic. 3.—Histograms of the major geologic formations of the pine-barren area. A, B and C
contain virtually no silt and clay and are within the limits of the Pine Barrens. D and E con-
tain appreciable esis of silt and clay and are not included as a part of the pine-barren area.

Figure 3 shows histograms of particle-size distribution. In the Cohansey,
Cape May, and upper Kirkwood formations virtually no silt or clay is present,
whereas in the Bridgeton, silt and clay total more than 20 percent. Absence
of silt and clay in the former formations is thought to be an important factor
in determining the pine-barren conditions.

The Pensauken formation of fluvial origin is of variable lithologic character.
Just south of the town of Lakewood, where an extensive area of this formation
is exposed, the soil character (6) varies with the composition of the geologic
materials. Where the material is extremely sandy, typical pine-barren condi-
tions exist, but where the materials become heavier the soils grade from Podzols
to those of the better Gray-brown Podzolic group. This is evidenced by the
few scattered farms throughout the area, which are covered mostly with Gray-
brown Podzolic soils.

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY 35

Thus if textural and moisture conditions are considered, the distribution of
the soils in the Pine Barrens can be largely explained by soil characteristics.
If changes in lithology and topographic position and their effect upon the soil
are considered, rather than floral and faunal assemblages, the correlation is good.

Future USE oF THE PINE BARRENS

To date these excessively drained soils of the Pine Barrens have not been
cultivated to any extent, and there is no indication of any improvement in the
near future. When, however, in years to come, the growing population of the
nation demands greatly increased food production, then the Pine Barrens can
be an important contribution to our economy. They could, no doubt, be de-
veloped as a large-scale “sand culture.” Vegetables could be planted and irri-
gated under controlled conditions. Fertilizer could be added in the irrigation
waters, analyses being varied to meet the needs of each crop. Yields could be
raised to high levels in this soil by such procedures. The main uncertainty at
this time is the adequacy of the ground-water supplies, the requirements of
which would be enormous.

SUMMARY

The pine-barren area in New Jersey owes its existence primarily to the char-
acter of the geologic materials from which the soil was derived. Soil type, poor
moisture conditions, lack of nutrients, acidity, aluminum toxicity, and repeated
fires appear to be traceable to the nature of these materials.

REFERENCES

Burke, R. T. A. and Lee, L. L. 1926. Soil Survey of the Camden Area, New Jersey.
, Bur, Chem. and Soils.
Engle, é ron et at 1917. Soil Survey of the Millville Area, New Jersey. U.S.D.A,,

ils.
Hilaberses J. W. 1916. Vegetation of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Christopher-
Sower Company, Philadelphia. 329 pp. ; :
eee 2 = 1932. Soil Profile Studies: V: Mature Podzols. Soil Sci. 35: 313-329.
1940. The Geology of New Jersey. Bul. 50, Geol. Sur., Dept. of Con-
apenssticd and Development, State of New
al. 1923. Soil Survey of the Chatsworth Area, New Jersey, UU. S$. Dos,

—_______. 1921. Soil Survey of the Trenton Area, New Jersey. U.S.D.A., Bur . Soils.

Lutz, H. J. 1934. Concerning a geological explanation of the origin and distribution of

e New Jersey Pine onan hy vegetation. Ecology 1

MacClintock, Paul and Richards, H. G. 1936. sil Sih of late ar bg marine and
lacial ppgee of On be J eee ane New York. Bul. Geol. Soc. of Am toes on

Pe F PIS Ae Se PS
a
Be
r

bt eet

rv.,

1911. The Siants ‘of southern New Jersey with ppecial reference to lary
ora ine Barrens and the geographic distribution of the s ecies. Ann. Rep

N. J; State Mus., 1910, 23-828.

| mel
bo
mn
o
Zip os

=
e6

a |

36 BARTONIA

Ground Water in the New Jersey Pine Barrens Area *
Henry C. BARKSDALE ?

The title of this paper is “ Ground water in the New Jersey Pine Barrens
area’, and yet it is impractical to talk very much about ground water in this
area without becoming involved in the broader subject of total water supply. As
a matter of fact, nearly all the available water in the area is ground water for a
part of its travel through the area. The sandy character of the soil and the
slight relief of the topography are such that very little actual surface runoff
occurs. Even in times of very heavy precipitation nearly all the water that
reaches the land surface sinks into the soil without traveling far across its
surface. A substantial part of this water subsequently finds its way under-
ground into the stream channels. Let us therefore think of the total water
supply from the area and of the best means for its development, rather than
engage in the futile attempt to separate it into ground-water and surface-water
components. :

The Pine Barrens area is the interior part of the New Jersey coastal plain
that seems best adapted to the production of oak-pine forest. It is not an un-
interrupted and continuous area but extends roughly 100 miles in a northeast-
southwest direction, and its maximum width is about 40 miles. According to
Little? its area is approximately 1.3 million acres, which is equivalent to about
2,000 square miles. It has long been recognized that this vast interior section
contains one of the State’s major sources of water supply, but thus far it has
remained essentially undeveloped.

Sandy soils are characteristic of the area. They are generally derived from
the geologic formations that immediately underlie them. The greater part of
the area is underlain by the Cohansey sand, which is composed predominantly
of sand although it includes some lenses of clay. Much of the remainder is
underlain by the outcrop of the Kirkwood formation, which in this area is also
composed largely of sand, although farther down the dip it becomes more clayey.
Furthermore, even in parts of the area where the underlying major geologic
formation may have clayey facies, there is often a veneer of sand and gravel of
Pliocene or later age that ranges in thickness from a few inches to many feet.
All these formations produce sandy soil which readily absorbs water, particu-
larly on the gentle slopes that occur in the Coastal Plain. Generally the sandy
materials beneath the soil are thick enough to provide very substantial storage
capacity and to transmit water readily.

1 Publication authorized by the Director, U. S. Geological Survey.
2 District Engineer, Ground Water Branch, U. S. Geological Survey.

3 Little, S., The effects of forest fires on the stand history of New Jersey’s pine region:
Northeastern Forest Exper. Sta., Forest Management Paper No. 2, p. 2, February 1946.

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY 37

We are all familiar with the basic concept of the hydrologic cycle—the rising
of water vapor from the surface of the sea and of the land under the influence
of the sun’s rays, its movement through the atmosphere, and its subsequent re-
turn to the surface of the earth as precipitation. This is the source of all our
water supply. Not all the water that falls on the surface of the land, however,
is available for water supply. There are certain detours and short cuts back
to the atmosphere that have first call upon the water which falls as precipitation
and over which we have relatively little control. Some water is evaporated into
the lower atmosphere even as it falls. Some is intercepted by the leaves and
stems of plants and by litter on the land surface and is subsequently returned
to the air. Of the water that actually reaches the land surface, a portion (a
very small portion in the Pine Barrens area) runs off directly into streams and
the remainder sinks into the soil. Even here it is not all available for water
supply, because a substantial part of the water that enters the soil is subse-
quently returned to the atmosphere by evaporation and transpiration. The
remainder percolates down to the water table and, together with the direct run-
off to streams, becomes available for water supply.

The total annual precipitation in the Pine Barrens area ranges from 42 to
45 inches; of this only about 20 inches, or an average of about 1 million gallons
a day per square mile, is available for water supply. It should be emphasized
that this represents the total available water supply, both surface and under-
ground, and that it could not all become available without storage adequate to
hold back all runoff from the area through both surface streams and under-
ground percolation. Such perfect storage is rarely, if ever, available. Never-
the less, the 2,000 square miles of New Jersey Pine Barrens is certainly capable
of yielding substantially more than a billion gallons of water daily for an in-
definite period. The yield possibly might be increased somewhat by agricultural
or silvicultural practices that would tend to reduce interception, or by a reduction
in evapotranspiration caused by the artificial lowering of the water table in the
course of the development of the area.

The water supply from the Pine Barrens area has remained essentially un-
developed up to the present time. This is primarily because the communities
around the periphery of the area thus far have been able to obtain all or most
of the water they needed from sources nearer to them, and proposals to deliver |
the water at greater distances have not materialized. An early plan to develop
water in the Pine Barrens area for the city of Philadelphia was abandoned
because of a statutory prohibition against exporting water from the State.
Proposals to develop water in this area for use in the northern metropolitan
area of the State have not been carried out because the high cost of transmitting
the water has made the proposal less economical than others. With the present
great industrial development along the Delaware River on the one side and the
increasing demands of the resort areas on the other, it now seems probable that
some of the water from this area may be required in these adjacent areas.

38 BARTONIA

The effective development of this great water supply cannot proceed along
the familiar lines of large surface reservoirs and their attendant works because
the low relief of the area provides no good sites for great reservoirs. A large-
capacity surface reservoir in the Pine Barrens area would necessarily be a huge
shallow basin with swampy margins. This would create many problems in the
treatment of the supply, and result in large losses to ev tion and transpiration.

Fortunately, the sands themselves provide a reservoir vastly greater than
any ordinary surface reservoir. The specific yield of the excellent water-bearing
formations in the Pine Barrens area is conservatively estimated to be in the
order of 20 percent of the volume of the sands themselves. The volume of the
sands is tremendous. To a considerable degree this reservoir is protected from
bacterial contamination by the sands above the water table, which act as a
filter, and except where the water table is shallow it is fairly effectively protected
from losses to evapotranspiration.

The development of a water supply from the Pine Barrens area should be
based upon a carefully distributed pattern of wells and a branching system of
collection mains to conduct the water to areas of use. Supplementary or emer-
gency use might be made of intakes on the major streams of the area, but the
entire operation should be planned in a manner that will make the maximum
use of the great natural reservoir provided by the water-bearing sands.

It is usual in the development of major water supplies to take elaborate
precautions to protect the quality of the supply. Sometimes the use of an entire
watershed upstream from a surface reservoir is restricted in order to protect the
water supply. The water supply from the Pine Barrens area must likewise be
protected from contamination lest its usefulness be impaired or even largely
destroyed. It would be difficult to accomplish this and at the same time locate
industrial establishments and their attendant residential communities within the
Pine Barrens area itself. Such a procedure would make it necessary to con-
struct new facilities for transportation and new communities in order to provide
a labor supply. It would also create problems in the disposal of the wastes pro-
duced by the various industrial and municipal establishments which would tend
to percolate downward and contaminate the water supply, thereby reducing the
total amount of good water available. A more intelligent program would seem
to be the retention of the major part of the Pine Barrens area for its present
agricultural or forestry uses, and the use of the water along the periphery of the
area where facilities for its use can most easily be established or enlarged. As
the marginal areas develop, the Pine Barrens area would not only be a con-
tinuing source of large quantities of pure water, but would have increased value
for recreational, agricultural, and forestry purposes.

The Pine Barrens area contains the last great essentially untapped source
of good water within the State of New Jersey. Already the people of New
Jersey have developed and are using something between one-tenth and one-
fourth of the State’s total water-supply potentialities. It is not too soon to
act decisively for its preservation and protection.

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY 39

The Place of Fire in the Ecology of Pines
H. H. CHapMan

Professor Emeritus, Yale University

Apsstract. While man is responsible for a many-fold increase in the occur-
rence of forest fires, lightning as a natural cause has operated with a frequency
that places fire among the determining ecological factors that influenced de-
velopment, modification, and survival of species, especially of pines.

In dry hot climates lightning fires occurred at intervals so short that pines
became modified in order to survive as seedlings or saplings. In cooler northern
climates fires tended to destroy most of the stand, and adaptations took the form
of protecting seed sources.

To successfully reproduce and grow pines we must adapt silvicultural meas-
ures to the inherent habits of each species of pine, as determined for it by the
environment in which it has developed the adaptations.

This is difficult with some northern species such as white pine (P. strobus)
and jack pine (P. divaricata). The reasons for these difficulties are chiefly the
fact that clear cuttings, even with seed sources, do not usually duplicate natural
conditions under which these pines originate, hence special skill and often con-
siderable expense is involved.

With southern pines, the duplication of natural conditions is extremely prac-
tical and inexpensive, consisting of the use of prescribed controlled fire at inter-
vals dependent on the species; 3 years for longleaf pine (P. palustris), 5-6 years
for slash pine (P. caribea), and 8-10 years for loblolly pine (P. taeda). This
practice not only insures abundant reproduction during seed years but fireproofs
the forest against almost certain destruction as the result of excluding fire and
building up an unnatural fire hazard of brush and dead grass. The extension
of the use of prescribed fire to the shortleaf (P. echinata) and pitch pine
(P. rigida) types in New Jersey is an outgrowth of the practices found successful
and officially adopted by the Forest Service in the southern pines.

Fire is usually thought of as practically created by man, and its occurrence
in the forest as man-caused. Actually, fire has been a natural phenomenon
independent of men every since there was inflammable vegetation on earth, a
period greatly exceeding man’s existence. The prevailing cause is lightning.
While usually accompanied by rain, there are circumstances and conditions which
permit lightning to set fires in forest, brush, and grass cover, which are not
extinguished by rain, and which may cause numerous, frequent, and extensive
conflagrations where these conditions are favorable. '

40 BARTONIA

The favoring conditions are the occurrence of “dry” thunder storms, and
the presence of dead snags or other fuel, which may ignite and burn, screened
from rain, until the fire can spread.

Natural or normal occurrence of fire in the forest varies greatly with the
region and climate, but practically no large region or forest type has been entirely
free from lightning fires, the most nearly immune perhaps being the northern
hardwood type, beech, birch, and maple.

For types subject to natural fires we can make two clear divisions, first, those
which normally grow to maturity without fire and are usually completely killed
when it does occur, but then reproduce themselves from seed sources, that escape
destruction. The second division consists of species exposed to such frequent
natural fires that they would normally be destroyed in their early growth were
it not for special adaptations that enable the young seedlings and saplings to
pull through, and develop fire resistance.

The character of natural fires in the first of these classes is apt to be severe,
frequently a crown fire, very destructive, and creating even-aged conditions
where reproduction succeeds in establishing itself after the fire. Climatic condi-
tions and ground cover in such regions and types are such as to maintain moisture
and shade on the forest floor, where all fires start. Only in exceptional droughts,
with high winds, do conditions permit these infrequent burns, hence the general
habits of the tree species are accommodated to fire but once in a tree generation.
Wind may be a primary cause of fire by first levelling great stretches of old
timber, exposing the soil to sun and air movement, and thus setting the stage
for a lightning fire.

The natural provisions for reseeding consist, for white pine, of great longevity
of the species, and increasing wind and fire resistance of veterans, whose survival
gives the source of seed. The tender, slow growing seedlings are usually protected
by grass and brush shade during the first few years, and on soils not too favor-
able for hardwoods, come to maturity.

For red, or Norway, pine, a greater and earlier fire resistance is attained by
the resistant character of the bark. This is coincident with drier sites and
more frequent fires.

For jack pine, bark seldom protects the species from destruction by fire, and
the means of reproduction are found in closed cones, opening in the heat of a
fire, and in very early production of cones.

The influence of man on natural reproduction in this class of forest types
consists first of reducing or eliminating the seed sources, second of creating wide-
spread exposure and extreme conditions for ground fires, by clear cutting, and
third, in enormously increasing the incidence of fire far in excess of natural oc-
currence, and under aggravated conditions for spread and damage. It was logical
therefore, to conclude that fire in the forest was wholly destructive and its com-
plete prohibition a first step in forest management.

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY 41

This general rule in fact was taught as having universal application regardless
of type and region, until it came to be known that for certain species, types,
and climates, exclusion of fire created abnormal conditions detrimental to forestry
practice. These abnormalities consisted first, of preventing successful repro-
duction of desired species, especially of pines, and second, they created an in-
creasing hazard leading to uncontrollable conflagrations which destroyed types
that were adjusted to frequent ground fires but not to crown fires. In this class
fall the species growing in the drier, hotter regions, such as southern pines, and
in the west, ponderosa pine.

When forestry practice undertook to manage land so as to reproduce northern
pines intentionally, it was evident that nature’s provision for perpetuating these
species would be difficult to adopt as practical measures. The enormous increase
in white pine on abandoned farms in New Enland was due to pure accident. The
stumps and roots of competing hardwoods had been eliminated by culture, leav-
ing no effective competition, and grass gave the seedlings the required protection
against sun scald. Pure stands took the place of the formerly scattered veterans
that had furnished the seed. When these stands in turn were clear cut, thick
duff had formed inhibiting grass, and seedlings perished from lesions due to ex-
cessive temperature, during the first few months. Partial or shelterwood cutting
by preventing these temperatures permits survival in the absence of dense advance
reproduction of understory hardwoods. Thus despite the fact that practically all
extensive stands of white pine in the Lake States and northeast were even-aged
and probably the result of former fires, it is by no means certain that this species
can be reproduced naturally by attempting to repeat this process on any large
scale. The relations of aspen to white pine are an example of how logging
operations have changed natural conditions to increase the. difficulty of following
nature’s normal procedures. In the virgin white pine-northern hardwood-
hemlock forests the aspen was a fugitive tree, scarce in numbers. When openings
occurred, seed, blown for long distances usually reached the spot but the resultant
stand, of seedling, not sprout, origin must have been rather sparse and open.
At any rate, decadent aspens are practically always found in even-aged stands
of second growth white pine in natural sites, disappearing at 80 to 90 years.
But on cutover lands, frequently burned, the aspen took full possession by seed
and sprouts. White pine seedlings were killed out by suppression. — The natural
succession was destroyed. ‘This occurred on the Minnesota National Forest,
even in the absence of subsequent fires. The problem of restoring white pine
on lands taken over by dense aspen has not been satisfactorily solved. The con-
clusions must be that while fire may have a future place in preparing the site for
white pine regeneration it is not a panacea. Successful reproduction and sur-
vival of this species in competition with hardwoods is largely dependent on soil.
When soils are too dry and sandy for hardwoods the chances for pine are cor-
respondingly improved. There is evidence too, that white pine on such sites may
alternate with hardwoods, as scattered individuals or groups, by becoming estab-
lished under shade when the latter reach mature sizes.

42 BARTONIA

Jack pine presents an even more fascinating problem. These stands, after
their origin, develop without fire until they are cut, or are killed by fire. The
duff layer is therefore intact, and from 50 to 100 years old. No seedlings ever
survive on this duff, when exposed to the sun. But neither do they survive on
bare soil, in the absence of some shade, since the temperatures on the surface
become lethal for the young seedling. “Nature solved this problem by removing
the duff through fire, which left the ground occupied by the dead boles of the
former stand. The seed, released from accumulated closed cones, germinated
in the ashes and the seedlings were then protected from lethal heat by the re-
volving shadows of the rampikes or snags. Overdense reproduction normally
was established. :

This procedure cannot well be imitated by man. Instead, the duff must first
be churned up by disc plows, or torn up by skidding whole trees, then the cone-
bearing tops must be lopped and scattered, first to provide shade, second to bring
the cones within 6 inches of the ground, where sufficient heat will develop to
open them. Shade of brush will kill off the seedlings. Dead and charred trees
cannot be used for pulp. So in this case, the natural use of fire may not be
feasible and these less effective measures substituted.

The problem of reproducing and growing southern pines really includes the
pitch pine, with shortleaf pine associate, extending through New Jersey, and into
southern New England, where white pine takes the place of shortleaf in the
original forest composition. The problem throughout this entire region of south-
ern hard pines, is that of growing pine instead of hardwoods. The natural
hardwood associates of these pines are quite fire resistant, consisting mostly of
scrub oaks. In addition, due to dry sandy soils, there has developed a ground
cover of very inflammable grasses and shrubs which dry out so rapidly after
rain that within an hour a hot fire can be on its way. There are three distinct
conditions present over this southern pine belt, each characterized by a different
species of pine. In each of these situations fire is a controlling element, and the
survival of the species of pine present is due to a complete adjustment to this
controlling element, namely, to average frequency of fires set by lightning. For
the longleaf pine this frequency has been statistically demonstrated to be three
years! Hence, the longleaf seedling develops no stem above ground for 5 to 6
years, and when it emerges the stem is an inch thick with thick bark. It also
stores food in the root and can thus produce a new crop of needless when com-
pletely defoliated by fire. It can stand no shade whatever, and is subj ect to
a needle blight. Fire kills its competitors, hardwood sprouts and other pines,
and disinfects the area, thus permitting it to survive. So this species is com-
pletely dependent on burning at 3-year intervals for its existence. Not until
these facts were known and applied was any success attained in reproducing
longleaf pine. These fires keep down the scrub hardwoods if used at this 3-year
interval.

1 Chapman, H. H., Lightning in the Longleaf, Amer. Forests 56: 10-11 (1950).

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY 43

Loblolly pine seedlings grow on a better and moister class of soils and do not
attain fire resistance until they are 6 to 8 years old. They are-killed out on
natural longleaf sites by too frequent fires. If fire is kept out, loblolly will
always kill longleaf pine and take over the site, producing less valuable stands
than longleaf. On its natural site, it has a somewhat better class of hardwoods
as competitors. But these hardwoods are still of inferior quality and unprofit-
able to grow as substitutes for pine. Hence, hardwood competition must be
eliminated on loblolly pine sites.

Reproduction of loblolly pine will not ordinarily survive if it originates under
dense hardwood sprouts 2 or more years old. It dies out, leaving the hardwoods.
To prevent this, the cutover land must be supplied with seed trees, and burned
severely in the late summer of a seed year to kill back the hardwoods under
2 inches, while those too large to be killed by fire must be cut, poisoned or girdled.
The pine will then in every case dominate the hardwoods and make the crop.
At 8 to 10 years of age, fire must again be used to kill out the invading hard-
wood understory, which if left to develop survives pine shade and robs the pine
of soil misture. Then when the pine is cut, the hardwoods take over unless
eradicated at considerable expense.

Slash pine naturally grows in places subject to flooding, or swamps. Its °
seedlings are slender and grow rapidly to compete with grass and shrubs. The
natural fire interval is 5 to 6 years, or longer by which time the seedlings have
developed a resistant bark and may survive the fires that burn over these wet
areas in a drought. The exclusion of fire from adjoining longleaf lands results
in extension of slash pine in dense thickets, outside its natural site. These
abnormal stands require thinning at a very early age, and are subject to a rust
which has oak as its alternate host, thus creating a serious problem of man-
agement. Slash pine reproduction is favored by initial burns to clear out brush
and other vegetation, and is later protected by prescribed fires beginning in the
6th year, at 3-year intervals.

The relation of shortleaf pine to fire has not been so well known, until the
recent work of Moore and Little in New Jersey. Lutz has shown that the pine
barrens of this state are the result of too frequent fires. The fertility of the
soil is not reduced by these fires, here or anywhere else within the southern pine
range. Once reduced to sprouting by these fires, the pitch and shortleaf pines
have difficulty in regaining their normal growth. The hardwood sprouts, com-
paratively worthless, gain ascendency. The regime of prescribed burning at
short intervals to keep these sprouts killed back and prevent destructive fires
that kill the sapling pines has been conclusively demonstrated. It requires a
high degree of technical skill to time the fires as to frequency, in such a manner
that pine seedlings can be grown to the stage of effective resistance to winter
burns, and the hardwoods kept down.

44 BARTONIA

It is quite possible, by either too frequent fires or by efforts at total ex-
clusion of fire, to eliminate future crops of all of these southern pines and sub-
stitute for them a growth of inferior hardwoods that will not return the cost of
management. On the other hand, intelligent use of prescribed fire is capable
of producing crops of pine greatly exceeding in yields per acre and value those
which nature, uncontrolled by science, has grown during the past ages since these
species first adjusted themselves to survival in the presence of lightning fires.
What man can destroy by heedless neglect of natural laws, he can also improve
on by bending these laws to his advantage.

Silvicultural Objectives and Methods on Upland Sites in the
New Jersey Pine Region *

S. Litre
U. S. Forest Service

PRESENT STAND CONDITIONS

Stand conditions in the New Jersey Pine Region vary widely.

At one extreme there are the Plains stands, which are composed predominantly
of sprouts of pitch pine (Pinus rigida), bear oak (Quercus ilicifolia), and black-
jack oak (Q. marilandica). Professor Lutz’s study (6) showed that recurring,
killing fires at about 8-year intervals were the primary factor in producing this
type of growth. These fires may have eliminated shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata),
and such arborescent oaks as black, white, and chestnut oak (Quercus velutina,
Q. alba, and Q. montana), because these species do not bear viable seed at an
early enough age to perpetuate themselves under such conditions. Slow recovery
and growth of Plains vegetation is affected, too, by such secondary factors as
injury by insects (principally Nantucket pine moth, Rhyacionia frustrana), deer
browsing, the competition of a large number of sprouts from individual stools
(as many as 249 on a single stool), and injuries by people gathering pine cones
and Christmas greens (1).

In other stands of pitch pine and scrub oaks the wild fires have burned less
frequently or less intensely, so that the pines have had a chance to develop to 4
larger size than on the Plains areas (1).

More common than mixtures of pitch pine and scrub oaks, which occupy
about one third of the upland sites, are stands in which arborescent oaks, pitch
pine, or shortleaf pine predominate.

1 This paper was illustrated by Kodachrome slides.

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY 45

The usual stand conditions are characterized by a fairly dense understory
predominantly of oak sprouts and a scattered overstory in which pines predomi-
nate. However, both pines and oaks are often present in all size classes. The
usual oak-pine stands are considered to represent a rough equilibrium reached as
a result of wild fires or heavy cuttings at intervals of 25-50 years. The cuttings
or fires have usually created relatively open conditions, but the vigorous sprout-
ing of the hardwoods has prevented any major increase in the proportion of
pine. On the other hand, the greater resistance of the pines to fire injuries
has generally permitted more of them, than of the hardwoods, to survive the
wild fires (1).

Far less common than the oak-pine mixtures are the few nearly pure stands
of pine. These are nearly always found on old-field sites.

Other stands contains few or no pines. Usually these stands are young and
originated as sprouts. Very rarely are there stands that might typify the oak-
hickory climax.

PRESENT AND POTENTIAL GROWTH

Because of the heavy cuttings and wild fires during the last 200-300 years,
stand compositions in the Pine Region have apparently been greatly altered.
From what information I have been able to gather the original stands were
predominantly pine and had a very scanty understory (1).

Similar stands, although managed on a relatively short rotation for products
of a much smaller size, are the foresters’ objective on upland sites. Such stands
—if of seedling origin and never damaged by intensely-burning fires—would
probably produce, as the old-field stands have, about 35 cords in 40-45 years.
If profitably thinned for pulpwood at 25-30 years, the total yield would average
about a cord an acre annually during the rotation.

Such growth is much more than the present stands are producing. The
pine-scrub oak stands have an annual growth of possibly 1/10 cord per acre.
Oak-pine stands grow about 14 cord an acre annually, but because of wild
fires the net growth in both types of stands is far less than those estimates.

Hence, the potential growth in the Pine Region is apparently 10 times what
the present stands are doing.

MANAGEMENT MertTHopDs

Earty Meruops. For nearly 30 years foresters have attempted to improve
upland stands in the New Jersey Pine Region by increasing the proportion of
pine seedlings.

46 BARTONIA

Early efforts concentrated on planting nursery-grown pine seedlings. Several
species not native to southern New Jersey, as well as the native pines, were
tried. None have done well. The best results were on old-field sites, but even
there the best plantations are apparently relatively short-lived, because root
rots (principally Fomes annosus) have favored heavy losses by windthrow.
Plantations in the naturally wooded sites have been even less successful and
very costly. Usually one or more replantings were necessary, and several costly
cleanings have been needed to make the pines dominate the native vegetation.

Between 1937 and 1941 machinery was used in several areas to prepare
seedbeds suitable for natural reproduction of the native pines. Some areas were
plowed, some disked, some both plowed and disked and the hardwood stumps
removed. The results were very good in some of the areas. In one area 9 years
after treatment there were 10,000 pine seedlings per acre, and the dominants
were 14 feet tall. But those areas were exceptional. Where hardwood stumps
were not removed, hardwood sprouts soon dominated many of the areas. Where
the hardwoods were uprooted, shrubby or herbaceous vegetation, and not pines,
restocked some of the areas. For best results machinery apparently has to be
used in years when good crops of pine seed will mature and be distributed on
the treated areas. Furthermore, the use of machinery is costly.

PRESCRIBED BURNING

At the present time prescribed burning offers the best possibilities for provid-
ing conditions suitable for the establishment of. natural stands of pine seedlings.

The type of fire so far recommended for use is a light, winter fire. Such a
fire does not consume all the duff, but does reduce the amount. The use of
several such fires greatly changes understory and seedbed conditions. The rela-
tively tall understory of blueberries and huckleberries is reduced in height and
amount; the amount of herbaceous vegetation tends to increase, though not
appreciably under unthinned stands. The improved seedbed conditions favor
a gradual increase in the amount of pine reproduction, even though fires do
kill or kill back reproduction already present.

Such changes are highly important in greatly reducing damage by any wild
fire, and also in modifying stand composition after cutting.

For example, 5 years after a heavy cutting that removed all oaks from an
oak-pine stand the pine reproduction per acre was 520 on areas unburned in
the 10 years before cutting, 1,175 on areas burned once in that period, 1,490
on areas burned twice, 1,980 on those burned 3 times, 2,740 on those burned
4 times, and 3,765 on the areas burned 5 or 10 times.

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY 47

The use of light winter fires is most effective in changing stand composition
the more burns have been made and the older are the overstory oaks. In
relatively young stands it is possible to provide highly favorable conditions for
the establishment of pine seedlings, but the initial rate of growth of shortleaf
and pitch pine seedlings is so slow, especially when retarded by the deer browsing
common in New Jersey, that these seedlings cannot match the rate of growth
of the oak sprouts. In older stands where there are fewer overstory oaks and
more stumps fail to sprout after cutting, the proportion of pine in the stand can
be greatly increased by prescribed burning before cutting.

Hence, at the present time we consider that prescribed burning, which
can be usually done for 10-40 cents an acre per burn, is a major tool in the
management of upland stands in the Pine Region (2, 3, 4, 5, 7). This has to
be supplemented by proper harvest cuttings that favor the establishment of pine
seedlings in even-aged stands. Cleanings or the use of poisons to favor the
dominance of pines over hardwoods are highly desirable, but costly.

Even though the New Jersey foresters do believe that we should handle the
forests in even-aged stands, I probably should point out that they do not desire
large areas with stands of one age class. Instead, they are planning for a mosaic
of stands of difftrent ages, and the area in one stand will not usually be more
than 100 acres, even in the large holdings. Of course, in the smallest holdings
the area in one stand may be only a few acres.

LITERATURE CITED

—"

. Little, S. 1946. The effects of forest fires on the stand history of New iat pine
region. Northeast. Forest Exp. Sta. Management Paper 2 f Bote’ 43 pp., illus.

Little, S., J. P. Allen and E. B. Moore. 1948. Controlled burning as a rei pine tool
of forest management in New Jersey’s pine region. Jour. Forestry 46 : 810-819, illus.

Little, S., and E. B. Moore. 1945. Controlled burning in South Jersey’s oak-pine stands.
Jour. Forestry 43: 499-506

———.. 1949. The eeninetenl role of prescribed burns in the pine-oak forests of south-
ern New Jersey. Ecology 30: 223-233, illus

————. 1950. Effect of prescribed burns bind shel shy cutting on oe of
meee and pitch pine. Northeast. Forest Exp. Sta. Paper 35 (Proc essed), 1

Lutz, ive J, 19K. Pinlogient relations in the pitch pine sce of southern New fs sl

e Univ. School of Forestry Bul. 38, pp., illus

aj a A. oe G. R. Moorhead. 1950. Prescribed tithing does not reduce — from
oak-pine stands ie southern New Jersey. Northeast. Forest Exp. Sta. per 36
Pecaety, 19 p

ee Se i oe

48 BARTONIA

Controlled Burning—its Broader Ecological Aspects

JOHN E. CANTLON and Murray F. BuEtu
George Washington University and Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

Dr. Chapman’s concluding remarks might well be used as the introductory
statement for our brief comments on the broader ecological aspects of controlled
burning in New Jersey’s Pine Region. He has said, “ What man can destroy by
heedless neglect of natural laws, he can also improve on by bending these laws
to his advantage” (Chapman ’51). Obviously, if man had made no attempt to
upset natural laws and equilibria he would not have advanced beyond the early
stone age. Most of our agriculture, industry and commerce, of necessity, upset
natural laws. Complete ignorance of or indifference to these laws, on the other
hand, result in catastrophies and waste of a magnitude that man can little
longer afford.

Modern students of conservation and land use are fully aware that the more
nearly we attempt to remain within the natural framework the fewer our con-
servation problems. The “ bending”, as Dr. Chapman puts it, of these laws has,
as a matter of fact, permitted us to make sustainable increases in our yields in
forestry, grazing, agriculture, and in certain cases in wild life ‘production.

When we set about to “bend” natural laws, it is essential that we guard
against a myopic view point. The complete focusing of our attention on one
phase of the complex of interacting processes that operate in any natural area
may produce future problems that a little foresight would prevent. Thus, it is
important that we examine in detail as many of the effects produced by the
interference with natural laws as we are capable of observing. In the last
analysis, what now appears to be an insignificant change may, in the future,
turn out to be of great importance.

As we have just heard from Drs. Little (52) and Chapman (’52), controlled
burning seems to be the answer to the problem of increasing the yields of forest
products in the pine region of New Jersey. If it becomes apparent to the land
owners that it is economically sound to use the technique for producing more
valuable stands of pine, controlled burning may become a wide-spread practice
in the region. With this possibility on the horizon it may be wise to inquire
into the influence of its expanded use on the broader ecological relationships of
the region. Thus, for the past two years the present authors have been co-
operating with certain of the groups interested in the region in attempting to out-
line some of the changes that appear to warrant further investigation.

The pine region of New Jersey covers approximately 2000 square miles,
most of which is forest growth. Upland forest capable of being managed by
prescribed burning occupies somewhat more than one-half of this area. The
silvicultural goal would be to convert the present highly variable and low-value

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY 49

stands of mixed oak and pine to many small blocks of relatively pure pine. In
addition to this change of dominants in the tree layer, the shrub, herb, moss and
litter layers of the plant community will also be modified by ibs management
practices. What effects may be anticipated from these changes?

If we consider the tree layer, it is at once clear that the practice results in
changing the tree canopy from broad-leaved, winter deciduous to needle-leaved
evergreen. What will be the influence of such a change on the hydrological rela-
tionships in the area? The work of Hoppe (96), Horton (’19), Mitchell (30),
and Beall (’34) indicates that in general, evergreen needle foliage permits less
precipitation to penetrate the tree canopy than broad-leaved deciduous foliage.
Kittridge (48), on the other hand, makes the generalization that the nearer
the vegetation to climax the greater the interception loss. For the pine region,
where oak is more nearly climax than pine, this would appear to be in dis-
agreement with the results of the investigators cited above.

As to data from the region in question, they too are in disagreement. Wood

(37) found no difference in throughfall under oak as compared to pine foliage.
Preliminary observations by the present authors, however, indicate that there
may be a significant difference in the interception qualities of the two canopies.
During 25-storms in the summer of 1950 throughfall was 87% under oak canopy
and 81% under pine canopy.
- It seems clear that the hydrological aspects of the management plan need
further study. Of particular interest would be the evaluation of interception
loss and water consumption values for the two vegetation types for all seasons
of the year and in all stages of the management plan. Also, the hydrological
influences of the shrub layers may be of importance. With water supplies
becoming more critical to agriculture in and around the area, and to surround-
ing metropolitan centers, the hydrological aspects of such a land management
plan should receive some careful thinking. Mr. Barksdale has discussed this
problem in more detail (Barksdale 1952).

- From studies in the Forest Service experimental plots that have been sub-
jected to controlled burning, it has been found that marked changes occur in
the lower vegetation layers following burning and cutting (Buell and Cantlon
52). The effects of these changes on the ecological relationships in the area
also need careful evaluation. Burning and subsequent cutting appear to result in
a marked reduction in total shrub cover and a shift in the importance of the
shrubby species. Following this treatment, the cover of huckleberry, Gaylussacia
baccata, is reduced to a much greater extent than that of the lowbush blueberry,
Vaccinium vacillans. During the phase of the management program when
fire is excluded to enable pine reproduction to become established, the lowbush
blueberry makes a much more vigorous comeback than does the huckleberry.
This shift in dominance may, over long periods of ach. management practices,
be accumulative.

50 BARTONIA

Just what influence a much greater abundance of this species may have on
the two agricultural industries devoted to growing other species of Vaccinium
may be worthy of further investigation. For example, do the pathogens, vectors
of pathogens, or insect pests of the domestic cranberry or blueberry also find
harbor in the wild lowbush blueberry? If so, will tracts of surrounding upland
continually becoming purer stands of this species complicate contro] measures?

From the literature on plant diseases one gets glimpses of the possible relation
that prescribed burning may have to blueberry and cranberry diseases. Demaree
and Wilcox (’47) state that, “ The lowbush species (of Vaccinium) often form
dense clumps, or grow thickly over wide areas on uncultivated lands where there
is little competition by larger shrubs and trees. In such situations pathogenic
fungi find conditions favorable for rapid spread. Severe leaf infections resulting
in extensive preharvest defoliation sometimes occur in wild growth of low bush
species of Vaccinium angustifolium and V. myrtilloides in Maine and V. vacillans
and V. pallidum in more southern regions....It is not unusual for cultivated
blueberry fields to be surrounded by forests, swamps, or cut-over lands where
wild blueberry bushes form a portion of the flora, a condition very favorable
for the spread of the diseases from the wild to cultivated fields”. Two pathogens
mentioned by these authors as having a very wide host range in the genus
Vaccinium are the powdery mildew, Microsphaera alni D. C. ex Wint., and a
rust, Pucciniastrum myrtiuli (Schum.) Arth.

Other studies indicate a somewhat different possibility for certain phases
of the prescribed burning program. In Maine fire is used in blueberry culture
as a form of pruning to stimulate new growth. The fields are burned over every
few years in the spring. Markin (’43) found that although the burning did not
eliminate diseases, it does to some extent control the red-leaf disease (caused
by species of Exobasidium which also occurs on Gaylussacia baccata) and reduces
the prevalence of leaf spot (caused by Septoria). Although the culture methods
for New Jersey blueberries are very different Markin’s results suggest that the
reservoir of disease in the wild population may be reduced by burning.

From another point of view, will purer stands of lowbush blueberry occurring
during the fire exclusion period offer critical competition for pollinating insects
essential for successful fruit set in these two industries; or will it result in an
increase in the supply of such insects by lengthening the period when flowers
are available for insect food gathering? These are aspects of the forest manage-
ment plan that may be worthy of investigation by the entomologists and pathol-
ogists connected with the cranberry and huckleberry industries.

The frequent and long-continued consumption of the litter and dead shrub
stems forms an important part of the silvicultural plan. The resultant reduction
of fire hazard and the provision of a suitable pine seed bed are essential to the
establishment of the pine stands desired. What other influences are exerted by
the removal of this organic layer?

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY 51

Pearse (’34) found that when the litter is burned, soil organisms are reduced
to one-third of the number present when the litter is not so removed. Certain
of the bumble bees (Bombus) important as wild pollinating insects in the cran-
berry and blueberry industries are soil nesting and hibernating insects. Dr.
Robert S. Filmer, however, in correspondence with one of the authors, indicates
that the two most abundant species in the region (Bombus impatiens and
B. bimaculatus) are deep nesting types. May not these species owe their relative
abundance to their deep nesting and hibernating habits in this historically fire
ravaged area?

Other inhabitants of the litter are also worthy of consideration. For example,
it is generally known that virus diseases are often transmitted by insects. Any-
thing that reduces the vector will have a favorable effect on the incidence of
the disease. Tomlinson, Marucci, and Doehlert (’50) recently reported that two
species of leafhopper (Scaphytopius magdalensis and S. verecundus) transmit
the virus causing blueberry stunt disease. These leafhoppers winter over in
the egg stage in fallen leaves. Might not the practice of frequent burning of
the litter in the wild vegetation significantly reduce the leafhopper population
in the areas surrounding the plantations?

At present we do not know which of the soil organisms in the pine region
would be sensitive to the burning frequency necessary to the silvicultural
program. We need much more study of the relationships between soil and litter
dwelling organisms and controlled burning.

We have long been subjected to the idea that fire produces a marked acceler-
ation in soil erosion mainly through the removal of the litter layer. In the pine
region, however, erosion can practically be ignored since the area is relatively
flat and as Dr. Tedrow (’52), has pointed out, the soils are very sandy. Surface
runoff is negligible in the region.

Other aspects of soil relations may be worthy of further study, however.
Dr. Chapman (’52) has just pointed out that, at present, we have no evidence
to indicate that fire reduces soil fertility in the southern pine type. In the New
Jersey pine region, a brief study of soil changes following controlled burning 1s
to be published soon by the Yale Forestry School (Burns 1949). Apparently
no serious change was observed following 15 years of controlled burning. The
importance of the soil to any region is so great, however, that we should main-
tain studies on some of the managed areas over long periods, perhaps using the
lysimeter or some similar technique.

Other aspects of the silvicultural plan which should be explored are its
effects on wild life and on recreation values in the area. It has long been known
that large uniform areas of vegetation are less productive of certain types of
game than smaller tracts of variable vegetation structure. This is because of
the operation of the so-called border effects. As Moore (39) has pointed out,
the breaking up of present large unmanaged areas of the pine region into units
capable of management should produce more of these types of game. The mosaic

52 BARTONIA

of vegetation resulting from small tracts in various stages of the management
program should also operate in this way.

The deer population is an important resource of the pine region. Deer
hunting is quite extensive because of the proximity of the area to high population
centers in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The annual return from
hunting licenses and other sales connected with hunting, together with the re-
creational values attached to this sport, should be considered in any manage-
ment plan.

It would appear that the increase in pine seedlings and herbaceous cover
and the production of more succulent shrub stems following controlled burning
would result in increased deer browse. A careful evaluation of the entire man-
agement plan should be made by wild life specialists, however.

Finally, a plea should be entered that a large tract or two be set aside now
as a natural area, and that it be exempted from any sort of management other
than perimeter fire protection measures. Such areas of undisturbed vegetation
and wild life are of immense value for observation and study purposes. From
such areas may come the answers to some of tomorrow’s problems.

t is obvious that the broader ecological relationships of controlled burning
need further study. As the practice gradually gains wider usage the importance
of getting these studies underway becomes more urgent. It is to be hoped that
the present spirit of cooperation in getting such studies started that seems to
prevail among the various groups interested in the area will continue, and that
any serious breach of wise land use practices be prevented.

LITERATURE CITED

Barksdale, H. C. 1952. Ground water in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Bartonia 26: 36.
Beall, H. W. 1934. The penetration of rainfall through hardwood and softwood forest canopy.
uf

col. 15: 412-415.
Buell, M. F. and J. E. Cantlon. 1952. Prescribed burning effects on ground cover in the New

se :
Burns, Paul Y. 1949. Effect of fire on forest soils in the Pine Region of New Jersey. Doc-
toral ae on file in the Sterling Memorial Library, Yale University. 143 pp-
i549 i i ;

Chapman, H. H . The place of fire in the ecology of pines. Bartonia 26: J. :

Demaree, J. B. and M. S. Wilcox. 1947. Fungi pathogenic to blueberries in the eastern United
States. Phytopath. 37: 487-506.

Hoppe, E. ey egenmessung unter Baumkronen. Mitt. forstl. Versuchsw. Osterr.
21: 1-

Horton, R. E. 1919. Rainfall interception. Monthly Weather Rev. 47: 603-623.

Kittri _ 1948. Forest influences. McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc., N. Y.

Little, S. 1952. Silvicultural objectives and methods on upland sites in the New Jersey

ine Region. Bartonia 26: 34.

Mar! F. L. 1943. Blueberry diseases in Maine. Maine Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 419.

Mitchell, J. A. 1930. Interception of rainfall by the forest. Jour. For. 28: 101-102.

Moor _ B. 1939. Forest management in New J. Dept. Conserv. and Devel.,

ton, N. J. : :
Pearse, A. S. 1943. Effects of burning-over and raking-off litter on certain soil animals in
the Duke Forest. Am. Midl. Nat. 29; 406-424. :

Tedrow, J. C. F. 1952. Soil conditions in the pine barrens of New Jersey. Bartonia 26: 28.
nson, W. E., Jr., P. E. Marucci and C. A. Doehlert. 1950. Leafhopper transmission of

blueberry stunt disease. Jour. Econ. Ent. 43: 658-66

Wood, O. M. 1937. The interception of precipitation in an oak-pine forest. Ecol. 18: 251-254.

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY 53
Future of the Pine Barrens

Cart B. CRANMER

Department of Conservation and Economic Development

“ West of the marshland which girds the seashore lies an immense sandy plane
scarce broken by any inequality and originally covered by a dense pine and scrub
oak forest, a great portion of which has been once and some of it twice cut over.
There are many square miles on which there is not a single human inhabitant
and where the deer, foxes and rabbits are abundant and where the wolf and bear
find a lair to protect their race from extirpation. But in many places the forest
is awakened by the sound of the woodman’s axe and the louder din of the forge
hammer, and the forest glares with the light of the furnace or glass house. In
this sandy desert are many veins of generous soil which yield a compensatory
crop of corn and rye to.the labors of the husbandman.”

Thus Gordon described the Pine Barrens in his Gazetteer of New Jersey
printed in 1834.

Turn back the pages of history nearly one hundred years and see a portion
of this vast area as Surveyor John Lawrence recorded it in his “ Field Notes and
Journal ” when he surveyed the East-West Jersey line in the fall of 1743. Be-
ginning at a point about two miles southwestward of Beach Haven he ran a
line to a point on the Delaware River near Devans, Sussex County, marking a
tree at the end of each mile.

The following have been obtained from his journal. At the end of the 6th
mile he records a 4” pine sapling on brushy upland; and 9 miles, a 3” pine bush
on poor pine land; at 11 miles, a 14” pine and he notes “ The last 2 or 3 miles
run through small seruby oak bushes, their tops bent to the ground with acorns Ae
at 17 miles, a 5” pine sapling on the east side of a cripple swamp in the line.
The last mile scrub oaks about 6 or 7 foot high, standing very thick; at 18 miles,
a 4” pine sapling in a great plain (with respect to trees) but full of low scrubby
oaks; at 21 miles, an 8” dead pine on a high hill. The trees and shrubs all
killed with fire.

After crossing two small branches of the “Ancocus ” at the end of the 26th
mile he records a 9” black oak sapling on a ridge of good pine land. (This is
about a mile west of Whitings) ; at 27 miles a 4” black oak sapling. Tolerable
good pine land.

In all he recorded 29 trees in what we consider the Pine Barrens. Of these,
26 were living pines with an average diameter of 6.6 inches. One 8 inch fire
killed pine, and two oaks. Only where oaks were recorded did he mention good

ine or tolerably good pine land.
: His line pea follows the drainage divide of this area. There are few
natural fire breaks. As a result forest fires have been larger and much more
frequent than in other sections of the Pine Barrens.

54 BARTONIA

Economic History OF THE PINE BARRENS

“The Pines” is an old country industrially. As early as 1684, iron was
smelted from bog ore at Tinton Falls, in Monmouth County. While this forest
region was never highly developed in a modern sense, it did support many thriv-
ing towns and industries, which, for the most part, have disappeared. The
few towns which remain reveal but scant evidence of their former prosperity.

_ Many pursuits contributed to the former prosperity of this vast woodland
area. Among the more important was the smelting of iron from bog ore which
was abundant throughout the Pines. Thousands of bushels of charcoal, used as
a domestic fuel and in smelting the iron were produced annually. Firewood
was shipped from coast and river ports to supply industry, railroads, steamboats
and for domestic use. In Cape May County, as many as 16 sloops piled high
with wood, left Dennisville on a single tide. Lumber was cut by many small
sawmills, scattered over this wilderness, from the stands of pine, oak and the
choice growth of white cedar.

There were other industries of varying degrees of importance. Glass factories
were established here and there; paper mills were built at several places; silk
and cotton mills sprang up in various localities; shipbuilding was an industry
of importance; salt works where sea water was evaporated and the brine re-
covered were common; and naval stores were produced in a limited way.

The collapse of industry in the Pine Barrens occurred about 1860 and was
due chiefly to three things: the discovery of anthracite coal, the development of
richer iron deposits elsewhere in the United Stats, and the virtual exhaustion
of the timber supply.

Other factors contributed to the demise of industry; coastwise shipping
decreased with the advent of the railroads; shipbuilding was curtailed and ceased
altogether toward the close of the last century. Following the industrial decline,
which was precipitous in the case of the iron industry, this region became de-
populated with surprising rapidity.

This industrial decline coupled with the removal of nearly all of the mer-
chantable timber from lands that are sub-marginal for agriculture and resulted
in more than 400 land “ schemes ” similar to Paisley —‘‘ The Magic City fons
a result of this so called “development ” the land situation is appalling. The
ownership of large acreages is unknown; while, on a huge acreage, the taxes have
been unpaid for decades.

Forest fires have been the greatest single obstacle to the re-establishment of
forests in the Pine Barrens. For years, little atttempt was made to extinguish
them and they were allowed to burn until stopped by some natural barrier, such
as a swamp, stream, road or perhaps a shift of wind. In the past 37 years New
Jersey has seen some 48,000 fires burn 2,060,000 acres.

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY 55

In 1930 the forest growth on over a quarter of a million acres, much of it
in the Pine Barrens, was destroyed or severely damaged. A single fire accounted
for over 43,000 acres. That was the blackest year in our forest fire history and
many of the areas, not since damaged by severe fire, are beginning to make a
recovery. However, in 1936 a fire of 46,000 acres, much of it reburn of the 1930
fire, killed 6 CCC boys. In 1941 there were 2,495 fires which burned 86,800
acres. Five of these accounted for 31,000 acres.

With this past fire history, is it any wonder that there is such strong evidence .
that age, origin and crown injuries by severe fires affect the growth of pines more
than differences of soil and moisture; that over 33 per cent of the “ pines” is tax
delinquent; that the program for State Forests has been dormant for nearly 20
years, and that there are so few private individuals interested in owning timber
lands in South Jersey?

The more favorable fire record since 1943 is attributed to more mechanized
equipment, including fire trucks and tractor drawn plows, better radio communi-
cations, organization of the Forest Fire Service and favorable fire weather. The
reduction in the number of fires may be due to wider publicity and education
through radio, “Smokey Bear” posters and literature distributed to school
children.

In a recent issue of N. J. Municipalities Magazine, the State Firewarden
said: “ The greatest contributor to the disaster of forest fires in New Jersey
is the rapidity with which they spread due to the tinder-dry forest and the high
shifting winds, which are the main factors causing periods of high fire frequency.
Therefore, each and every fire that starts is a potential major fire unless it is
brought under control within a few minutes after starting. In New Jersey,
it is not an uncommon occurrence for as many as 75 fires to start during a single
day and ten of these to be of major proportions. Thus, it can be seen that if the
number of fires were doubled or tripled, the State Forest Fire Service would have
an immense problem and damage would be undoubtedly very high.”

For the past 100 years there have been few employment possibilities within
the Pine Barrens. Cranberrying, picking wild huckleberries, gathering sphagnum
and Christmas greens, spasmodic charcoaling and wood cutting, sawmilling
and the manufacture of rustic furniture have constituted the major opportunities
for employment in a sparsely settled region.

BLUEBERRIES: In 1932 there were 296 acres of blueberries in production. By
1950 this had increased to 2,800 acres, but there are indications that this will
level off. Increased costs for labor, fertilizer, packaging materials and oe har
for expensive irrigation systems for frost and drought protection, “ stunt ” and
other diseases, are limiting factors. Many of the operators of blueberry patches,
at their own expense, are transporting pickers from more densely settled areas
as far as 25 miles away.

56 BARTONIA

CRANBERRIES: In 1910, nearly a quarter of a million barrels of cranberries
were produced from approximately 12,000 acres. In 1950, 98,000 barrels were
produced from about 7800 acres. Nearly 4000 acres are recorded as being non-
bearing (either neglected or abandoned). Some of this acreage has been con-
verted to blueberries.

Public ownership in the Pine Barrens began in 1905 with the purchase of
Forest Reservations. By 1923, there were 9,150 acres in State Forests. An
acquisition program began in the late 1920’s, with an estimated goal of 200,000
acres, increased the area in State forest to 41,200 acres in 1935. Since the early
1930’s there has been no general acquisition policy in effect and as a result only
1,500 acres have been added to the State forests in the past 15 years. An average
price of $5.38 per acre has been paid for all of the 58,437 acres now in State
forests.

Under chapter 73, laws of 1940, municipalities could give tax distressed lands
to the State for forest and park purposes. The donors, according to the law,
were to receive 10 cents per acre per year tax lieu, as on other forest and park
lands. From 1940 to 1944 over 5000 tax certificates covering a net total of
19,050 acres, duplication eliminated, were given to the State. No tax lieu has
been paid. Because of the lack of policy, the Department has been unable to
clear the title or consider the 19,000 acres as part of the State Forests and begin
management practices to make this acreage more productive.

The Division of Fish and Game began the purchase of Public Shooting and
Fishing Grounds in the middle ’30’s with funds from fishing and hunting licenses
and the Federal Tax on arms and ammunition. There are now 45,000 acres of
such lands in South Jersey, 28,000 acres of which have been acquired since 1940.
The Division of Fish and Game has a goal of at least 100,000 acres.

There are now 643 people to the square mile in New Jersey. About 170,000
hunting and 120,000 fishing licenses are sold annually. The gunning pressure on
open lands is terrific. Development of shooting and fishing grounds has been
started to increase the game carrying capacity of these lands by the installation
of impoundments for water fowl and food patches for upland game including
quail, rabbits, deer and grouse. Pheasants are creatures of cultivated areas
and are not adaptable to the Pine Barrens.

Game managers estimate that about 6% of the upland areas are needed for
food patches to support the maximum amount of game. The balance to be kept
in woods for range and cover.

The water resources of South Jersey have been almost untouched. Atlantic
City owns a watershed near Absecon from which they obtain part of their water.
Cranberry growers are the other principal water users in the Pine Barrens.
Recreation on South Jersey State Forests centers around water at Lake Nummy
on the Belleplain Forest, Lake Absegami on the Bass River Forest, Lake Oswego
on the Penn Forest and Pakim Pond on the Lebanon Forest. The latter two
are cranberry bog reservoirs on State lands and may set the pattern for similar
multiple public and private use of water resources.

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY oe

Lake Absegami attracts 100,000 people annually from as far away as Quebec,
Canada for bathing, fishing, picnicking, camping and vacations in cabins. The
local merchants in New Gretna estimate that 25% of their summer sales are
made to these visitors. Enlargement of such publicly owned recreation areas
can be an economic asset to the region.

The Pine Barrens shows little indication of the purpose for which most of it
is best suited—the growing of timber crops. The lack of a stable market for a
wide variety of small sized trees, heavy cutting of a single species, repeated
severe forest fires, and lack of seedling reproduction has retarded the practice
of forestry on both public and private lands.

Now THE PICTURE IS BRIGHTER: In 1946 roofing-felt plants consumed about
63,000 cords of pulpwood, mostly from small sized trees. While nearly 75%
of the pulpwood came from pine, one plant, by making minor changes in pulp-
ing processes, provided an annual market for nearly 15,000 cords of mixed hard-
woods. This market has enabled Conservation agency foresters to assist South
Jersey owners in more intensive management of their woodlands and help them
to realize some cash return from the low quality material found in most woodlots.

During the three years that the program has been in effect, over 8,400 cords
of pulpwood have been cut from about 800 acres in 140 ownerships. Under this
program, a larger market for small sized hardwoods can result in greater forest
production from the woodlands of South Jersey.

However, it is estimated that during the past year a total of about 155,000
cords of wood was cut from not less than 30,000 acres. Most of the cutting has
been done in such a manner that it will be years before these areas can be re-
turned to full production. Fifty years is a long time in the life of a man, but
short in the life of a forest. With the prospect of no immediate cash return,
much of the cut-over land can be expected to appear on future tax lists.

Prescribed burning for protection has been done on South Jersey State Forests
for over 25 years. In earlier days this was restricted to narrow strips only 25
to 200 feet in width. The cost of burning these strips was high, oftentimes more
expensive than burning the entire stand. The 1946 New Lisbon fire of over 1000.
acres, which destroyed summer homes valued at $50,000, was stopped on a three-
quarter mile front at the Lebanon Forest boundary on a prescribed burned area.
This showed the advantage of “ protection in depth” in stand burning. This
past spring “ protection in depth ” meant stopping fire on the Bass River Forest;
and reduced the killing damage of a fire at Manumuskin from over 60 per cent
on untreated areas to less than 20 per cent on treated areas. It also reduced
the kill on treated areas to trees of unmerchantable size.

“ Protection in depth” has led to a general policy of using prescribed fire
on State Forest lands. In 1951, seven per cent of all South Jersey Forests were
burned. This winter’s burning is planned for 8.2 per cent. The ultimate goal
is about 10 per cent. This will have more significance in regenerating a
pine as the present degenerate, fire damaged, oak-pine stands become older an
are ready for harvest.

58 BARTONIA

Prescribed burning on private lands began in 1948. Last year over 5,100
acres were burned. Plans for this winter call for the burning of 8,200 acres
and read like a report of forest fires: Medford, Weymouth, Red Lion, Four
Mile, Williamstown, Cassville, Marlton, Nesco, Speedwell, Sooy Place, Egg
Harbor, Toms River, Pasadena, Indian Mills, Tabernacle and Atsion.

Willis M. Baker, former New Jersey Associate Forester, once said that if a
way could be found to get South Jersey reforested with pine, and wild fires
controlled, it would be the salvation of the Pine Barrens.

r. Chapman has shown why prescribed fire is needed to fit the ecology
pattern of our native pines and Dr. Little how this can be applied to oak-pine
upland sites.

Recent experience shows that prescribed burning makes wild fire easier to
control, insures present stands from killing damage and provides a cheap means
of reforestation. Ten or more pines for a penny can easily be obtained on many
upland sites. Coupled with the market for mixed hardwoods, prescribed burn-
ing offers an opportunity to rehabilitate from one to two thousand acres of
South Jersey woodlands each year. Yields of 17,500 board feet per acre in
60 years with a stumpage value of $300 per acre, now a rarity, may become
commonplace.

e Pine Barrens area of 800,000 acres in 24 municipalities of Atlantic,
Ocean and Burlington counties supported a fairly constant population of less
than 20,000 people from 1880 to 1920. Beginning in 1920 there was a sharp
rise in population when new highways were built in the area. Population in
1950 was 38,267, an increase of about 8000 during the past 10 years. This in-
creased population has, for the most part, located around the fringe of the
Barrens. The Naval Air Station at Lakehurst and the expansion of Fort Dix
have provided additional employment and an increase in population in adjacent
municipalities. Resort towns and the employment opportunities provided by
them has increased the population of Egg Harbor Township considerably. Other
increases have been noted along the major highways. Most of these people
live in the pines but find employment elsewhere. Bass River Township with
an 1880 population of 1,006 now has a population of 688. In 1940 its population
was only 599.

BooM ALONG THE DELAWARE River: The building of a half billion dollar
plant by U. 8. Steel in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, just across the River from
Trenton, has triggered a two billion dollar industrial expansion program from
Burlington, southward to Penns Grove between the River and the N. J. Turn-
pike. Plans are now being prepared to dredge a 40 foot ship channel to Trenton.
Home builders in South Jersey salute the new enterprises and estimate that
between 24 and 28 thousand new homes will be built within the next year. On
the east, at Toms River, a new pharmaceutical plant is building which is ex-
pected to employ several hundred people. The Southern New Jersey Develop-
ment Council is fostering increased industrial, agricultural and recreational use
in the South Jersey area.

THE PINE BARRENS OF NEW JERSEY 59

This industrial expansion will be felt in the Pine Barrens, principally along
major highways, where homes can be expected to be built. Looking at a map
prepared by the Planning Section of the Department of Conservation and Eco-
nomic Development it is easily seen that these communities are not prepared
for a rapid expansion. No building codes, no real estate sub-division control,
no zoning ordinances, no nothing. Any development in these areas will be like
Topsy ‘just growed.’ An indication of this is already apparent along the White
Horse Pike between Egg Harbor City and Absecon where one can buy a 40x 100
foot lot for only $75.00. Here there are 4,100 acres of the Pine Barrens being
divided into lots on which trailers and shacks are being erected. Are they creat-
ing another Paisley? I understand that no clear title goes with the purchase of
the lots.

The Planning Section has prepared a Development Plan for New Jersey
to give an over-all pattern for the future physical development of South Jersey
including the Pine Barrens. Within the framework of this plan, orderly de-
velopment can and should take place as needed.

Basic considerations for the plan find that more than two-fifths of the entire
land area in the State has little agricultural value or can be made productive
only at disproportionate cost; 33.4 per cent of the pine lands are chronically
tax delinquent and this tax delinquency is further aggravated by a surplus of
building lots accumulated through a series of real estate booms.

By reason of its low-quality and excessive quantity, much of this land will
never be sold or occupied as building sites; much of it will be unable to meet
future competition of new, better-located, and more modern sub-divisions, and
many thousands of areas of the premature platted lands, unless replatted or
reclaimed for other uses, will continue indefinitely as a costly liability to the
municipalities in which they are located. Recommendations of the plan call
for a broad land use policy to be adopted by the State. Indicated on the map
are General Purpose proposals for land that has presented problems in three
or more phases of the study: sub-marginal soil, low productivity, tax delinquency,
or excess sub-division. This is land that is unable to pay its way and is a drain
on the taxpayer. :

It is intended that most of the proposed public land areas serve such public
purposes as protection of present and future public water supplies, fish and game
lands, timber growing and general recreation. :

The problem of tax foreclosure was greatly simplified by the “In Rem
law of 1948 providing foreclosure proceedings against the property and not
the owner. Greater use of this procedure by the municipalities should be en-
couraged. All such tax-land holdings should be carefully checked with the
State Plan and municipal plans, in order to determine tracts that can be ad-
vantageously held in municipal ownership or transferred to the State. Appro-
priately employed, this can be a fertile means of achieving the goal for State
owned General Purpose Areas.

60

BARTONIA

The Plan proposes that the assembly of these lands be started as rapidly
as economically feasible, that the Department of Conservation and Economic
Development be designated as the receiving agency, given the means for acquir-
ing and administering the land subject to transfer of portions of it to other
State Agencies as needed for specified public purposes. The Department to
be provided with an annual purchase fund of not less than $100,000 for the
acquisition of general-purpose lands and that the condition of acceptance and
disposal of lands thus acquired be as follows:

ow

ad

os

ns

fe

or)

. Land to be acquired by acceptance of tax-title liens from municipalities

in accordance with Chapter 73, Laws of 1940 and Chapter 96, Laws of
1948; or through land purchases by the Federal Government under the
Fulmer Act; or by gift; or by purchasing under favorable terms; or by
such other means, legislative and otherwise, as may subsequently be made
available to the Department.

All such lands, however to be acquired, to be scrutinized for conformity
with the accompanying Plan and not to be taken or accepted if non-
conforming unless shown to be essential for a special public purpose.

All lands conforming to the Plan to be taken or accepted whenever obtain-
able upon reasonable terms, irrespective of availability of funds for their
immediate development or of their relation to other existing state holdings.

. All lands thus acquired, not specifically designated or acquired for an-
ld

other specific use to be held under the stewardship of the Department of
Conservation and Economie Development for such treatment and public
use as may seem most appropriate such as forest land, recreational
areas, etc.

Purchases of sub-marginal land for general public purposes to be directed
first toward the piecing out of land areas otherwise acquired.

. Purchase to exclude privately developed parcels of exceptional value un-

less needed for a special purpose or for the protection of other holdings.

There are two things that are needed to place this plan in operation:

1.

N

A clear-cut State acquisition policy authorized by the legislative and
executive branches of the State Government.

A general education program for municipal officials in applying the “In
Rem” foreclosure proceedings. A Regional Planning Unit is needed in
the Pine Barrens to assist the municipal officials in applying the “In
Rem ” proceedings to clear title to tax lands that have the best economic
possibilities in private ownership. Other lands should be retained by the
municipalities or transferred to the State for General-purpose lands.

Under this program of rational development our natural resources of fish
and game, potable water, varied recreational opportunities and timber supplies
may be preserved and the wilderness of the Pine Barrens can be given to future
generations as a heritage of increased usefulness and enjoyment.

Program of Meetings during 1949

61

Date Subject Speaker Attendance
Jan. 27 Impressions of teres and Guatemala .......... John M. Fogg, Jr. 43
Pam. 28 -Coneeige at Meee ooo 5 cc oo sce Oe a ee Ruth Patrick m
Mar. 24 Native Flowers te ‘Sas of Their nog Visitors Aesesage de N. aes 67
Apr. 28 A Botanical Cruise in the West Indies .......... George R. Proc 23
May 26 The Preparation of a Flora of benniy wails ae H Ag Wa hl 28
Sept. 27 Dynamic Plant Geography of Pennsylvania ...... Edgar T. Wher 48
Oct. 27 Botanizing in the Andes of Northern Peru ....... Francis W. Pennell 39
NOV. AF Pee Wh Wet Peet 25 EAA ae Philip Atlee Livingston 24
eee 15 A Borie Trip tw thie Weat:s ei eis Edgar T. Wherry 37

Program of Meetings during 1950

Date Subject Speaker Attendance
Jan. 26 Some Arctic Flowering Plants ............- -.«e+ Neal A. Weber 40
Feb. 23 The Exploration of Cerro Sipapo, Venezuela .... Bassett Maguire 34
Mar. 23 Old Friends and New Acquaintances among

exicat Platte: 2) iiss ia a Mrs. Ida K. Langman 21
Apr. 27 Sse tag Pi yas from the Black Hills to

ba 4 CONe as eh eee Ralph M. Sargen 43

May 25 Kectice in "Bos Tro Richard B. Chilies. Jr, 34
Sept. 28 Reports on the Saat Tail Congress,

SEOCKNOUN “1NOU oon 5 era ces ee ee ee ee Ruth Patrick 36

Wendell H. Camp

Oct. 26 The Windward Islands of the Caribbean ........ Victor W. von Hagen 34
Nov. 16 Flowers of Southern New Jersey especially of the

ae ie Ralph M. Sargent 42

Dec. 21 Camera Studies of Bog Plants Edgar T. Wherry 30

Program of Meetings during 1951

Date Subject Speaker Attendance
Jan. 25 Some Ferns of Australia and New Zealand ...... William W. Cadbury 31
Feb. 22 A Botanist’s Summer on the ed Telanls 6k oa Robert B. Gordon 24
Mar. 22 Old and New Plants at Gladwyne .............. Mrs. J. Norman Henry 41
Apr. 26 Beyond the Poconos ........ W. 1. Dix. 27
May 24 A Botanical Trip to Finland F. R. Fosberg 51
Sept. 27 Notes on the Wild Flowers of Australia ......... A. Keith Ashby 28
Oct. 25 Early Spring Flowers of the Carolina Coastal Plain Ralph M. Sargent 40

Dionaea and Other — Piss sss. 0s ore P. Haas
Nov: 15 - Botany among the Aztecs: © i... 55 2352 .3005 i os. Mrs. Ida K. Langman 24
‘Dec. 27 Characteristic Plants oe i Philadelphia Region.. Edgar T. Wherry 64

62 BARTONIA
List of Officers and Members, 1949-1950-1951

FrANcis W. PENNELL, President

Mrs. J. NorMAN HeEnry, Vice-President
WALTER M. BENNER, Secretary

Harry W. TRUDELL, Treasurer

BaAyarD Lone, Curator

Francis W. PENNELL, Editor of BARTONIA

ACTIVE MEMBERS

(as of October 1, 1952)

Elected
OW AAG, oc F ensat St, Phitsdeing 19, Pas or oe oo cs dec eee 1925
Wares Arys worth, 426 Cross. St, Ann Arbor, Mich. ci35 0 oo ei on ee se ee oe ee 945
Mes A.C Pagnes: Latch s bane, Merion Pao. ak eo os ab kee ee se 1942
SUDWEN Go DAN TRAME DUGHRE a oe ee ia rs ee oa eis vets 1906
J. Russet, Besier, 6245 Wissahickon Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pa. ............ cece ees 1919
Dr. Water M. Benner, 5636 Loretta Ave., Philadelphia 24, Pa. .............2.020005 1912
JASPER T. BentTLEy, 201 W. Chestnut Hill Ave., Philadelphia 18, Pa. ................-- 1933
Da Davin Bepeeuinent, 518: Elm St., Reading, Pa... 6 65s a 1943
Mrs. Wiittam A. Brack, 531 E. Livezey St., "Philadelphia COP SAA pe 1950
Cam. E. Briss, 2106 Overbrock Road, Lakewood, Obie 2.58 eos ee oe as ov ns ee 1924
tou: Besnr Sit Chettems Ave, Jenkintown, Pas 63 ooo cs ie vee ee ooo ce os tes 1943
Miss Prue. Bevedwer. Beach Dale, Bird in Hand; Pa... coc coos es en ee te ee 1939
Wiiitam:C. Baumpacn, Ester: Pas oc se ech ea 1943
Dr. Witt1am W. Capsury, 274 W. Main St., Moorestown, N. J. .........---.2eeeeeeee 1950
Dr. W. H. Camp, Academy of Natural Seeanky Philadel oie 5, Phe < viene twee escars 1950
Ricuarp B. Cutias, 233 Winona Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pa. .............. Clue reeks 1942
Peo. M.A: Casvere: Chaslin, €otwe sie coer. oe ek Fe ee ens 1931
Joun W. Cosurn, 120 Nippon St, Philadelphia a etic 1951
F. Van Buren Connett, “ Hollybrook”, Brookside Ave., Wayne, Pa. ...........-+-+ 1924
W. L. Drx, 801 Crown St., Morrisville, Pa Be a 1942
AuBert Donacuy, 7811 Chelwynde Ave., seg nemg SE PRS olen oa dda Hee 1952
Ropeer R. Deeiseacn: 301 Helen St Midland. Mich: 232. .c ice oe ee te 1922
Miss ExizAsetoH C. Eare, 4209 Chester Ave., SNE rs ee oe 1935
Howarp W. ELKinton, 6514 Germantown Ave., Philadelphia 19, Pa. .........-----+:> 1931
Mrs. Nettie ErtsMan, 1821 Mt. Vernon St., Philadelphia 30, Pa. ............2-2-+-0++ 1945
Mrs. Harotp Evans, a ong A Waskinetca Lane, Philadelphia 38, Pa. ......---+- 1931
RicHarp Biossom FARLE # Bapobia Maupin Pa. ics cas i ca oe Hees 1931
Cart W. FENNINGER, 1682 Chestnut St., a BPR a ee es => 1947
Arpier J, Peewee 1101 N: 63rd St, Philadelphia 31, Paso: oe ee ee 1948
Miss ExvizasetH H. FLAvett, 6146 Wayne Ave., Sosa oN eee eee 1946
Dr. Joun M. Foce, Jr., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 4, Pa. ........-----++> 1921
Vamitaw t. Posies Widdia Fa ooo os eee eee 1935

Bites Pescamere A: Goose, BT 1, Vetta, Fa. ors eh i ee a re 1944

LIST OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS, 1949-1950-1951 63

JOUN Gr, 2 Linden ‘Ave. Haddonfield N. Jo 560 370 i a ee 939
Dr. THomas S. GirHENs, Cambridge Apartments, School Lane and Wissahickon Ave.,
Whuladeiphia 44) Pay. cestenshd sien teuees ies code be a ee ee 1945
Dr. Rosert B. Gorvon, 415 Sharpless St., West Meer yi 1942
Me, & Mas. Rozear Ganenwooo, Gladwyne; Pa... 05 a 1952

Dr. THEoporE P. Haas, Phila. College Pharmacy & Science, Phila. 4, Pa.
Louis E. Hann, 8061 Fairview St., Philadelphia WO PBs soe eran ve eid tees oe 1936
Miss Ann Hapsison, “ The Barchy ” 18th St. & Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia 3, Pa. 1944

mas. J. Noman Hawey, Gladwyne, Pais: oS OS eee 1932
Miss Jocuruine Den. Heiney; Gladwyne, Paso ice os a a aa 1938
Mr. & Mrs. A. H. Hotcompge, Jr., 1330 Youngs Ford Road, Gladywne, Pa: isi e.. 1949
Lee P. Hywas 30: West Kad Ave, Haddonfiell Node iit oe 1939
Miss Nancy E. James, 4043 Baltimore Ave., Philadelphia 4, Pa. .............02.0000. 1942
Pror. Marton A. JoHNson, Dept. Botany, itaeks University, New Brunswick N. J.... 1946
joan Baneaty, Gladwyne, Pas. 0 lo et a a i a ee 1952
Miss Natatie B. Kiser, 538 E. Locust Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pa. .................0- 1928
Rev. Wiiram U. Kist ier, 118 Main St., Pennsburg, Pa. ree L's GI
Luowic A. Kosunes, 1701 Race St., Philadelphia 3, Pac ci coo. oie eo occ c csc eee 1952
Mrs. Ina K. Laneman, 3509 Baring St., Philadelphia 4, Pa. ............-0csccecececes 1937
Dr. Hu1-Lin Li, Morris Arboretum, Philadelphia 18, Pa. .............0.eeceeceececees 1944
Ds. Haney A. Liove, 200 N. 35th St., Philadelphia 4. Pa. 22503. ee 1931
Bayarp Lone, 250 Ashbourne Road, Elkins Park, Philadelphia 17, Pa. ................. 1906
Joun R. McIntosu, 304 Winona Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pa. ................c0cececeee 1945
Dr. Epwin T. Mout, Dept. Botany, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N. J. ........ 1945
Georce F, Nicxras, 3410 Race St., Philadelphia 4, Pa. 1951
FREDERICK M. OLpacH, 323 Wellesley Road, ora an 10 Par og eS es henner oe 1951
Mrs. GeorcE B. Orr, Willowbrook Far ake ul Gcie ea pee conser s sea oh o> sews as 1935
Miss oanage ly G. OstHEIMER, Jenkintown, 1933
Dr. Samuet C. PALMER, 26th & Chestnut Sts., a ip ee re eee ree rg 1929
WALTER Saas. Rowle 16. Meda Pa. 5 ein es a a GS 1952
Mrs. Franx Pancen, 400 S,-45th St. Philadeiphia 4, Pa... 0s cic cces oe te es ss 1950
Dr. RutH Patrick, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 3, Pa. ................ 1937
rhe Wo Pere, 123 8. 17th St. Alleniowi Pe 6 ie ee 1909
Miss HELEN Ramsay, 1328 i ce St Philadelphia BO Pa oes Se ee esas 1945
iiss Aswsé Howl ani Meadowbronk, Par oo. oa rk vce ep ees 1948
Mrs. Kart Rucart, 612 Bryn Mawr Ave., Penn Valley, Narberth, Pa. ................ 1942
Dre, Ratpu M. Sancent, 4 College Circle, Haverford, Pa. ....0..-- 0 cece ce se esesee ses 1948
Da Ropert L. Scuaerrer, Jr, 32 N. 8th St., Allentown, Pa. \...-.-.-. 2s eee e eee e es 1938
Dr. J. R. Schramm, Morris Arboretum, Philadelphia 18, Pa. ......... ee ee nel 1937
Henry SKINNER, Morris Arboretum, Philadelphia 18, Pa. ..........2.----eeeeeeeeeees 1942
Dr. & Mrs. Rosert V. Speck, Apt. 117-B-Haddon Hills, Crystal Lake Ave., Haddonfield, cr
as i ic we a eo a ed re ere te ea koe ok ee te
Dr. C. I. ‘Sema BO? Welsh St. Chester, Pao oo ieee hee ee sees eeewes 1945
Hucu E. Srone, 431 Berkley Road, Haverford, Pa. ..........2..--+- esse cee eeseeeee 1892
Dr. Rosert R. TATNALL, 236 Lancaster Ave., Wynnewood, Pa. .......-----+--++eeeee es 1928
Mrs. Howarp W. Taytor, Gladwyne, Pa. .........--.. eee eee cece cence renee e teens 1952
Dr. Georce S. TARNoWSKI, 158 Crosswell Ave., Staten Id. 4, N. Y. eu Seo
Horace E. TuHompson, 5016 Schuyler St., Philadelphia 44, Pa. ....--..-.--+---+-ee-+-- 1920

Wituram THoMpsoN, JR., Leroy Court Apts., #403, 1700 S. 60th St., plore 42, Pa. ee
Henry Stanton Titiorson, 40 B Erma Court, Upper Darby, Pa ot
R. J. Trruerrncton, 6317 N. Norwood St., Philadelphia 38, Pa. ie

64 BARTONIA

piAmey W.. Tavoeis, 1909 Mistiand Ave. Abington, Pa. i260 6) sii. Baie ok 1915
Mrs. EvizasetH A. VALENTINE, 3943 Locust St., Philadelphia OPae cs eS 1949
Mrs. J. H. Vance, 307 Levering Mill Road, Bala-Cynwyd, Pa. ...........¢.--0+0ee0-0: 1950
Dr. Paut R. Wacner, Ursinus College, a Bee ee ee ee ay eee 1935
Bs Peeor Wateek, S11 Lynmerté Road, Dien Mawr, Pacis. i ss sn i 1939
Mrs. MARGUERITE L. WarNKE, 142 S. Logan pa Medehins Neo Sear eeees 1935
wastes FULDA, Wi eee. 1070 Fart St, -Paldeios 29 Pa ies cA Pca eres
Miss Evetyn WELLS, Biological Abstracts, University of Pennsylvania, Phila. 4, Pa. .... 1947
Romar ©. Wie. S75 Chetinet: St Piiedettina 6 Pas. ci re i hs ek tis 1
Dr. Epcar T. WuHeErry, Dept. of Botany, University of Pennsylvania, Phila. 4, Pa. ...... 1925
PAARS VWIGEKENS, A240. Lotro, ROAMMND bd. toes bos ck ee ae thc wie Ue ce eee 1928
Miss ExizasetH Wistar, 200 a. Ave Praeteiphia 18, Pa, gs 1952
Wietiaw Fl: Waere Riecolouille Pa fe Led, oie es Ee i ee a hes ee 1898
Howarp Woop, Jr., “Aloha”, R. D. 1, C iahehodee ie Pa oth eo as (a es tee 1944
Miss Mary F. Wricut, 231 Wana weve, Prindeipnia 44) Pass as seks fees 1928
HONORARY MEMBER
Dr. Epwarp E. WitpmAn, 4331 Osage Ave., Philadelphia 4, Pa. ................-000-- 1931
CORRESPONDING MEMBERS

Dr. Etmer D. Merritt, Arnold Arboretum, Jamaica Plain 30, Mass. ...........-+---+: 1945
Dn. Hanon Sr. Joun, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, T. He ..36 5 cis eee cet cei de 1927
Dr. WitttaM RANDoLPH TayLor, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor; : Mich, 50:5. +, 1921
De Campari E.. Waters, Chevy: Chase. Washiwiston, L) Ge oo. oe ce oc iv pees ke

Dr. HEBER W. YouncKEN, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy, Boston, Mass; 34-54 ¢+ 1918

MEMBERS RECENTLY DECEASED

te Meseris L. Feenato.. osc a ee September 22, 1950
Cuartes F. JENKINS Rae pan eS ee cage ae re eee July 2, 1951
Dr. Francis W. PENNELL .......... eee Ae: February 3, 1952
Minite E. Lawns .-. 2255 February 8, 1952

Dr. Henry A. LagssLe . May 13, 1952

BARTONIA

JOURNAL OF THE
HILADELPHIA BOTANICAL CLUB

CONTENTS

A Preliminary Study of the Genus Chenopodium in North America
Hersert A. Want 1

, Sporangia and Indusia of the Genus Dryopteris in North America, ne
‘North of Mexico Cuype F. REED soe

Color Variations of Two Plants in the Southern Appalachians
Rave M. Sancexr 7

BARTONIA

JOURNAL OF THE
PHILADELPHIA BOTANICAL CLUB

No. 27 1952-53

A Preliminary Study of the Genus Chenopodium
in North America '

Herpert A. WAHL

Pennsylvania State University

No group of plants of comparable size and wide distribution known to the
writer has suffered the lack of understanding of the taxa involved as has the
genus Chenopodium, especially those members of its Section Chenopodia that are
closely related to C. album and C. Berlandiert. The reasons for this lie in (1) the
ecological variability characteristic of weedy annuals, (2) the fact that important
diagnostic characters are present in the seeds, which are of small size and often
lacking from collected material, (3) the repetition of similar variations in habit
and leaf shape in distinct species and (4) the lack of pubescence characters in
most species.

The first comprehensive treatment of the North American species was that
of Standley 2 (12), in 1916. Although this work provided considerable clarifica-
tion through the recognition of a dozen native species, the distinctions were, in
some cases, based rather largely on habit and leaf shape and to a lesser degree on
fruit characters. This led, especially in the album and Berlandiert complexes,
to the inclusion of some unrelated plants under the same name and to the lack of
recognition of other taxa. The species delimitations laid down by Standley were
followed, however, by Fernald (6) and by Gleason (9) in their recent regional
floras.

Adequate clarification of the genus was first accomplished by Aellen? (2),
and later, with special reference to North American taxa, by Aellen and Just?
(4). These two treatments might have resulted in a relatively complete under-

1 Authorized for publication on March 25, 1954, as paper No. 1869 in the Journal Series
of the Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station, and as Contribution No. 185 from the
Department of Botany, Pennsylvania State University

2 Since these important works are cited so frequently in the following pages, they are
referred to simply as Standley, Aellen, and Aellen and Just, without citation of number.

2 BARTONIA

standing of the genus had the characters separating the taxa been more clearly
and accurately pointed out in the keys. That this was not done is indicated by
the lack of acceptance of the results in the above-mentioned revisions of the
northeastern flora. Fosberg (7), discussing the separation of species related to
C. Fremontti, says the differences seem “ scarcely enough to base species upon,
even in Chenopodium ” [italics mine]. This sums up the attitude expressed by
many who have dealt with the genus.

In his 1929 paper Aellen described two native eastern American species of
Chenopodium, one from Missouri and one from Cape Cod. The former, C. mis-
souriense, turns out to be common and strikingly uniform, apparently throughout
eastern U.S. south of about latitude 41°, although its distribution is as yet incom-
pletely known. The latter, C. macrocalycium, is frequent as a coastal plant from
Nova Scotia to southern New Jersey. It is almost invariably filed in herbaria
under C. album or its var. lanceolatum (C. lanceolatum Muhl.) though not closely
related to either. Collections of it have never been associated with C. Berlandiert,
but additional material from the southern limit of its range may show it grading
into this species, since it is closely related thereto. C. missowriense has most
often been identified with C. album, the two being similar, although separable in
the herbarium on the basis of seed size and other characters, and from a moving
car at any time of the year; an ecological form of it is, however, the basis for part
of C. Berlandiert of most American authors.

With these points in mind it seems that the expression “ even in Chenopodium ”
may be inapropos. Perhaps “even in” is inapropos in all cases (including
Rubus?), for in most critical and “ troublesome ” genera that have been subjected
to really adequate study, differences of opinion are chiefly systematic. That is,
they revolve around the question of whether a particular and generally recog-
nizable entity should be considered as a species, to belong in some sub-specific
category, or as not meriting nomenclatorial status at all. Confusing variations
are especially frequent in weedy annual plants, of which Chenopodium is an out-
standing example. They may best be resolved by field experience and various
approaches of Experimental Taxonomy, although only after some understanding
of the taxa involved has been attained. This stage of the taxonomic discipline
seems to be late in arriving in several sections of the genus Chenopodium.

The work reported here started as an attempt merely to clarify those taxa
especially closely related to the C. album series, incident to studies on the Flora
of Pennsylvania. It has progressed, perforce, to a consideration of nearly all the
North American taxa, but has stopped, temporarily and because of the press of
other commitments, short of completeness and of monographic proportions. The
hope is that reasonably adequate clarification of the species occurring east of the
Mississippi River has been achieved. Some material of strictly western species
has been studied (mostly found in herbaria under C. album) but the treatment
of these is not presumed to be definitive. No doubt a large amount of material of

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 3

western species is in western herbaria, and it is hoped that this may be included
in a further study. Final elucidation of the more closely related taxa probably
will be achieved, however, only by a combination of herbarium, field, and perhaps
experimental work.

Material has been studied from the collections in the herbaria of the New
York Botanical Garden (NY.), University of Illinois (Ill.), University of Penn-
sylvania (Penn.), Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (PH.), U. S.
National Museum (US.), Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada (OTB.),
Pennsylvania State University (PAC.), Gray Herbarium (GH.) and the Her-
barium of the New England Botanical Club (NEBC.). The author is indebted
to the curators and personnel of these herbaria for the use of this material and for
additional services.

CHARACTERS IN CHENOPODIUM
Fruit

Examination of any significant amount of material offers convincing evidence
that characters exhibited by the fruits (commonly referred to as utricles, although
hardly ever with an inflated pericarp) are of primary significance in separating
“interbreeding populations ”. This is evident because of the relative distinctness
between the fruits of individual species and because other characters are corre-
lated with these fruit differences, not to mention the general acceptance of repro-
ductive characters as of inherently greater diagnostic value than vegetative ones.
Unfortunately the fruits are small, generally 0.5 to 2.0 mm. in diameter, and
recognition of the characters, while they can usually be detected with a 10x hand
lens, is often better obtained at a magnification of 15-20 diameters. Since the
thickness of the pericarp is negligible in comparison to the width of the seed,
measurements for seed and fruit may be used interchangeably.

While size, shape, and acuteness of the margins are valuable characters, those
having to do with the attachment of the pericarp to the seed and with the surface
markings of the pericarp (also present, though less apparent, on the seed) are
diagnostic. In this paper, the pericarp is referred to as being attached to the seed
if it does not rub off when the fruit is rolled between the thumb and fore-finger
or when, on being scratched with the point of a dissecting needle, it separates only
along the line of contact with this. It is considered separable when it comes off
partially or entirely on rubbing (Fig. 1) or when it can be readily removed in
flakes by a needle.

The surface of the fruit may be either smooth, reticulate, or variously rough-
ened. In those described as being smooth, the surface of the nearly mature fruit,
when sufficiently magnified, generally appears to be pebbled with tiny pustules.
These may soon become detached leaving minute depressions, or they may remain
as obscure roughenings, hardly visible at 10x. When completely mature these
fruits become essentially smooth.

4 BARTONIA

The reticulate condition consists of the presence of depressions (alveolae),
usually roughly rectangular and elongate in a vertical direction on the fruit, and
separated by continuous ridges (Figs. 8, 9, 15). This characteristic alveolate
reticulation may often be seen even on young fruit but becomes more pronounced
with age and is visible on the pericarps of mature fruits at a magnification of
10 diameters. Markings of an irregular nature, more or less intermediate between
smooth and reticulate, may be present in some species, particularly in C. urbicum
and C. murale.

A character which, to the writer’s knowledge, has not been used heretofore, but
which is useful in separating certain species, is the presence or absence of a style
base. In C. album, for.example, the style is divided to the base while in C. Ber-
landieri a minute stylopodium, hardly more than 0.1 mm. long but definitely
recognizable, remains on the fruit. This is one of the few useful characters which
may be observed on young fruit. The length of the style branches is often diag-
nostic for sections but relatively constant for related species.

The shape of the fruit, whether flattened dorso-ventrally (horizontal) or
laterally (vertical) has long been recognized as a character of fundamental impor-
tance in the genus.

FLOWERS

Few features of diagnostic significance can be recognized in the flowers of this
genus. That of the style base has been mentioned. A most useful character is
found in the extent to which the midribs of the sepals are winged or keeled.
While this character presents some variation within a species it is expressed in
such extremes as to be of considerable diagnostic value. The extremes range from
a complete lack of a keel (C. urbicum and others) to a wing which is as wide as
the width of the sepal from the midrib to the lateral margin (C. Berlandiert)
(Fig. 9). The last species can usually be separated from C. album by its ex-
tremely broadly winged sepals.

The extent to which the perianth parts (generally referred to as sepals) cover
the fruit is diagnostic in certain cases. The width of the sepals varies to the
extent that they may meet or overlap laterally, or they may be separated from
each other by as much as their width.

Sequence of flowering, not ordinarily considered, is of importance in some
eases. Since the inflorescences are basically cymose the central flowers are oldest
and, in the very contracted cymes usually present (cymules, glomerules, heads),
they occupy a terminal position. In these inflorescences the flowers and fruit may
mature either uniformly or more or less prominently mized. They are described
as mixed when mature fruit is present before all perfect flowers in the same inflo-
rescence have reached anthesis. In many cases later pistillate flowers are present
and these may mature after all others.

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 5

As regards all the flowers or inflorescences on the same plant, they may mature
almost simultaneously throughout or, more frequently, successively from top to
base of the plant. In only one species seen, C. folioswm, is progression of flower-
ing from the base to the tip of the plant, and here it is more markedly so than in
any case of the reverse sequence.

LEAVES

In the earlier works (especially for taxa similar to C. album) leaf shape has
been used to a considerable extent in separating species. While various species
are indeed recognizable on this basis, the same leaf shape may occur in taxa
which, according to flower and fruit characters, clearly represent different species.
Wherever possible in the present work, however, leaf shape has been used in
separating larger groups in the key, since it is the most obvious character and the
one which is most often present. Mature seeds constitute the most important
feature for recognition of species, but they may be lacking from herbarium mate-
rial. Unfortunately, good primary leaves and mature fruits, the two most impor-
tant diagnostic features, are rarely both present at the same time. Leaf texture
is of fundamental importance but its well recognized ecological variability necessi-
tates caution in interpretation.

PHOTOPERIODISM

Fuller (8) described the effect of photoperiod on C. Quinoa Willd. and sum-
marized the previous literature. This phenomenon has apparently not been
applied in connection with species delimitation in the genus. While the time of
flowering may be more or less dependent on day length in various species, those
which exhibit the most marked response in this respect are C. Bushianum, C. mis-
souriense and, presumably, C. gigantewm. The first of these flowers during the
last week in August and the second during the second week in September, and this
is independent of the age of the plant. Although no exhaustive attempt has been
made to determine the exact length of the photoperiod which induces flowering,
plants of C. missouriense grown from seeds sown in the greenhouse during the
short fall and winter days have consistently flowered from the second or third
node above the cotyledons and have never become more than a few inches high.
Seeds sown in March and April produced plants which reached the roof of the
greenhouse, had to be supported on stakes, and flowered on schedule the second
week of September.

Under similar conditions C. album shows a preference for earlier flowering
with shorter photoperiods but it may be found in flower any time from June until
October. Examination of herbarium material has not disclosed a narrow photo-
period for other species but field observations may bring some cases to light.

BARTONIA

Ky TO THE SECTIONS OF CHENOPODIUM

i Age Hancagees? both pubescent en glandular ser wt ed Apogee tat tears in
h es).

with diffuse dichotomous cymes and nearly linear and entire lea

2. Posantk. parts RAVES veiny, united except oe minute tips, entirely piste the
RECRECN y e Ce ee ee sae ete nee ce es Sec. Roubieva, p. 6
2. Perianth parts separate or fused only at the bas
3. Seeds a 0.5-0.7 mm. broad; flowers in Saat — in the axils of the
Teed Wee a a a ee ec bee c. Orthosporum, p. 7
3. Seeds chiefly horizontal, 0.7-1.0 mm. broad.
4,

»

Flowers in dichotomous cymes; leaves chiefly less than 3 cm. long; perianth and

lower surface of leaves ‘glandular or = these glabrous and — g branches incon

spicuously whitish vesiculose-pubescent ................+4- c. Botryoides, p. 7

Fivecrs in small glomerules or short a. these chiefly bracts in an mg so

paniculate inflorescence; well developed leaves generally e than 6 ¢

a leaf surfaces glandular but Gavianth parts less conspicuously wae sally
bench er asia a US OOS we te tee oak Siete erkce Peon ale & a, Pp.

Z eds vertical or both vertical and segtesire 1 in the inflorescence (early stages of

ear to e all horizontal seeds) ; plants glabrous or fari-

m and var. may app
nose but if conspicuously farinose on tor leaf surfaces then farinules inconspicuous or
: ianth 3-, 4- or Siertel

>

nes form
satinete farino

6. Perianth parts chiefly 4 or 5, thei argins erose-dentate; stigmas pare pet
i of

r m cymes, these I
rming a I ge aera stout csrantonts Puig tg inflorescence; plants perennial,
eben lsssdenh ot eter ees cells sore aa) Sec. Agathophyton, p. 8

Perianth ah ee ted (4-5-parted in horizontal flowers eosin are terminal in ie
glomerules), the divisions entire or apiculate; stigmas not over 0.5 mm. in length;
eerie nnual.

7.

T

Flowers in discrete dense globose heads in ~ leaf - or forming terminal

bracteate or ebracteate al perianth parts in the upper heads sometimes red
and becom tng gig! ener in age; plants not favinoaes pie all 3s a pa
uniformly i in rhe SOMONE os a ee as Sec. Eublitum, p. 8
Flowers in Sone ‘these pagans separate or forming contracted spikes i in the
axils of leaves or bra small or la — Lrmpagied perianth parts membra-
naceous to coriaceous ‘when 3 young but = ing membranaceous = ~~ ve
deliquescent; terminal flowers of the glom aye tim mes not apparent in ‘late

stages) with Sonmontal seeds, the lateral ‘with renee seeds, maturing iccplan is
rei the former to the lat
8. — rianth parts of flowers wash vertical seeds 3-4, united nearly to the tip;
stigmas chiefly 0.2-0.3 mm. long, usually ascending in a V ... Sec. Degenia, P. 9
8. Perianth parts cua 3 of panies with vertical pee free nearly to the base
or some but not all in each flower united above middle; stigmas hardly
exceedi 1mm ne Sa spreading a 90 Pseudoblitum, p. 11

5. Seeds horizontal, rarely aad exceptionally a few vertical; plants variously farinose,

aes

mgr A aes mi inently so and at least as much so on perianth parts gu on leaves; perian
a er cee eee c. Chenopodia, p. 14

Section Rovsirva Rouy

1. C. multifidum L. (Roubieva multifida (L.) Mogq.)
The veiny pericarp covering the fruit is distinctive. South American; adven-
tive on the east and west coasts of N. A.

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 7

Section OrrHosporuM R. Br.
2. C. pumilio R. Br. (C. carinatum Auth.)
Sparingly adventive from Australia. Easily recognized by the small vertical
seeds. Leaves lobed, the proximal margin of the lobe tapering, the distal margin
at a right angle to the blade. Plants pubescent and glandular throughout.

Section Borryompges C. A. Meyer

This section is characterized especially by the conspicuously dichotomously
cymose nature of the inflorescence. The plants are relatively small with small
leaves, flowers and seeds.

1. Glands on perianth parts chiefly stalked; stems densely glandular and pubescent; perianth
parts acute to attenuate, not keeled or tuberculate; cymes contracted, in usually dense
FHCOMCG li trestle sss Soke ets 65 Sees Ol ee DOSES Cr Lesa e res ee kee bes «ns . C. Botrys
Glands on perianth parts chiefly sessile or lacking; stems moderately to sparingly eee
cent or glandular; perianth parts acute or obtuse, keeled or tuberculate; cymes diffuse, i
racemes or

—_
.

z: she at giinegs parts prominent, with several usually pointed tubercles toward the tip;
cymes in l60s6 TAGEINES 34 644 78 ee ee ies ee eee es . foetidum
2. Keel. oe or Fc the rib usually with a single sibs theniened tubercle;
cymes scattered or pani
3: eee parts and tones eure of leaves glandular; leaves lobed .. 5. C. graveolens
3. Plants glabrous or stems sespsenteiscied whitish vesiculose—or clavate—pubescent ;
legves entire ‘Or NESTIVY SO-.5 5 6s ces as vo oa os ee oe ee ws cs 6. C. aristatum
3. C. Botrys L.

Widely distributed and generally recognized. The perianth parts are keel-less
and densely covered with stalked glands. The plants occur especially on cinder
dumps and railroad beds but also in gardens, on shores, etc.

4. C. foetidum Schrad.

Similar to C. Botrys in appearance but the cymes more diffuse and perianth
strongly tuberculate-keeled and with the glands fewer and sessile. Probably
essentially lacking in North America but two collections of plants grown from
seed (as C. Botrys) at Dominion Arboretum and Botanic Garden at Ottawa,
Canada, are in the Herbarium of the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa. No
other records are known.

5. C. graveolens Willd. (C. incisum Poir.; C. cornutum (Torr.) Benth. &

Several varieties in Central and South America. C. graveolens var. neomezxi-
canum Aellen occurs in Arizona and New Mexico and this is the only material
seen; it is also reported from Texas, Colorado, Maine, and Massachusetts. The
plants are usually much branched with very numerous diffuse cymes and the
perianth parts well supplied with orange-yellow sessile glands and each bearing
a single prominent subterminal tubercle.

8 BARTONIA

6. C. aristatum L.

Asiatic. Standley says “ Reported from Alaska and Mexico” but known to
the present author in the U.S. by a collection from Yonkers, New York: “ about
the Yonkers Cotton Mill”, Bicknell, July 1, 1894 (NY.). The single specimen
is an immature plant ee although very eae in appearance has passed as
“a form of C. lanceolatum”. The nearly linear, entire leaves are in striking
contrast to the lobed leaves of other members of the section.

Section AmBriIna (Spach) Hook. f.

7. C. ambrosiowdes L.

The variations of this complex species have not been studied and will be
reserved for a future article.

Section AGATHOPHYTON (Moq.) Hook. f.

Members of the section are readily recognized by the erose sepals, long-taper-
ing stigmas, flowers in dense cymes or glomerules forming a terminal often caudate
inflorescence and duration perennial.

argins entire except for the often hastate base; flowers in ee a perianth parts

eet ert than half their length _ C. Bonus-Henricus
Leaf margins spammed sinuate-dentate; flowers in cymes; perianth - united half thei
BY os ns Ses na ee eee ®: €: cablaricien

8. C. Bonus-Henricus L.

Widely distributed but local in eastern U. S. and southeastern Canada (Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario). Adventive from Europe.

9. C. californicum 8. Wats. :

Known only from central and southern California; apparently native.

Section Eustirum (Mogq.) Aellen

Characterized by the dense globose heads of flowers in terminal spikes and by
the perianth parts becoming red and deliquescent in age. In the material seen
the latter character has been noted only in C. capitatum although it probably
occurs also in older plants of the other two species. The plants are similar in
appearance to those of Sec. Agathophyton, from which they are readily distin-
guished by the entire sepals and shorter stigmas.

Terminal heads ebracteate; flowers maturing uniformly or from top of plant downward; —
of fruit convex

Leaves tranente to cordate-hastate at base, the margins usually strongly toothed; princi-
pal glomerules on well-developed plants usually 6-10 mm. in diameter; stigmas chiefly

0.3-0.4 mm. long, flexuous 10. C. capitatum
Leaves tapering or truncate-hastate at base, the mar rgins somewhat toothed — entire;
glomerules usually less than 6 mm. in dia meter; stigmas chiefly 0. aheeg long,
squarrose ....... ea Overt

Heads prominently \opsaannngas throughout; flowers maturing from base of the sac, bs ae
sides fg mature fruit more or less prominently flattened; leaves finely a
dentate joo

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 9

10. C. capitatum (L.) Aschers. (Blitum capitatum L.)

Widely distributed but local. More common northward. In Canada it occurs
in Nova Scotia (rare), Quebec, Ontario (n. to Fort Albany on James Bay) and
apparently more frequently through Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Brit-
ish Columbia; also in Alaska. In U. S. chiefly scattered in the northern states.
A single plant from British Columbia, Tranquille, Dewdrop Spring, Bring 502,
June 1936, is worthy of note because in this very good collection the pericarp is
uniformly and markedly separable from the seed, while in all other plants seen in
fruit in this species and section the pericarp is strongly adherent. Various obser-
vations, of which this is an example, during the course of this study indicate the
need for critical analysis of material from the general region around Oregon.

11. C. Overt Aellen (Blitum hastatum Rydb.)

The specific epithet hastatum is preémpted in Chenopodium. Aellen and Just,
following Standley, give the range of this taxon as “ Wyoming to Oregon, Nevada
and New Mexico ”, and it is apparently native in the region as is C. californicum
of the preceding section. It is not mentioned by Peck, “ Manual of the Higher
Plants of Oregon ”, though it is at least in part the basis for C. humile in that
generally excellent work, or by Abrams, “ Flora of the Pacific States’. The fol-
lowing collections have been seen:

Orecon. Baker Co.: 8 mi. n.e. of Sumpter. Peck 10388, July 1921 (NY.). Wallowa Co.:
Lostine Canyon, 18 mi. above Lostine. Peck 17830, July 1933 (NY.). Buckhorn Springs.
Peck 18312, June 1934 (NY.). Montana. Flathead Co.: South fork of Flathead River, 7 mi.
e. of Columbia Falls. Rogers and Rogers 1050, July 1942 (NY.). YOMING. Yellowstone
Lake. Nelson and Nelson 6613 (Ill.). Nevapa. Clark Co.: Charleston Mts. Train 2107, July
1938 (OTB.). New Mexico. Bro. Arsene 21741 (US.).

The Oregon sheets were all distributed as C. humile and the Nevada sheet as
C. capitatum. It is not certain from the material seen that this taxon is specifi-
eally separable from C. capitatum.

12. ©. foliosum (Moench.) Aschers. (Blitum virgatum L.)

The specific epithet virgatum also preémpted in C henopodium. Differing from
other members of the section in the bracteate inflorescence and prominently
sharply lobed leaves and from these and other members of the genus in the
marked acropetal sequence of flowering and fruiting.

In addition to the single record cited from Alberta, Can., by Aellen, the fol-
lowing American collections have been seen:

_ Yonkers: About the Yonkers Wool Mill. Bicknell, May 19, 1895 (NY.)

New York .
(as C. rubrum). Soutn Daxora. Lawrence Co.: Spearfish. In flower garden. Bennett 115,
June 1947 (OTB.).

Section Decent Aellen
Characterized especially by the vertical lateral flowers with 3 sepals united
nearly to the tips. Members of the section are known in North America almost
entirely from saline habitats in western coastal states and seem to be incompletely
understood as to the relationships of the taxa involved.

10 BARTONIA

Leaves densely to sparingly farinose or glabrate beneath, chiefly deltoid to deltoid-ovate,
variously dentate; free tips of sepals rounded to acute.

Leaves densely farinose beneath; plants robust, freely branching.

13a. C. macrospermum var. halophilum

Leaves sparingly farinose and glabrate beneath; plants smaller, to 3 dm. high, branching

ORRIN oes ek ocd bee he eee nes 13b. C. macrospermum f. subviride
Leaves glabrous or promptly glabrate beneath, deltoid, rhombic or spatulate, shallowly den-
tate to entire; free tips of sepals minutely but definitely apiculate.

Plants prostrate or low-branching; leaves often entire.

14a. C. chenopodioides var. Degenianum

Plants upright; leaves usually shallowly dentate.

14b. C. chenopodioides var. Lengyelianum

13. C. macrospermum Hook. f. occurs in a series of forms in South America.
Aellen and Just characterize ssp. crassicaule as a thick-leaved, prostrate form
with axillary glomerules and “Seed large, 1.25-1.5 mm.” occurring in the Falk-
land Islands and Tierra del Fuego, and ssp. halophilum as an upright form with
glomerules in terminal panicles and “ Seed 0.75-1 mm. in diam.” It is not certain
that seed width is meant in both cases but in the small amount of South American
material seen the smaller seed size occurs more often on semi-prostrate plants
with glomerules in axillary spikelets, rather than in the upright plants as stated.
(Hicken 401, Argentina. Legrand 1466, Uruguay. Herter 1187, Uruguay.)

Forms occurring in the U. 8. agree with ssp. halophilum in their generally
upright stature and glomerules in terminal panicles, but have the larger seed size
given for var. crassicaule. The American plants were originally included under
C. murale, which they resemble in leaf shape, by Watson (14, p. 97) and were
separated specifically by Standley as C. farinosum (S. Wats.) Standley. Abrams

1, p. 71) doubts that the plants are conspecific with C. macrospermum from the
Falkland Islands but examination of even a small amount of South American ma-
terial indicates they are. Standley (13) reduced the various formae listed by
Aellen to synonymy under C. macrospermum var. halophilum and this name is
here used for the previously reported North American plants with a series of col-
lections from California and one station on ballast at Wilmington, North Caro-
lina. The North Carolina plant is upright but has axillary glomerules and is in
marked contrast in this respect with the California plants seen, these having the
glomerules in terminal panicles. Both have the lower leaf surfaces densely and
permanently whitish-farinose, the margins prominently undulate-serrate.

Also along and near the Pacific coast in California but extending northward
to Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, there are plants differing from
the above in having leaves with lower surfaces glabrous or glabrate, and with
entire to shallowly undulate or toothed margins. These correspond to C. macro-
spermum var. halophilum f. subviride Thellung and Acllen and this category is
temporarily retained for them although it is thought that additional material and
further study will show them to be worthy of varietal status. The following col-
lections of f. subviride have been seen:

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 11

BritisH CorumsiA. Vancouver Island: Sidney. Macoun 86313, July 1908 (NY.). Was
IncTon. Snohomish Co.: Marysville, on Puget Sound. Grant, Aug. 1929 (IIl.). Whatech
Co.: Lumi istanid: on Puget Sound. Muenscher 10499, July 1939 (NY., PH.). FORNIA,
San Mateo Co.: Salada Beach. Wiggins 178, Nov. 1930 (NY.). Riverside Co.: Elsinore,
margin of lake. Dec. 1891 (NY.).

They have been distributed as C. rubrum, C. rubrum var. humile and C. hybri-
dum. Most of the distributed material is too young for ready identification.

14. C. chenopodioides (L.) Aellen (C. crassifolium Hornem.)

Plants of this species are most readily distinguishable from C. macrospermum
by the relatively thinner sepals with definitely apiculate tips. Young stages of
C. chenopodioides var. Degenianum (Aellen) Aellen are not easily separable from
C. macrospermum var. halophilum {. subviride and, indeed, the present author
has a feeling of uncertainty concerning some of the material assigned here. It
seems desirable at the present time to maintain them as separate entities, at least
as a course which would be most likely to stimulate further study of the group.
In addition to those cited by Aellen the following records are assigned to var.
Degenianum, the last three being range-extensions. All have been distributed and
maintained as C. rubrum or var. humile.

Wasuineton. Spokane Co.: Medical Lake. St. John, Bonser and Warren 6754, Sept.
1924. Alkali Lake, eee St. John, Mellen and Warren 4884, Sept. 1926. CALIFORNIA.
Borax Lake. Torrey 462, 1865. Nevaps. Nye Co.: Meadow about thermal springs, Monitor
Valley. Maguire and Holmgren 25768, July 1945. 1000 Spring Valley. — 978, Sept.
1 89

865. Wyominc. Black Rock Creek. Tweedy 353, Aug. 1897. Cororapo. Gunnison Water-
shed. Baker 935, 1901. New York. Yonkers Factory Grounds. Bicknell, pe oe 3, 1894.
(All NY.)

“0
a:

No material of C. chenopodioides var. Lengyelianum (Aellen) Aellen has been
seen other than that cited by Aellen. It is characterized by its upright habit and
broader, more nearly hastate leaves. The material has been distributed either as
C. rubrum or Atriplex spp.

Section PseuposBLtitum Hook. f.

Members of this section differ from those of Section Degenia in having the peri-
anth in most cases free to the base. Sometimes, however, especially in C. rubrum
and var. humile, a varying degree of fusion occurs, even to having adjacent sepals
so entirely united that only two broadly rounded tips are apparent instead of the
usual three in the lateral, vertical flowers. Even in these cases, however, the other
parts in the same flower remain free to or nearly to the base. The two groups,
C. glaucum and its var. salinum on the one hand and C. rubrum and its var.
humile on the other, are so unlike in the amount and distribution of the farinosity
and in the relative number of horizontal and vertical seeds as to cast doubt on
the relationships within this section, as well as between it and Section Degema.
The degree of union of the perianth parts does however seem to be of primary
importance.

12 BARTONIA

Leaves densely whitish-farinose beneath, ovate or narrowly ovate, undulate or serrate, not
hastate; perianth parts glabrous; horizontal seeds largely exposed by the sepals, numerous in
the glomerules.

Leaf margins undulate-dentate, the teeth and tips obtuse; glomerules chi sR ape ritcast
k Sg

im armall axillary or terminal spikes... 66535 5 i. ce ee cece eee 1
Leaves serrate-dentate or sinuate-dentate, the teeth and tips acute and often involute;
glomerules nearly all bracteate ...........0.-..cee ee ee eee ee ees C. glaucum var. salinum

Plants glabrous or perianth parts farinose (sometimes very inconspicuously so) as well as
leaves; glomerules usually with a single horizontal flower.
Seeds 0.6-0.8 (1.0) mm. broad; glomerules chiefly crowded in short spikes, often very
numerous; leaves prominently sinuate-dentate, somewhat hastate, the blades up to 10 (20)
em. long; plants upright, pyramida 16. C. rubrum
Seeds 0.8-1.0 (1.2) mm. broad; glomerules chiefly separate; leaves —— or variously few-
& . rub

toothed; plants low, spreading ......... 0. cece cee te eet e ee ceees rum var. humile

15. C. glawcum L., var. glaucum

Widely distributed from Labrador (Goose Bay. Gillett and Findlay 5777
(OTB.)), Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, to Alberta,
s. to Maryland, Dist. of Columbia and New Mexico. Much more abundant
through southern Canada than in the southern part of its range. In the U. 8.
more frequent westward than eastward. The plants are readily distinguishable
by the numerous small leaves chiefly 1-3 em. long, very densely farinose beneath,
and by the seeds, both horizontal and vertical, always more than half exposed by
the small perianth parts.

C. glaucum var. salinum (Standley) Boivin (C. salinum Standley)

Differing from typical C. glaucum only in the more sharply serrate leaves and
the more consistently bracteate inflorescence, the two varieties are almost always
readily distinguishable in spite of the similarity between them, though not on the
basis of seed size (6, p. 593) or length of petiole (4, p. 59). The illustrations in
Gleason (9, Vol. 2, p. 91) are adequate in showing the essential differences. Al-
though they are here maintained as varieties they may well be separate species.

More abundant in collections than typical C. glawcum, the range of var. sali-
num extends from s.e. Québec and the James Bay region of Ontario to British
Columbia, south to New Mexico and Arizona.

16. C. rubrum L.

In its typical form this species has been generally recognized but it and, more
especially, its var. humile have, like C. album in the horizontal-seeded series,
served as a catch-all for all sorts of vertical-seeded plants. Although the taxa
included in the two sections, Degenia with sepals united nearly to the tips and
Pseudoblitum with sepals free nearly to the base, were indicated by Aellen and
Just, it is not easy to discover this from the key characters; “ perianth—partly
fused, 3-tipped— ” leading to the former and “ Perianth—3-5 tipped, free to the
middle,” leading to the latter. Neither does it help within Section Pseudoblitum
(L.e., p. 59) to arrive at C. rubrum, which has leaves with often strongly hastate
blades up to 15 em. long, to have to choose in the key the alternative “ Leaves
usually smaller [than 5 em. including the petiole]—not hastate.” The contrast

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 13

in leaf size indicated here is between C. rubrum and C. mexicanum, the latter a
clearly distinct species with horizontal seeds, closely related to C. wrbicum and
C. murale and without apparent relation to the members of Section Pseudoblitum.
It is only when one recognizes in the key to Section Degenia (l.c., p. 57) the
alternative “ Leaves large, up to 10 cm. long and wide” etc., that one suspects
that the alternatives have become transposed.

Aellen has considered the smaller, often prostrate plant with leaves less promi-
nently sinuate-serrate, often entire,—C. humile Hook., C. rubrum var. humile
(Hook.) 8S. Wats.,—as merely a forma under C. rubrum, separating it on the basis
of stature and “ leaves entire, ovate-spatulate ”. Although in these respects var.
humile expresses the same relationship to C. rubrum as do var. Degenianum to
C’. chenopodioides and ssp. crassicaule to C. macrospermum, it differs also in seed
size. Here again it is a bit disconcerting to find, in all treatments that have come
to the author’s attention, that typical C. rubrum is described as having seeds
0.8-1.0 mm. broad and its var. humile as having seeds 0.5-0.6 mm. broad. Actu-
ally, seeds of C. rubrum are usually 0.6-0.8 mm. broad with an occasional terminal
one to 1.0 mm. while those of var. humile are 0.8-1.0 mm. broad with the terminal
ones to 1.2 mm. Some variation occurs, but the smaller seed size is definitely
associated with the larger, upright, prominently undulate-serrate-leaved plants
(C. rubrum, typical), and the larger seed size with the smaller, prostrate, often
entire-leaved plants, var. humile.

The two taxa are illustrated in Gleason (9, p. 93), both as C. rubrum, the
right hand illustration being the typical representative of that species, the left,
drawn from St. John 1218 (cited below) being var. humile.

Although most of var. humile is readily separable from typical C. rubrum,
some intergrading does occur so that the taxon is here maintained in a varietal
status. It is much more nearly a separate species than a forma. The following
distributions are referred to var. humile:

CANADA pt., 1913 (US.,
NY., PH.) (cited as C. rubrum by Aellen). Pictou Co.: Pictou. Erskine 1632, Sept. 1952
(OTB.). New Brunswick. St. John Co.: Fairville. Fernald, Long and Fogg 232, Sept.
1926 (NY., Penn.). Quesec. A ; : .). Sas HEWAN. urg
1957-8 (NY.) (with C. rubrum). ALBERTA. Bonnyville. Groh 1092, Sept. 1939 (OTB.).

Hu CoLtuM ] en

ms . M 1 ry:
US.A.: Massacuvusetts. Nantucket Island. Bicknell, Sept. 1 NY.). Norra Daxora.
Benson Co.: Leeds. Lunell, pape é (in part) aah Butte. omen ane 1907 (NY.).

Aellen and to C. rubrum by I ee ind: > th :
might be productive of additional significant material. A plant of similar interest, strictly
upright, 4.2 dm. tall but otherwise characteristic var. humile was collected at_ na, N. Y.,
by G. W. Clinton, without date but at least before 1900 (PH.). These collections indicate a
need for caution in separating rubrum and humile specifically and for additional study in this
much misun and misre - Wasurncron. Klickitat Co.: Suksdorf, Nov.
1884 (US., NY.), cited as C. crassifolium var. Degenianum by Aellen.

14 BARTONIA

Section CHENopopiA (C. A. Mey.) Aellen

This section includes species with horizontal seeds and a regularly 5-parted
perianth. There is considerable variation in leaf shape, in seed size, and in shape
and rugosity of the pericarp. The section is divided into 4 sub-sections by Aellen
and Just on the basis of the latter character and such a division seems generally
to reflect natural relationships; it is not considered necessary, however, in the
present treatment, to follow this subdivision. In view of the complexity of the
section, the following brief synopsis, based on leaf shape, may be of interest:

Leaves linear or nearly so, entire, usually fleshy; western: nos. 20-23.

Leaves lanceolate to ovate, not prominently toothed but often hastate: nos.
17, 18, 19, 26, 29.

Leaves triangular, hardly broader than long, usually thin, mostly hastate and
otherwise entire; western: nos. 25, 27, 30-34.

Leaves variously ovate, 1-3 times as long as broad, hardly hastate, variously
toothed: nos. 28, 35-38, 40-48.

Key TO THE SPECIES OF SECTION Chenopodia

1. Leaves a om narrowly ovate to broadly linear, saci oe md toothed, several

times as long as _ the sides pies above the basal lobes, at least to the next pair of
teeth; sepals on Ge r slightly e the widest part of ‘be pedir pericarp altacbets
finely and re prema reticulate, the wast iol not salt visible at 10%; seeds 1.0 mm.
ROG! (ire: BAVONTAVS SUECIOS «ooo io co ee ee a C. serotinum

1. Combination of sabre pal as above.
2. Principal leaves linear to narrowly ovate or oblong, chiefly less than 1.5 em. broad but
occasionally to 2.0 cm. across the basal lobes, 2-many times longer than broad, entire
or with basal lobes an sometimes additional low teeth in thin-leaved forms, 1-3 nerv ved

inn
ength; pericarp separable and smooth or h
xcieowlate or alveolate; sepals without datiate. say tips (plants doubtful as pea last
aig xclu io if fruit eres? exposed at maturity and maturing prominently mixed in
the g
3. Leaves oo narrowly oblong-ovate or, in larger plants, becoming taser 28
2-3 t as long as broad, the pe ea characteristically ae ardly curved; el
fone Mrsischi usually not exceeding seeds maturing prominently
the inflorescence; pericarp pat gen Pe sr er "aaa taae fruit silos A
dorsally 26. atrovirens
Leaves 3-many times as long as broad; seeds maturing nearly uniformly in the
pense sepals largely covering fruit at maturity, at least laterally.
4. Principal leaves narrowly lanceolate or broader, moderately thick to very thin,
with or with ee basal lobes and few additional teeth, 3-nerved or occasionally
pinnately vein
5. Pericarp chaste) ype ic seeds rounded cosine usually slightly exceed-
ing 1 mm. in width, covered or exposed by the perianth.
6. coor “bvapeecingee ah to almost fleshy in aes oblong to So or
eolate, entire or, if with prominent basal lobes, then the minal
foe farsouolate. ‘and less than 0.8 em. b road; plants upright to tow "and
ereiding | 36 ee ea ea ee 7. C. evatarieel
Leaves thin, ovate-lanceolate, variously lobed, toothed or re bye gat
if lobed, the terminal lobe aperne. not strongly lanceolate and 1 or
more wide except in small plan enters 18. C. Pouuk
5. ss 2 attached, minutely sranlaesoushened seeds flattened on top, rather
ently exposed; w

%
aS
3
e

08
=a
5
ia")
—*

ee ee er

ae

te

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 15

7. Leaves thin, ovate-lanceolate or broader; seeds 1.2-1.5 mm. wide.
99 :

7. Leaves firm, ovate-lanceolate or narrower; seeds 1.0 mm. wide.

. C. incognitum

19. C. hians

4. Leaves linear or nearly so, chiefly fleshy, one-nerved, the margins entire; western.

8. Pericarp separable ; wi 1.2-15 mm. wide; sepals sparingly

presenting

farinose, often
a “wate ed” appearance, larg ely exposing the fruit at ma-
s

ter soak
turity; flowers in scattered small sinniscules” in elongated spikes, maturing
20. C08

mixed in the glomerules .........-..--eee eee eeeee eee teees

ubglabrum

8. Pericarp attached.
pals united to or above — ee of seed, appendaged by an undulate

sates os ae sinuses; seeds 1 . broad, rugose, chops 6 ear I
ee ere ig bhen, hay ove) VP Ee eR TE eRe . C. cycloides
9. bapa ileus an undulate ioe aay the sinuses.
10. Seeds 1.2-1.5 wide; per 5p. eivenculate- roughened; sepals ne
ingly ag sad aopenine el soaked ”; well-g plants m
than PTA go a pau a a esc ns te nes 2. mp llescen

10. moede as 0 mm. wide; sepals prominently peliaer’ plants ¢ chi
]

han 4 Fe || RRR ie era ae Pere ara ear ae arte me a wk

efly less
es aes?” Der owe

2. eee ali uid deltoiderhombic or ovate, 1-3 times as ae as broad, pinnately
d

—_
=o

—"
—

veined, entire or variously to

. Leave sete sepals with de finite a apiculate tips; — ae ie mm. broad,
anced ae osed ; pericarp semi-separable to attac OO tax C. >

Leaves ae toothed or entire; sepals arith definite ee to

olyspermum

12. Leaf apo deltoid, rhombic-deltoid or obit ovate (if ov. ae or narrower,
thin i

exture) often with poole lobes but otherwise capeh i r quite be gabe
ther

peor acaies the widely distributed C. "lee (other eastern materi ey-
fe) e

e would be either cede leaved C. Foggi, ia 18, or panes a

C. Sta yanum, no. 35, which see).
13. Branches weak, often prostrate; leaves broadened above the base but not

hastate

ak, oft
e; sepals aie united, at least some for ? their length.
“. C.

Vulvaria

13. | erect or if spreading not weak or prostrate; leaves with or with-
t basa

1 lobes ae united less than half their length.

a Pericarp ere

15.

a
or

Leaves shia: is ee deltoid or ovate, seeds averaging ir than
1.0 mm. broad, maturing mixed in the glomerules and exposed at
eae: plants Sovicht. strict or amely branched.

16. Blades deltoid, 1.04.0 (5.0) cm. broad, Salty longer than
broad, se with a prominent hastate lobe; seeds chiefly
1.1-1.5 mm. broad Oe eee Pete 25. C. pete 4 ©

16. Blades ovate broad or less, only occasionally with a
basal lobe; wie chiefly 1.0-1.3 mm. broad .. 26. C. atrovirens

Leaves membranaceous to tee cy mad than 1.5 cm. broad, the

blades with a basal lobe; seeds 0 mm. broad, maturing rela-

tively uniformly and covered et sepals; plants — ly
branched, iow te. FH as 5 A oe num

14. Pericarp attach

17.

Pericarp osiith or granular-roughened
18. Se age 5 mm Page leaves thi in, ovate, sometimes nar-
lon: ng plants upright, small and aise or
ch

rowly
ognitum

to 3.5 ¢
tall “dirs i variously toe A ne eae oy ee
broad; leaves firm, ovate or aaa the

Seeds 0.7-0
largest less es "2 em. long; plants low, ada lr

_
ne

. ne vadense

17. Pericarp variously cellular-reticulate.

BARTONIA

19. Seeds sub-globose, entirely covered by the pointed sepals at
aturity; pericarp slightly to prominently whitened; leaves
I

broadest very near the base, the basal lobes not strongly de-
veloped; inflorescences prominently leafy
20. Pericarp moderately to ngly whitened; glomerules
crowded in the inflor Sate: pedijatlate ge. acking ;
leaves firm, nearly coriaceous ............ 31. C. Watsont
20. — arp white; epee diffuse ; ene flowers
esent; leaves thin or firm ........... C.. glabrescens
19. Se Sg or less flat jeer partially eee at ma ser
"seks Baek: ‘wage usually prominently lobed above t
bas
21. eli 1.2-1.5 mm. broad; leaves thin, the lobes usually
acute; plants usually freely branching; inflorescences mod-
erately leafy 33. C. neomexicanum
21. Seeds 1.0-1.1 mm. broad; leaves thin or firm, broadly tri-
angular, usually with biparti te basal lobes; plants bar
wits short basal branches and terminal leafless
ences Pale
12. ong deltoid, ovate or rhombic-ovate in outline, 0 (20) cm. long, longer
road, at least the "lower conspicuously deeply a mahows toothed above
te basal lobes (all but the lower may be e in C. strictum var. glauco-
22. Leaves thin; fruit maturing very prominently mixed so that mature fruit

and young perfec t flowers are present in the glomerules at the same e

(except in late stages) ; sepa ices ll <a not at all keeled, nay Bag ie

mature fruit; pericarp usually apace ; seeds more than 1 mm. broad

(C. murale, with black, peck adherent pericarp excluded).

23. Leaves rounded or tapering at base, the teeth short and asc cending,
gradually reduced to entire yeah subtending most of the inflorescence
branches; pericarp smooth, strongly separable; seeds 1.1-15 mm.
broad 35. C. Standleyanum

23. —- rounded, truncate or cordate at base, the teeth usually long-

ws

tapering and spreading; inflorescence ebracteate or the main branches
subtended by rather saiedare loped leaves; seeds 1.5-2.5 mm. broad.

24. Seeds 1.5-2 icular, Th
carp black, thickish, cellular-reticulate, attached; sepals ovate, their
edges meeting to o g gsi
the mature fruit; cymes open, n diffuse, in the cylindric to
— pyramidal panicles; “eel truncate-cordate at base;
European ..... C. hybridum

24 road, ie wicca tay. their margins obtuse
to eric: aca pericarp whit ow-green, thin and
delicate, cellular-reticulate, a. me Fhe or attached; —

ti
—— as their width pd tall more than half of the ral

or quite glomerulate, on spike-like branches of the pyramidal
panicles; leaves rounded, truncate or —. cordate at base;
American gigantospermum
Leaves thin, membranaceous or coriac > flow Agee glomerules in

nearly the sa ee stage of pail renee Cocoa inter pistillate flowers
prese:

esent, especially in late s
25. Leaves of strongly — —. ey ogy etre red or 4
the few uppermost ee 5 tire lanceolate bracts; ——
pe 1 el or less) ae pias irregularly roughe ht sg aha
rongly adherent; sepals spores largely exposing fruit; plants cae
ae 40 a ‘in h eight.

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 17

oi

26. otitee 1.2-1.5 mm. broad, the margins acute; sepals keeled, fari-

e; i Catetinoens somewhat cymose, shorter than the —

of. Sele

26. Seeds Pe a mm. broad, the margins rounded; sepals aa keeled

or far ; inflo enna spicate or narrowly ‘paniculate, usually
eicendin the leav 38...C.

Leaves rhombic-ovate, variously toothed, anes ed reduced upward to

entire lanceolate bracts ept in some eae robust plants more

than 2 m. et stigmas cone or short bith nee
ssentially er ooth; pericarp smo ay or igen poco
textur:

acne cre roughen leaves chi m aceous
sepals usually not erat ev keeled, ng keel a adh mu as the
width of t al (C. opulifolium lbum

rong Ss have more strongly keeled daeadayi gree divided essentially
to

28. Per jacad thin and strongly Bang ager — legge thin;
8

sepals strongly ges to t albescens
28. Pericarp usually attached but varying to separable; sepals
ne EP besa or yer rill farinose ar: widely dis-

tri
blades rarely exceeding 6 long, variously

29. Leaf
toothed but hardly sharply cy sinuate-dentate , the
upper reduced to oats lanceolate bra
30. Seeds chiefly 1.1-1.5 mm. broad; orem i restricted
i ruit.

31. Blades little or not at all longer than broad, basal
lobes often bipartite; sepals united to or ‘above
broadest part of fruit, usually provinaatl aais d.

41. C. opulifohum

31. — es blades 14 or more times the width;

epals not united to broadest part - fruit, vari-
ane cee The Se See eae aS . C. album

Seeds 0.9-1.2 mm. broad.

32. Plants in flower second week in September; —_—
largely covering fruit; inflorescence _ bra

ensely flowered, vag rage lower and oan
leaves not more than 14 times as long as wide,
coarsely too tpeehed, the lower more or oe = doubly so
at base 43. C. riense

es

32. Plants not restricted in flowering ae ; sep sat ex-
posing fruit at maturity; flowers in distinct or
close glomerules in stric ry spikes or termi-

nal loose panicles; lower leaves low-serrate, the
median lca, entire.
44. C. strictum var. glaucophyllum
99. Leaves large, the blades 5-10 cm. long, the lower doubly
sinuate-dentate with sharp teeth, the —! reduced to
sharply serrate or maida entire pie trongly far.
nose. the farinules often tinged red on young leaves;
plants 1-3 (?) m. high; plan ‘“ presumably re-
stricted in flowering time; southern é
45: C. giganteum
27. Pericarp and surface sis — on el iste son leaves ae
membranaceous, membra us or nearly in textur
33. Seeds chiefly (his e mm. See pita eas often prominent

( ae less cote se cag long); leaves thin coriaceo’
pals with a winged keel often pana a half the

width of ne heey aes y Gulf states, sate “ey valley an

ard : ope onder

ae a a tee ge a era ee Oe a ee ee ee ee OSS

18 BARTONIA

33. Seeds 1.3-2.0 mm. broad; style base onl prominent or pcan
eaves thin-membranaceous to membranaceous in _ texture
perianth parts less prominently ned:
34. Seeds 1.5-2.0 mm. broad, relatively flat; leaves thin-mem-
branaceous, os large (those of "the main axis in

half of August; large plants of cultivated ground and
wee places; Mississippi valley, eastward and northeast-
ard 47.

s

i. chiefly 14-16 mm. broad; openly membranaceous
or somewhat thinner, the larger ones 5-6 cm. long, the
upper reduced to Fo eet. bracts which are con-
spicuous in the inflorescence ; perianth parts usually en-

17. C. pratericola Rydb. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 39: 310. 1912.
Leaves lanceolate to ovate-lanceolate, lobed or ee ;nepnls relatively yellowie®, Lome: and
ascending, less prominently keeled; plants erect, often strict ...........+.+-++ ratericola
Leaves chiefly a eety ee, usually of thicker o oa. sepals see pease e
obtuse, more definitely curving im ity ard over the fruit and more prominen ead keeled; plants
upright-spreading Mi We TE oe ae ie a a oe eed va oblongi ifolum

The plants included here have been generally known under the name C. lepto-
phyllum Nutt.; the proper application of this name is discussed under no. 23.
They constitute a typically western group, fairly common in all the states west
of the Mississippi River, but probably more so*in the plains than in the montane
areas. They also occur in Mexico, in the western Canadian Provinces north to
the Mackenzie Basin, and in Alaska. Thus the species occupies essentially the
same territory as C. Berlandieri (no. 46). It has been more successful than C.
Berlandieri as an eastern immigrant, however, and is sparingly established in
sandy areas in the eastern states, more frequently northward and along the
Atlantic coast.

There is considerable variation in habit and leaf width and texture and some
in seed size and sepal characters, but the small seeds, rounded upward to the
style base and with the chocolate-brown to nearly black pericarp releasing freely
from the seed with the slightest assistance, constitute a unifying set of characters.

17a. C. pratericola Rydb. var. pratericola
. petiolare var. leptophylloides Murr. in Bull. Herb. Boiss., 2 ser., 4:
994. 1904.

C. pratericola var. Thellungianum Aellen in Ostenia 1933, p. 100.
C. pratericola var. leptophylloides (Murr.) Aellen in Fedde Rept. Sp.
nov. 26: 64. 1929. (As to western broad-leaved plants.)

The common form of the species is a generally upright plant, often strictly so,
with lanceolate to narrowly ovate-lanceolate usually entire leaves but occasion-
ally with prominent basal lobes. Rydberg’s type and description refer to the
broader-leaved extreme included under var. leptophylloides (Murr.) Aellen but
the entire series seems referable to a single taxon.

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 19

Less common throughout the same general range but apparently better repre-
sented in the montane portion is the usually more spreading form with the tend-
ency toward thicker, more oblong leaves and more obtuse, greener and more
strongly keeled sepals. This intergrades continuously with var. pratericola. Main-
taining it in a varietal category under C. pratericola necessitates the following
combination:

/17b. C. pratericola var. oblongifolium (S. Wats.) comb. nov.
C. leptophyllum var. oblongifolium 8. Wats. in Proc. Amer. Acad. 9: 95.
1874.
C. desiccatum A. Nelson in Bot. Gaz. 34: 362. 1902.
C. oblongifolium Rydb. in Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 33: 137. 1906.
C. pratericola ssp. desiccatum (A. Nelson) Aellen in Fedde Rept. Sp. nov.
26: 136. 1929.

It is difficult to draw any clear-cut line of separation between var. pratericola
and var. oblongifolium. Relatively more material would be included under var.
oblongifolium on the basis of sepal characters used in the present treatment than
had been included by previous authors chiefly on the basis of the low, spreading
habit. The parallelism between typical C. pratericola and its var. oblongifolium
and typical C. album and its var. lanceolatum is marked. In both cases the
segregated var. has a more branching habit, narrower leaves and more obtuse,
greener sepals with a generally more strongly winged midrib.

/18. C. Foggii sp. nov. Fig. 1. Plantae gracile erectae, ramosae vel non-
ramosae, 2-10 dm. altae. Laminae foliorum tenues, anguste 0 —4 em.
longae, 0.5-1.8 cm. latae, integrae vel sub medio 2-4 dentibus, subtus farinosae,
basi in gracile petiolum minus quam dimidiam longitudinis laminae attenuatae.
Flores in spicis brevibus ad apicem plantae. Perianthii laciniae 5, anguste cari-
natae, fructum in maturitate includentes. Pericarpium tenue, fuscum, minute
echinatum, libere a semine separabile. Semen nigrum, lucidum, 1 mm. in diametro.

Plants slenderly upright, branched or unbranched, 2-10 dm. tall. Leaf-blades
thin, narrowly ovate, 1-4 em. long, 0.5-1.8 cm. broad, entire or with one or two
pairs of teeth below the middle, farinose beneath, tapering at the base to a slender
petiole less than half the length of the blade. Flowers in short spikes near top of
plant. Sepals 5, farinose, narrowly keeled, covering the fruit at maturity. Peri-
carp thin, brown, minutely echinate, freely separable from seed. Seed black,
shining, 1 mm. in diameter.

This noteworthy development of an eastern relative of the widely distributed
western C. pratericola includes a series of plants with thin, ovate or narrowly
ovate leaves and strict habit, in the Appalachian and Great Lakes Region of east-
ern North America, where they occur as native plants in woodland habitats. The
leaf shape is essentially that of western C. incognitum of this treatment. The
material has generally been referred to C. Standleyanum (as C. Boscianum), to
which it may also be related. It differs from this species in having the fruit
nearly or quite covered by the more farinose and more strongly keeled lobes of

20 BARTONIA

the calyx and maturing relatively uniformly in the glomerules. In these respects
it is similar to C. album and C. pratericola. From C. album it differs in the
readily separable pericarp and thin, narrowly ovate leaves, entire or with basal
lobes. It probably would be included under C. pratericola var. leptophylloides
(Murr.) Aellen of Aellen and Just’s treatment, although, as previously indicated,
the varietal name leptophylloides refers to typical C. pratericola Rydb. It was
collected in s.e. Va. and recognized as a probably undescribed taxon by my associ-
ate, Dr. John M. Fogg, Jr.
The following collections have been seen:

CANADA: Quesec. Pontiac Co.: Shallow soil on granite ledges, n. side of Ottawa River.
Sept. 2 7133, aoe 1948 (OTB.). Leeds Co.: Thousand Islands, Smoke Islands. Bicknell,
2 1905 (

: Matne. York Co.: South Berwick. Parlin, pene 3, 1898 (GH., NEBC.). Andros-
coggin Co.: East Auburn. Merrill, June 21, 1896 (NEBC.). VERMONT. Orange Co.: Fairlee.
Pease, Aug. 4, 1928 (NEBC.). New HAMPsHIRE. he Co.: Summit of Hart’s Ledge, Ha
ley’s Grant. Pease, Sept. 9, 1915 (NEBC). Cheshire Co.: Rocky woods, Fall Mt., Walpole.
Fernald, July 31, 1900 (GH.). Carroll Co.: Dry rocky woods, w. slope of White’s Lodge,
Bartlett. Pease, Sept. 8, 1915 (NEBC.). Grafton Co.: Haverhill. Fernald, Aug. 18, 1917
(NEBC.). Massacuusetts. Berkshire Co.: New Marlboro. Hoffmann, Aug. 28, 1920 (N EBC.).
Rocky woods, Bash Bish Falls, Mt. Washington. Hoffmann, Sept. 9, 1919 (NEBC.). New

orK. Rensselaer Co.: Nassau. MeVau gh 2142, Aug 1933 (Pen uD; Westchester Co.:
Lowerre. gah "ge gad 1801 (NY.). Parner: Srisery Luzerne Co.: 1.5 mi. w. of Moun-
: e 8823, a Pik <

a
) a rry, Aug. ‘
hillside). Britton, July 4-8, 1915 (NY.). Bradford Co.: Overton Twp. Westerfeld 1045,
Aug. 1941 (Pe nn.). Clinton Co.: Shintown bali sre along sandstone cliff). Westerfeld 5722,
Aug. 1952 (PAC.). Virernta. Roc posed, steep, cleared mountainside near
= of Shenandoah Mt. Leeds 223, July 1931 (PHL). Giles Co.: dry slope of Peters Mt. 1 mi.
of Narrows. Fogg 17367, July 17, 1940. Norru Carotina. Haywood Co.: Chambert Mt..,
3 mi. n. of Clyde. Smathers 79, July 1988 (PH.). Izrrnois. Will Co. : Mokena, open woods.
Chase 2010, Sept. 1902 (Ill.). Mason Co.: Forest City, Oak woods. ‘Steyer mark 68849, Aug.
1949 (Ill.). Mrnnesota. Millelacs Co.: Milaca. Sheldon, July 1892 (IIl.).

19. C. hans Standley .

A greater amount of variation occurs between the plants included under C.
hians than in other narrow-leaved taxa. Typically the plants are rather nar-
rowly upright with moderately thick, ovate-lanceolate leaves, seeds 1.0 mm.
broad, exposed by the sepals, and with the crowded spikelets of glomerules giving
the entire plant a strongly virgate appearance. Occasionally, however, plants
which seem to belong here are low-branching, and these occur especially toward
the region of northwestern U.S. and southwestern Canada. An extreme is repre-
sented by several plants from west-central California (Inyo and Mono Counties) ,
northern California (Siskiyou Co.) to s.w. Washington (Grant Co.) in which the
leaves are narrower, the plants branched from the base and the glomerules sepa-
rate in vertical leafless spikes. They are definitely toward C. leptophyllum as
treated here and by Aellen;—C. inamoenum sensu Standley. They may represent
only the variation within the species and, indeed, this type of variation is common
in Chenopodium, being represented by var. lanceolatum in C. album, var. oblongt-
folium in C. pratericola, var. humile in C. rubrum, ete. However, the species

Fig. 1. Chenopodium Foggii: a, fruit and calyx; b, fruit and separable pericarp; ¢, plant;

d, lower leaves.

Fig. 2. Chenopodium incognitum: a, fruit and calyx; 5, plant; c, lower leaf.
[21]

os BARTONIA

leaves one with a strong feeling that it is not genetically homogeneous and may
consist of more than one recognizable taxon. Some of it differs from C. prateri-
cola only in the attached pericarp. There is, however, a good nucleus of material
with the characters given for the species and these will not go into any other cate-
gory. It may be significant that in the material cited under C. hians by Aellen
(p. 137) the comment “ nicht typisch ” occurs with greater frequency than in any
other series of citations.

Also, a “ typical appearance” may be misleading. The plants distributed as
Suksdorf 11536, near Bingen, Klickitat Co., Washington, belong to C. strictum
var. glaucophyllum. The virgate habit here is atypical but after looking over a
number of series in the pratericola and atrovirens groups, in which the perianth
parts are farinose to the tips, the strongly rounded, hyaline-margined sepals of
C. strictum, more characteristic of the album group, are immediately impressive.
Also the leaves, although appearing at first glance to be entire, are actually
minutely serrate.

C. hians is closely related to the pratericola group on the one hand and to the
atrovirens group on the other. If one is looking for intergradations in the western
species of Chenopodium, C. hians is a good place to begin. It would not be diffi-
cult, and, indeed, material may be accumulated, to connect it varietally with both
of these groups. From atrovirens to Fremontii and incanum and from pratericola
and its various relatives even to C. album is not much of a jump. Thus the
smooth-seeded series would be included under a single species and, for those who
consider the reticulate-seeded taxa, represented especially by the numerous forms
of C. Berlandieri, to be merely forms of C. album, nearly all the horizontal-seeded
chenopods could be united under a single specific name! C. hians merits con-
tinued study. Realizing the group as treated here may be polymorphic, it is pur-
posely maintained in a specific category with the thought that further study may
clarify its various components as has been the case with eastern taxa with which
the opportunity for field experience has been available to the author. The fol-
lowing collections have been seen:

CANADA: crgpy CorumsiA. Fort St. John. Polar 3040, Sept. 1946. “ Nicht typisch ”.
(OTB. ALBERTA. Peace River. ro 55, 946 TB.). SASKATCHEWAN.
Meadow River. Breitung 8314, Aug. 1949 (or Aibccart) (OTB). North Branch of Saskatche-
wan River. Brown Bes Aug. 1908 (branching form) (NY.). The Sask.-Alta. collections are
typical in appearan

US.A.: Seten Yellowstone Lake. Nelson and Nelson ne Aug. 1899 (NY.). Low
branching form, larger seeds. iti ig Aellen under C. pratericola ssp. desiccatum fe
referred to C. desiccatum by Stan but the pericarp is pati adherent. Coo’
Pitkin. Underwood and Selby ‘130, Sept 1901 (NY.). Twin Lakes. Wolfe 258, Aug. “1873
(NY.). Referred to atrovirens by both Standley and Aellen. Uran. Abajo ‘Mountains.
Rydberg and Garrett 9728, Aug. 1911 NY). Referred to atrovirens by both Standley and

ellen. New Mexico. Standley and Bollman 10764, cited by Aellen, may be mentioned here
as being considered “typical”. Arizona. Cacsans Co.: 5 mi. s. of Cameron. Ke mae and
Peebles 12914, Sept. 1935 (NY.) (typical). Vicinity of Flagstaff. Schollett, Aug. 30 3
(Penn.) (typical). Cattrornia. Inyo Co.: Desert slopes near Big Pine Creek at foot of trail
to Big Pine Lakes. Ferris 8976, July 1934 (NY.). Mono Co.: Inyo National Forest. Maguire
and Ho 26158, Aug. 1945. Siskiyou Co.: Gazelle. Heller 13904, July 1925 (NY.).

WasuHineoton. Grant Co.: Vant Th N a Peak
9452, July 1920 (NY.). antage. Thompson 6787 (NY.). Orecon. Klamath Fa

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 23

20. C. subglabrum (S. Wats.) A. Nelson is relatively northern in its distri-
bution and easily recognizable by the narrow spikes of strongly separated glomer-
ules. It is the only linear-leaved species known with separable pericarp. The
plants occur chiefly in sandy places, often on sand bars in rivers. In addition to
the collections cited by Aellen from Washington, Montana, South Dakota and
Nebraska, the following have been seen:

CANADA: SaskatcHewan. Saskatoon District. Hudson 786, Aug. 1951 (OTB.). Dis-
trict of Swift Current. Boivin and Lodge 6664, July 1949 (PAC.).

US.A.: WYomInc. Vee ay Nelson 628, July 1894 (Ill.). Norra Dakota. Slope
Co.: Stevens 887, July 1946 (OTB.). Sourn Daxora. Cheyenne River. Wallace, 1896 (NY.).
Nesraska. Pine’ Ridge. Webber, July 1889 (NY.). Scotts Bluff Co.: Scotts Bluff. Rydberg
320, uly 1891 (NY.). Sheridan Co.: Hatcher, July 1886 (NY.). Cherry Co.: Chesterfield.
Bates 6662, Aug. 1917 (NY.). Cororapo. Wooton. Rusby, Sept. 1909 (NY.). Uran. Car-
coat Island (Great Salt Lake). Watson 971, June 1869 (NY:).

21. C. cycloides A. Nelson

Very distinct in having the perianth with a collar-like proliferation from the
sinuses. No material of this rare species has been seen other than the two sheets
from New Mexico and one from Kansas (the type) cited by Aellen, p. 153.

22. C. pallescens Standley

Of relatively southern distribution in comparison to C. subglabrum, which it
resembles, C. pallescens differs from that species in its less delicate habit and
especially in having a thickish, tuberculate pericarp firmly attached to the seed.
Material seen and previously reported from a relatively narrow northeast-south-
west area extending from Missouri southwestward through Oklahoma, Texas and
New Mexico. The following record constitutes an extension of this range north-
eastward to central INnpIANA: Clinton Co.: south side of railroad 1 mi. w. of
Forest. Ek, July 4, 1941 (NY.). Also, within its previously indicated range:

Missourr. Jackson Co.: Courtney. Bush 8613, Aug. 1918 ake Rad 11042, See a
(NY.). Barrens w. of In dependence. pasion June 1899 (NY.). New Mex Chav
Co.: Roswell. Earle and Earle 326, Aug. 1900 (1 19207).

23. C. leptophyllum Nutt. in Moquin in D. C. Prodr. 13(2): 71. 1879.

C. inamoenum Standley in N. Am. Fl. 21: 15, 1916, as to description and
plants considered, but not as to type.
C. leptophyllum in part sensu Standley, l.c., p. 14.

The name leptophyllum has long been used by American authors for the
broader — see ee tara! species, C. pratericola Rydb., but the descrip-
tion by Moq . foliis lanceolato-linearibus vel linearibus . . .” would seem
to exclude hy name, and Aellen (3) reports the type at Kew is iuieed the plant
treated as C. inamoenum by Standley. The plants may be strict or branched in

3 Standley’s type of C. inamoenum was actually a the same as the plants described, so
the name can also stand, but not in the sense 1 Bik sa as been used by erican authors.
The type of C. inamoenum, earns , Mexi ae near White Water, Sept. 11, 1893,
U. S. National Herbarium No. 233970, consists “of the care portion or end of a branch of a

plant on which the leaves are oblong-linear, to 5.0 mm. broad, but the lower leaves must have
been a wi ovate. The seeds are about 10 mm. “wide, relatively flat and with pericarp

24 BARTONIA

habit and it is entirely possible that more than one taxon is here included. In
comparison to the other linear-leaved species, C. leptophyllum has an essentially
Rocky Mountain distribution, occurring in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah,
New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada, with one collection from western Texas (Fort
Davis), one from Oregon (‘ P” Ranch) and the original report from California.
Wyominc. Laramie. Johnson 88, said 1905 bg Hams Fork and La Barge. Curtis,
July 1900 (NY.). Snake Cankon. Wehmeyer, Martin and Loveland 5410, July 1940 (NY.).
Cotorapo. Buena Vista. Underwood and ‘hel, Sept. 1901 (NY.); Sheldon 5816, July 1892
(NY.). Cheyenne Mt. Clarke, Sept. 1895 (NY.). Wray. Schantz (NY,). Gunnison. Under-
wood and Selby, Sept. 1901 (NY). Twin Lakes. Jones 907, Sept. 1878 (NY.). New Mexico.
Socorro County.: Foothills east of Rentfrow’s “ desert claim ”, Sere Meee Sept. 1923
eee US.). Uran. Southeastern Utah. Abajo Mts. Rydberg and Gar 1954, Aug. 1911
NY. ). Between Moab and Monticello. Rydberg and Garrett 917 and 9119, Take 1911 mish Se

it Co.: Stevens Dairy Farm (NY.). Modena. Davis, Sept. 1930 (NY.). ‘ADA.
Esmeralda Co.: Indian Creek. Archer 7227, Sept. 1938 (NY OTB Ss nis. of upbeed

. Camp on US. 98. Holmgren 1584, July 1941. The two Nevada sheets differ in having
reddish stems.

24. C. Vulvaria L.

A native of Europe, widely introduced elsewhere, this species probably is not
closely related to the others here included. It is semi-prostrate in habit and in its
vegetative features resembles overgrown Stellaria media.

25. C. Fremontiu 8. Wats.

This species is the best known and most widely distributed of the triangular-
leaved group and is characterized by the broad, thin, hastate leaves, hardly longer
than broad (Fig. 14), upright habit, and seeds free from the pericarp maturing
mixed in the glomerules and largely exposed. Like some other species such as
C. album and C. rubrum the name has been too comprehensively used on her-
barium sheets, although the botanists of the early part of the century distin-
guished it well.

Fosberg (7) considered C. atrovirens and C. incanum as being only varietally
distinct from C. Fremontii, but the relationships assume an entirely different
aspect when all the taxa are separated. The recognition of C. incognitum removes
the apparent continuity between Fremontii and atrovirens and the following
forma (which may be better treated as a variety) includes those plants which
seem to intergrade with C. incanum.

C. Fremontu f. farinosum Aellen, Fedde Rept. Sp. nov. 26: 142. 1929. The
smaller, thicker, more grayish-farinose leaves of this form resemble those of C.
incanum but the habit and seed characters are those of typical Fremontit.

C. Fremontii is widely distributed from Saskatchewan to Texas, westward to
the Cascade Mts. Citations of the abundant typical material are not thought
necessary but the following may be of interest as representing forma pr :

CANADA: BritTIsH Sa age A. Radium Hot Springs. Groh, Aug. 1933 (O'

B.).
N. Wheeler Co.: Mitchell. Peck 10113, - 1921 (NY.). aoe k Co.:
Along Deschutes River 6 ae F below Bend. Peck 9744, Aug - 920 (NY.). Uran. Slope of

Aquarius Plateau, Ward 468, Saiy 1875 (PH.). La Veeker! gee 5184, May 18% (NY.)

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 25

(though cited by Aellen under C. incanum, it has the larger, flatter seeds of C. Fremontw).
Texas. Davis Mts., Trans-Pecos. Hinckley 973, July 1937 (NY.) (good extreme). Brewster
Co.: Near Castellan. Palmer 34220, May 1928 (NY., PH.). Chisos Mts. Mueller, July 1932
(Ill.) (good extreme). Arizona. Tucson. Griffiths and Thornber 3351, Sept. 190: NY.).
Near Powell. Griffiths 1558, Sept. 1900 (NY.). Nevapa. Clark Co.: Kyle Canyon. Clokey
7913, Aug. 1938 (NY.). Storey Co.: 23 mi. n. of Virginia City. Aellen 493, Aug. 1937 (OTB.)
(good extreme).

C. Fremontii var. Pringlei (Standley) Aellen (C. Pringle: Standley), cited
from North Dakota and Mexico, differs in having the leaves serrate. The few
sheets seen give the impression of representing specific rather than varietal dis-
tinctness. It has not been studied.

26. C. atrovirens Rydb.

Related to but distinct from C. Fremontii, in its different leaf shape and gen-
erally firmer texture, and in having slightly smaller seeds, C. atrovirens is also
closely related to C. hians, from which it may not really be distinct, as discussed
under the latter species. Small plants are characteristic in having axillary inflo-
rescences shorter than the strongly upright-ascending leaves, but in larger plants
the inflorescence becomes terminal and diffuse. Such larger plants might be con-
fused with small plants of the eastern C. Standleyanum if their ranges overlapped,
although the serrate leaves and the more exposed fruits of the latter are dis-
tinetive.

Some of the variation within the species might be resolved if the smaller,
stouter plants with more densely spicate inflorescences, C: aridum A. Nelson (C.
Wolfii Rydb.), could be segregated. They may form a connecting link between
this and C. hians.

The species occupies essentially the montane portion of the range of C. Fre-
montii. Previously reported from North Dakota (“ in garden ” and so probably
introduced) to New Mexico, west to Oregon and California, the following record
extends its range to

Brivis Cotums1a. Five miles w. of Fort St. James. McCabe 7489, June 1940 (NY.).

27. C. incanum (S. Wats.) A. A. Heller.

This is a relatively easily recognizable and fairly uniform taxon, characterized
by its low, bushy habit and small, thick leaves, with a prominent, often sharp,
lobe on either side above the base. The seeds average about 1.0 mm. in diameter
and are covered by the sepals at maturity.

Aellen has cited a number of collections and others have been seen indicating
a range from South Dakota south and southwest to Texas, Mexico and southern
California. It is a plant of arid rather than montane habitats, with its greatest
concentration in the southwestern states. In view of this distribution, it is a bit
surprising to find the following two collections from southern Canada:

Ikaline flat (a few plants) 20 mi. w. of Govanloch, s. SasKATCHEWAN-ALBERTA border

Dry a E ‘A :
Frankton and. Bibby 276, June 1947 (OTB.). SASKATCHEWAN. Dry soil near Battle Creek.
Breitung and Budd 5229, July 1947 (OTB.).

26 BARTONIA

28. C. albescens Small

Material to be referred to this species has been somewhat in doubt and there
seems to be little of it in herbaria. A sheet of the type collection from Kerrville,
Kerr Co., south-central Texas, Heller 1928, June 1894, in the collection of the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, shows a portion of a plant which
must have been nearly or quite 1 meter high, freely branching, and generally
resembling C. album in appearance. The basally lobed leaves, not strongly ser-
rate above the lobes, the sepals strongly farinose to the very tips and the thin,
separable pericarp place it apart from this species and characterize it as a rela-
tive of the western representatives of the genus with more or less deltoid basally
lobed leaves centering around C. Fremontii, C. incanum, etc. It is certainly the
most album-like member of its group.

In ee to the type mentioned above, only the following three collections have been

seen: Bexar Co.: San Antonio. Jermy (NY.). Bexar Co.: Jermy, June 1904 (NY.).

The two ee probably represent the same bagi ae not far from the type locality. NEvaDa.
Lander: Vicinity of Trout Creek. Goodner and Henning 1040, Aug. 1937 eee One can
hardly say the previous aeakt about the aeties has eet as yet cleared up

29. C. incognitum sp. nov. Fig. 2. Plantae erectae, 3-12 dm. altae, e basi
ramosae, ramis arcuate ascendentibus. Laminae foliorum tenues, ovatae vel del-
toideo- ovatae , 1.5-8.5 em. longae, non- n-lobatae vel toby parvis basalibus, subtus
farinosae. Flores in spicis glomeratis terminalibus et axillaribus condensati.
Perianthii laciniae 5, farinosae, anguste carinatae, fructum usque ad dimidium in
maturitate includentes. Pericarpium cue rugosum, semini adnatum. Semen
bye geen , 1.2-1.5 mm. diametro, margine rotundato

eee Leaf blades thin, ovate to deltoid-ovate, 1 5-3. 5 em. long, ahiwbed: or
with small basal lobes, farinose beneath. Flowers crowded in terminal and axil-
lary glomerate spikes. Sepals 5, farinose, narrowly keeled, about half covering
the fruit at maturity. Pericarp finely rugose, attached to the seed. Seed black,
flattened, 1.2-1.5 mm. in diameter, i margin rounded.

The recognition of C. incognitum as a species closely related to the atrovirens-
Fremontii complex materially clears up the specific relationships and segregations
in this group. It has the ovate leaf shape of the former, the seed size and general
habit of the latter and an attached pericarp definitely unlike either. The smaller
plants, up to 4 dm. high, are strikingly similar in appearance to C. atrovirens, but
the plants may reach three times this height and then have a marked habital
resemblance to C. Fremontii. A large plant, Standley and Bollman 11012, is the
basis of Aellen’s report of the eastern C. Standleyanum in New Mexico.

Material is known from Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and
California. Thus it occurs within the range of both C. atrovirens and C. Fre-
montii. Habitats indicated on some of the sheets suggest it is more of a wood-
land species than its relatives and that it may flourish in disturbed soil. These
are also the habitat preferences of C. Standleyanum. The following distributions
have been seen:

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 27

horn Divide, near a corral. Shear and Bessey 4012, Sept. 1 .). Near Pagosa Peak.
Baker 301, Aug. 1 Y.). Mt. Elbert, El. 10, ft. Coulter, July 27, 1873 (PH.). Uran.
Wasatch Mountains, e. of Manti. Coville and Tidestrom 45, Aug. 1908 (US.). Elk Moun

: erg
Garrett 2574, Aug. 1909 (NY.)
Braz

AL : yo to) at.
1937 (NY.). Siskiyou Co.: Janes Canyon, Siskiyou Mts. Wheeler 3709, July 1935 (NY.).
Tehama Co.: Red Fir Forest, South Yolla Bolly Mts. Munz 16892, July 1951 (PAC.).
)

Penn.). Los Angeles Co.:
l,

30. C. nevadense Standley

This is one of the “ neatest ” of species in its small compact appearance as a
plant, its distinctness from other taxa, and in its definite and limited geographic
range. Its characteristics have been adequately described by Fosberg (7). The
very small seeds and numerous pedicellate flowers are distinctive. The latter
feature occurs in a few other species but in no case is it nearly so pronounced.

It has been generally recognized in its older stages (August) by its compact
habit and small seeds but when collected in the young condition (June) it pre-
sents a somewhat different aspect and is not always correctly identified by col-
lectors. In its younger stages it is a relatively delicate plant with gracefully
spreading branches, small rhombic-hastate strongly ascending leaves and often
red stems. The compact habit develops later and the leaves are often completely
shed while the plant is still in good fruit. It has the most marked development
of a distinct, though small, tap root that has been observed in Chenopodium.

To the citations given by Fosberg showing a range limited to central and west-
ern Nevada, the following may be added:

Nevapa. Nye Co.: Smoky Valley. Maguire and Holmgren 25359, June 1945 (NY., PH.).

It has not been possible from the material at hand adequately to separate the
taxa which may be present in the following group of southwestern plants with
more or less Fremontii-type leaves and reticulate pericarp. The key presented
by Aellen and Just is particularly lacking in usefulness at this point since the
alternatives “ Alveolae of seed surface abutting ” and “Canals separating the
alveolae of seed surface’ remain uninterpretable by the present author, as do
also the alternatives “ Plants foetid ” and “ Plants not foetid ” when dealing with
dried material. Some of the following species (Nos. 31-34) are clear-cut and
some are not.

31. C. Watsoni A. Nelson. Bot. Gaz. 34: 362. 1902.

This is the clearest and most generally recognized species of its group. Rather
suggesting large C. incanum, it is characterized by the somewhat whitened reticu-
late pericarp and by the conspicuously leafy inflorescence. The sepals entirely

28 BARTONIA

enclose the thick, globose fruit at maturity. Their connivent, acute tips appear
in strong contrast with those species in which the mature fruit is partially exposed.

Aellen, p. 120, cites material from South Dakota, Montana, Colorado, New
Mexico and Arizona. The following citation extends its range into another state:

Kansas. Hamilton Co.: Hitchcock, Aug. 1895 (NY.).

32.’ C. glabrescens (Aellen) stat. nov.

C. Watsom forma glabrescens Aellen in Fedde Rept. Sp. nov. 26: 120.
1929.

In the material seen, this species differs constantly from C. Watsoni in the
pedicellate flowers and more diffuse and less leafy inflorescence. It also has
thinner leaves and a more strongly whitened pericarp, is generally larger, and
with the basal branches often exceeding the central stem. C. Watsonz is freely
branched but usually pyramidal in aspect because of the strong central stem.

Aellen recognized it as a forma but it is much more than that. Whether it can
continue to be maintained in the specific category is not at present certain, but
the characters are of sufficient magnitude and are of the same nature as those that
separate species in other cases. Aellen (p. 120) cited only a single collection from
Ute Park, Colfax Co., New Mexico (indicated as Mexico—obviously a slip),
oe 13505 (US.). The following additional material is referred here:

w Mexico. Sierra Co.: Animas Creek, near Caballo. Fogg 18893, Aug. 1941 (Penn.).
Géane rhe 8 mi. w. of Silver City. Wavkioy 14657, Sept. 1944 (IIl.). Fort. Ban d. Mulford,

594, Aug. 1895 (Ill, NY.). Sandoval Co.: Guadalupe Canyon. Eggleston 18734, July 1923
(US.). Socorro Co.: Datil. Eggleston 16180, Sept-Oct. 1919 (US.).

from seed, one i indicated as being “ Seed from Utah, 1873. Cult. by E. Hall ai , the ihe “ From
Powell’s Arizona Seeds. EF. Hall, 1873”. These can scarcely be ‘aks to constitute distribu-
tion recor

33. C. neomexicanum Standley. N. Amer. Fl. vol. 21, p. 19. 1916.

C. lenticulare Aellen. Fedde Rept. Sp. nov. 26: 152. 1929.

Aellen and Just refer C. neomexicanum to C. Watsoni forma glabrescens, from
which it, however, differs markedly. C. lenticulare as described by Aellen and
maintained by Aellen and Just seems to be the same as Standley’s C. neomezi-
canum. Its range probably includes w. Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.

34. C. Palmeri Standley. N. Amer. Fl. vol. 21, p. 19. 1916.
C. arizonicum Standley. N. Amer. Fl. vol. 21, p. 19. 1916.

Aellen referred C. Palmeri to C. Berlandieri ssp. eu-Berlandieri and main-
tained C. arizonicum separately, but the types of both species represent the same
taxon. That of C. arizonicum is a small plant lacking all but some of the inflo-
rescence leaves, while that of C. Palmeri is the top of a large plant with the
secondary leaves present. Both have the same small Berlandieri-like seeds and
are representatives of a well-marked taxon with small Fremontii-type leaves, the
primary ones usually with bi-partite basal lobes; upright habit with basal spread-
ing branches and a strong development of a terminal leafless inflorescence. In the

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 29

latter character and in seed shape and markings it is closely related to typical
C. Berlandieri while in habit and in leaf shape and texture it approaches the
C. Fremontu group.

The following collections are referred here (all US.).

Arizona. Pima Co.: Boboquivari Mts. Kearney and Peebles 14966, Aug. 1940. Bobo-
quivari Mts. Peebles 8915, Aug. 19382. Santa Rita Mts. above range. Griffiths 6011, Sept—
Oct. 1903. New Mexico. Agua Zarca, vicinity of Las Vegas. Bro. Arsene 18504, Aug. 1927.
Trxas. Houston. Fisher 277, Sept. 1918. Brownsville. Runyon 287, 1922. Olmito. Rose
and Russell 24185, Oct. 1927.

35. C. Standleyanum Aellen

C. Boscianum Mog. of authors, not as to type

C. Standleyanum is the widespread uniform eastern species which most nearly
resembles, in its thin leaves and fruits maturing successively and largely exposed
at maturity, the western Fremontii-atrovirens complex. It is readily recognizable
by its rounded sepals hardly more than curling well over the margins of the ma-
ture fruit (Fig. 10), strongly separable pericarp and delicate branching habit.
From the Fremontii-type species it differs especially in having the primary leaves
variously serrate-margined, although many of the upper ones are entire. The
tendency in the western taxa is always toward leaves with a hastate base. This
tendency is almost lacking in Standleyanum but is observed to a slight extent in
the western part of its range. There also, in the region inhabited by C. album
var. Stevensii (Illinois and northwestward), the leaves may be moderately firm
in texture.

In the Fremontii-atrovirens complex the tendency is toward plants branched
near the base, the branches then spreading and producing a pyramidal habit, or,
more often in the thin-leaved forms, becoming strongly upright and with a more
conic or nearly cylindric habit. This tendency is entirely lacking in the eastern
representative, branches being produced more often from the upper half of the
plant, so that in both branching and leaf outline it more nearly resembles C.
album. It is perhaps most closely approached in appearance by the western
C. incognitum which, as mentioned under that species, constituted the record for
it in New Mexico.

Although it is generally known as a woodland plant its habitat is in lightly
wooded areas with a decided preference for recently disturbed soil, often on cliffs
or banks where the soil is not entirely stationary. In the author’s experience it
has been of markedly evanescent occurrence, becoming abundant in a single sea-
son in recently disturbed shale, sometimes to disappear entirely during subsequent
seasons. Under such disturbed conditions it grows luxuriantly and may produce
strong plants 5-6 ft. high while in the normal woodland situations it may persist
year after year and exhibit its characteristic delicate habit. Its similarity to
western species and its habitat preferences suggest it has come into eastern U.S.
during relatively recent geologic time as an off-shoot of western (probably south-
western) progenitors. Such widely distributed eastern representatives of genera
with numerous western species are commonly recognized.

30 BARTONIA

It is widely distributed from South Dakota and eastern Texas to Southern
Quebec (rare) and Florida, probably being most abundant near the middle of its
north-south range.

[C. hybridum L. Native of Europe. Not known in North America. |

36. C. gigantospermum Aellen in Fedde Rept. Sp. nov. 26: 144. 1929.

C.hybridum var. gigantospermum (Aellen) Rouleau in Nat. Canada
LXXI. ‘

C.hybridum Amer. auth. Incl. C. gigantospermum var. Standleyanum
Aellen, l.c., p. 147.

The characters of the seed coat and of the perianth are sufficiently clear-cut to
separate the American material specifically from the European C. hybridum L.
The difference is not only in seed size as held by Fernald (5) ,—‘ Surely Cheno-

podium gigantospermum ... differs [from C. hybridum] only in its larger seeds.
It is so like true hybridum that acute botanists from Pursh to Standley have
detected no difference ....” Seeds of European C. hybridum are usually 1.5-

2.0(2.2) mm. in diameter; Fernald gives the seed size of the American representa-
tive as 1.5-2.0 mm. in diameter, with var. Standleyanum having seeds 2.0-3.0 mm.
More than 100 sheets of American material at hand show a wide distribution,
with only one plant (to 2.7 mm.) having seeds more than 2.4 mm. in diameter.
The seed size, although of significance in a genus in which 1.0 mm. is small and
2.0 mm. is large, is by no means as impressive as the contrast betwen the thick,
black, strongly reticulate, attached pericarp of the European material and the
thinner greenish-hyaline, less reticulate, separable to attached pericarp of Ameri-
can material; the lenticulate seed with strongly rounded margin of the former and
the umbonate-lenticulate seed tapering from the raised center to the sharply de-
fined margin of the latter; the broad sepals with green center and strongly con-
trasting hyaline margin covering much more of the fruit in the former (Fig. 12)
and the narrow sepals with less contrasting coloration in the latter (Fig. 11); the
inflorescence and the leaf base. Actually those acute botanists from Pursh to
Standley also missed C. missouriense and C. macrocalycium, largely misinter-
preted C. Berlandieri, and consistently referred these and sundry others to C.
album and C. lanceolatum!

Aellen described C. gigantospermum var. Standleyanum as having seeds to 3.0
mm. broad and with the pericarp not adhering. Such a plant may exist but it has
not been seen. In the material at hand the larger-seeded material has the peri-
carp more firmly attached, while it becomes more separable in the smaller-seeded
plants. Specimens annotated by Aellen as var. Standleyanum have seeds to 2.4
mm. broad with pericarp relatively thicker and attached. Unless additional evi-
dence for the existence of the variety comes to hand, the entire series, actually
fairly variable in seed size and separation of pericarp, may be retained as a unit.
The formae described by Aellen exist as such but they represent chiefly age or
habitat differences and are not included here.

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 31

C. gigantospermum is widely distributed in North America except in the south-
eastern states and becomes more abundant northward. Its close relationship to
C. hybridum indicates that the two were derived from a widespread species of
relatively northern distribution, probably at a time when a more continuous flora
occupied the American-Eurasian area.

37. C. murale L.

38. C. urbicum L.

These two species are characterized by their relatively broadly deltoid or tri-
angular leaves prominently toothed throughout, by the irregularly reticulate,
attached, black pericarp and the short stout stigmas. They seem to be closely
related to each other and also to C. mexicanum, and to be members of Subsection
Undata. The inclusion by Aellen and Just of C. urbicum in Subsection Lejo-
sperma, with smooth-seeded species, and of C. mexicanum in Section Pseudobli-
tum, with vertical seeds, is difficult to understand. They are, however, possibly
more closely related to vertical-seeded groups than are other species with hori-
zontal seeds.

Both species seem to hc relatively urban in habitat in North America, where
they occur as introduced plants. They are widely distributed but not common
except that C. murale may be fairly abundant near the west coast. The leaves
of both are moderately thin in texture. Several collections of young material of
C. murale from Oregon have been seen suggesting the presence of a thicker leaved
form in this region.

39. C. polyspermum L.

The relationship of this little species is uncertain but there should be no ques-
tion concerning its recognition,—the apiculate sepals are distinctive, and the small
exposed seeds and thin ovate entire leaves with glomerules of flowers in spikes or
cymes from the axils of nearly the lowermost to the uppermost, set it clearly
apart.

Aellen and Just included it in Subsection Undata along with C. murale, but
the affinity of the latter is surely with C. urbicum and C. mexicanum which are
included under other section and subsection categories. Standley retained it in a
separate group of its own, which seems reasonable, though the present author
would be inclined to associate it and C. Vulvaria. Both Standley and Aellen
place C. Vulvaria in close relationship with C. Watsoni and its relatives (C.
incanum, ete.), a course which does violence not only to the appearance of the
plants but to the fact that the former, along with C. polyspermum, is of Old World
origin while C. Watsoni belongs to the considerable group of plants apparently
native in arid and mountainous regions of the western parts of the Americas.

Plants upright, sa small cymes in spikes from the primary leaf axils, ae a pyram

paniculate Inflorescence ...--... 5 ese cece cece eee e tet nee e cece et esec reser eces Bits

Plants spreading, ne very diffuse cymes chiefly from the leaf axils on the primary uioinen
tusifokum

32 BARTONIA

The two varieties of C. polyspermum are, in their extremes, strikingly differ-
ent in appearance. Var. obtusifoliwm Gaudin, spreading or prostrate and with
diffuse axillary cymes, has been seen from:

Ballast grounds (along the Delaware River near Philadelphia, Pa., or Camden, N. J.).
Brinton, Aug. 1879 (Penn.); and Montreal, Quebec, Hart 11, Aug. 1944 (OTB ae

Var. acutifolium (Sm.) Gaudin, the generally upright form with glomerules in
axillary and terminal spikes, has been sparingly introduced in the . but is
apparently of frequent occurrence along the St. Lawrence river in Aiabas and
Ontario, Canada.

CANADA: New Brunswick. Charlotte Co.: St. Andrews. Groh, July 31, 1936. Qursuc.
Nicolet Co.: Nicolet. Frere Allyre 2763, Sept. 1947. Rouville Co.: Rougemont. Lionel
Cinq-Mars, Sept. 1948. Chinohly. "Terrill 6090, Sept. 1949. St. Hyacinthe. Marie-Anselme
19, Sept. 1948. Yamaska. Marie-Victorin, Rolland-Germain and Rouleau 2210, Aug. 1943.
Ile Ste-Therese, Richelieu River. Marie-Victorin and Rolland-Germain 2004, Oct. 1934
ONTARIO. awa. Groh and Dore, Aug. 10, . Minshall 153, June 1939. SaskaTCHEWAN.
6 mi. w. of Wallwort. Breitung 479, Aug. 1989. (Can Field Nat. 54: 58. 1940.) (All OTB.)
hie te Pala oe NIA. On bal yng Philadelphia. Burk pa date but probably in the

s) (Penn

40. C. serotinum L.
C. fictfolium Smith

Of very infrequent occurrence in North America is this distinctive species
which is widespread through Eurasia. The leaves are lobed at base, usually 1.5—
3.0 cm. wide across the basal lobes, above which the median lobe continues with
the sides relatively parallel and usually prominently but remotely serrate nearly
to the tip (Fig. 13). The blades taper gradually to the petiole and are quite fari-
nose beneath, causing small, young plants to be mistaken for C. glaucum. The
length of the blade is usually about 5 times the width above the basal lobes. The
perianth parts are united farther above the base than is the case in C. album and
the small seeds with the pericarp minutely but definitely reticulate are distinctive.

The type of leaf described here, with basal lobes and the median lobe with
parallel sides, is of not infrequent occurrence in varieties of both C. album and
C. Berlandieri and will be mentioned under those species. It is developed to its
best extreme in C. serotinum. The present species, as indicated by its reticulate
pericarp, may be distantly related to C. Berlandieri and is included in Subsection
Cellulata by Aellen and Just, but it is more album-like in appearance rie ae
developed in Eurasia, probably has its affinities more nearly with that gr

This taxon has long been known under the name C. ficifolium Smith, but
Aellen (3) finds that the type of C. ficifolium is referable to C. rubrum L. It has
not previously been reported from North America. The following collections

ave been seen:
OD omgesadeapirs ks Co.: rubbish-dumps and fills on Turkey Hill. Long 67220, May

945 (in early aaa (PH. Penn.). Philadelphia Co.: Bustleton. Wikoff 408, July 1, 1945
ie a ture) (PH.). Frorma. Pensac ola. Baker 1579, Apr. 1898 (NY.).

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA Sm!

41. C. opulifolium Schrad.

C. flabellifolium Standley in N. Am. Fl. 21: 19. 1916. (probably)
C. viride L. in part, of Standley, l.c., p. 21.

Another European plant of the C. album group that has been introduced in
North America but has not become abundant is C. opulifolium, characterized by
somewhat thicker leaves with basal lobes often bipartite and the median lobe
short, so that the blade is hardly longer than wide. It is much more album-like
in appearance and less readily separable from it than is C. serotinum. There
seems to be some variation in the presence or absence of bipartite basal lobes and
all of the material with relatively shorter leaves cannot be satisfactorily placed.
The sepal characters given in the key are of some help but unfortunately they are
not always clearly applicable.

CANADA: Onvarto. Nos. 1116 and 1117 in Herbarium of the Department of Agriculture
at Ottawa “ grown from seed of a plant collected in a street of Hamilton”. Essex Co.: Sand-
wich (extreme s.w.). Macoun 54723, July 1901 Js

US.A.: PENNSytvANIA. Philadelphia Co.: Navy Yard. Martindale, Aug. 1865 (PH.).
DetawarE. Wilmington. Commons, June 30, 1 (PH.). Marytanp. Cited by Aellen from
Cumberland. Steele, 1898 (US.). Inprana. Allen Co.: Ft. Wayne. Deam 14466, July 1914
(NY.). Ixtrnors. Cited by Aellen and material seen from streets of Rockford, “ thoroughly
established ”. Bebb, 1880 (NY.). Mt. Carmel. Schenck, July 1894 (NY.).

Several other collections that probably belong here have been seen from the region of
eastern seaports in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but the material is not in such
stages as to afford positive separation from C. album.

42. C. album L.

Leaves of ordinary texture, chiefly less than twice as long as wide, the teeth prominent but
hardly sharp.

Plants relatively strict in habit; glomerules chiefly contiguous; sepals more often pointed

and yellow-margined; flowers al sessile; leaves more broadly ovate and serrate but

grading into lanceolate entire bracts; widespread and common ........------- var. album

Plants with spreading branches; glomerules conspicuously separate; sepals more often

obtuse and whitish-margined; individ l

rowly ovate to lanceolate, those of the inflorescence entire; widespread and common

var.

Leaves thicker, firm but brittle, not coriaceous, generally twice as long as wide and sharply
toothed; plants chiefly robust; seeds in the larger size range; Illinois, northeastward and
Werther a a SS a os ot ef te en ere eS ey ee mee See var. Stevensit
And so we come at length, but not last, to C. album, the most commonly
encountered member of the genus and a favorite of the taxonomic conservative.
Abrams (1), admits to reducing “34 subspecies, varieties, and forms in Nort
America ” to it, including the numerous variants of C. Berlandieri. Gleason (9)
goes one step farther and adds C. Bushianum. Included also have been C. mis-
souriense, C. macrocalycium and C. strictum var. glaucophyllum because they
have been unrecognized. The actual limits of the species are extensive enough,
geographically, genetically and ecologically. It remains, even after the elimina-
tion of the extraneous inclusions, probably one of the most widespread and vari-
able of plant species and the most abundant species of Chenopodium in American
collections. Aellen’s statement that most American material identified as C.
album actually belongs to C. Berlandieri ssp. Zschackei is not entirely correct,

34 BARTONIA

but his work in distinguishing these and other taxa has served as the first basis
for an understanding of much of the American material. It is to be regretted that
his critical determinations have not been more widely appreciated.

Of the various sub-species, varieties and forms recognized by him, however,
it is deemed advisable, because of the great amount of ecological variability in-
volved, to recognize fewer categories for the North American material. Typical
C. album (Fig. 4) is characterized by its relatively upright habit; by most of the
leaves being of the relatively broader type and more prominently, usually abun-
dantly, toothed; by the more often yellow-margined sepals; relatively non-
glomerate (the glomerules contiguous) inflorescence and by its habitat, which is
largely restricted to recently disturbed soil.

From this, var. lanceolatum (Muhl.) Coss. & Germ. Fl. Paris 451, 1845, (C.
lanceolatum Muhl.) (Fig. 3) differs in its more spreading habit, narrower and
less prominently toothed leaves, usually whitish-margined sepals and by the
strongly glomerate inflorescence (the glomerules separate, therefore apparent).
These characters occur in such a bewildering series of combinations and intergra-
dations that the variety probably would be dispensed with entirely were it not
that the extremes present entirely different aspects in the field and the narrow-
leaved, spreading, glomerate type of plant also departs markedly from the upright
broader-leaved type in its habitat. Typical C. album is a plant of cultivated
places, rarely occurring in soil not recently disturbed. Var. lanceolatum, while it
also grows in recently cultivated soil, will grow and persist in undisturbed soil.
It is more characteristically a plant of waste places, often urban, while the com-
mon garden and corn-field weed, in the author’s experience, is the typical variety.
One may not assume that the habit is entirely a response to the habitat since the
spreading habit of the variety is recognizable even when the plants are crowded,
and the upright habit of typical C. album persists in isolated plants. There is, of
course, considerable variability within the upright and spreading categories. The
habitat difference, more or less obligate in some taxa, is an important feature and
one that can be appreciated only from field experience. It will be referred to also
under C. missouriense.

Aellen, and Aellen and Just have treated var. lanceolatum as a forma. Its
characters indicate it to be at least of varietal status (the differences are not just
ecological) even though no separate geographic range can be assigned to it. Field
observations strongly suggest it is genetically isolated from the typical variety,
but attempts to separate any considerable amount of material on morphological
characters leave many apparent intermediates. As treated here it would include
f. glomerulosum (Reichenb.) Aellen and f. cymigerum (Koch) Aellen, of Aellen
and Just’s treatment. Relatively more material would be referred to it, including
some considered as the typical variety by Aellen, since the sepal characters and
the presence of occasional pedicellate flowers are considered of importance. In
the considerable amount of material at hand the number of sheets under var.

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 35
lanceolatum exceeds those under var. album. This may not actually reflect their
relative abundance since collectors are more apt to pick up material from waste
places than from cultivated fields. It does definitely reflect the fact that a large
number of collections by the late B. F. Bush, the indefatigable collector of cheno-
pods, are from “ waste places ”’ around Courtney, Independence and Kansas City,
Missouri.

The differences between var. album and var. lanceolatum are paralleled by the
differences between typical C. pratericola and its var. oblongifolium, the variety
in each case having a more spreading habit, narrower leaves and with the sepals
relatively more blunt and greener.

From Illinois northeastward and northwestward there occur thicker leaved
forms, variable in leaf outline but with a definite tendency toward basal lobes
and the terminal lobe with parallel sides. Although the leaves are thicker they
remain brittle and do not take on the coriaceous texture more common in C. Ber-
landieri and other native western forms. These are considered deserving of varie-
tal recognition as

var. Stevensw Aellen, Fedde Rept. Sp. nov. 26: 130. 1929, including in syn-
onymy var. dacoticum Aellen, l.c., p. 131, and ssp. fallax Aellen, l.c., p. 131.

In this relatively drier region (into the Dakotas and Manitoba) one might
expect ecological variants with thicker leaves and reduced size. Plants placed
here are, however, usually of large stature and with seeds in the maximum size
range for the species, thus indicating genetic rather than ecological variation. It
may be a native American development from the C. album complex. The taxa
here included under var. Stevensii have been reported only from North Dakota.
The a range-extensions may be noted:

NADA: Qussec. Shefford Co.: Frere Fabius 385 (NY.). Longueuil Co.: DeCham
Fr. Marie-Victorin and Rolland-Germain 43636 (OTB.). OnTario. Ottawa. Minshall, ree 4
1985 (OTB.). Manrrosa. Brandon. Stevens 265 (OTB.).

Ais ois. Champaign Co.: 15 mi. w. of Urbana. Jones 14030 4030 (Tll.). Near Urbana. .
Jones 12479 (Ill.). Micutean. Keweenaw Co.: West Bluff. Richards 2445 (OTB.). MINN»-
sora. Cass Co.: Lake Winnibigoshish py abad 70 (OTB.).

Var. microphyllum Boenningh. This may be a good enough variety, since the
leaves not only are smaller but the upper ones and bracts continue to be more
serrate than in other forms. It is difficult to separate because the older, larger,
leaves are not always present in collected material. The variety is not included
in the key because of its tenuous status. The following may be referred here in
addition to the Washington, D. C., collection cited by Aellen:

Frorma. Western shore of Lake O) hobee. Small 9182, May 1917 (NY.). Mrssourt
Courtney. Bush 8052, July 1917 (Tll.). ion than one Bush sheet is numbered 8052 but only
one is referred here.

Thin-leaved forms of C. album are present in some of the northwestern States—
North Dakota to Oregon, and in s. Canada—and these often have the flowers in
pronounced flat-topped clusters. The relationships here are not clear but this
material probably grades into C. ferulatum Lunell which is included by Aellen

36 BARTONIA

and Just in C. Berlandieri ssp. Ludwigianum Aellen. The latter category is used
to include the relatively strict, generally northern forms related to C. Berlandieri
var. Zschackei, but C. ferulatum is essentially a thin-leaved variation in the
album series and is not related to Berlandieri. More study of this material is
needed before the proper category or categories for it may be decided.

43. C. missouriense Aellen in Bot. Notiser, Lund, 1928, p. 206.

C. missouriense var. Bushianum Aellen in Fedde Rept. Sp. nov. 26: 156.
1929.

Described from material from Missouri and Tennessee, this very character-
istic and uniform species is common and widely distributed in eastern North
America south of New England and the Great Lakes.

This taxon has been generally included with either C. albwm or C. Berlandieri,
both of which it resembles in general appearance and leaf form. Although it may
be separated from either by its smaller seeds (Fig. 5), the most useful field char-
acter is its unfailing habit of coming into anthesis about the second week in Sep-
tember, regardless of how early or late the particular plant began growth. Once
this behavior is recognized it becomes very easy to distinguish the species in the
field at any time of the year. C. album, with which it might be confused in
general appearance (C. Berlandieri is almost entirely absent from the eastern
states), flowers any time after the plants have been growing from 4 to 8 weeks,
so they may be met with in fruit from early July until October. Even those
plants of C. albwm which grow from late ‘germinating seeds and which are in the
flowering stage at the same time as C. missouriense are readily distinguishable in
the field by the stiffer habit of the inflorescence in both flower and fruit as well
as by their more glomerate arrangement. The inflorescence of C. missouriense is
relatively flexuous and arching (Fig. 5). Plants of it that start from seed late in
the summer flower at the same time as the earlier well grown plants and, espe-
cially if partially shaded, develop a slender, delicate inflorescence with the flowers
more glomerulate (Fig. 6). It is such forms of this species, along with other
similar growth forms (and including true southern C. Berlandieri and var. Boscia-
num), that have been treated as C. Berlandieri by American authors.

It is separated in the 8th edition of Gray’s Manual (as C. Berlandieri) partly
on the basis of being ill-scented. Although the author has collected it on many
occasions in all stages of growth and for a few years kept a colony growing at the
side of the house, where it constantly had to be weeded out to allow room for
what are considered, by some, to be more desirable cultigens, he has never noticed
any difference in odor between this and C. album.

Fig. 3. Chenopodium album var. lanceolatum: a, lower leaf; b, branch of inflorescence.

=F ae. 4. se enerninete album var. album: a, lower leaf; b, terminal portion of plant;

Fig. 5. Chenopodium missouriense: a, fruit and calyx; b, branch of inflorescence;
c, lower leaf.

~*~ 6. Late growth phase of Chenopodium missouriense: branch of inflorescence and

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA

38 BARTONIA

Other differences do exist, however. In C. missouriense the leaves are more
coarsely toothed, the inflorescence branches arching, the seedling leaves are much
more obtuse (Fig. 5) (later ones are not), the seeds smaller and, while C. album
is a plant of cultivated places, rarely growing in soil not disturbed during the
current season, C. missouriense comes up year after year on roadsides, along
streets and alleys, in vacant lots, and very characteristically in undisturbed soil
around farm buildings. Finally eliminated from the flower bed, it is now luxuri-
ating in the writer’s trampled-down dog-yard, enjoying the high nitrogen and lack
of competition where C. album var. lanceolatum would hardly survive and where
var. album, if it did get a start in loosened soil, might persist weakly for a season
but would fail utterly in establishing succession. It shows progressive variation
in habitat from south to north in Pennsylvania. In the southern part, except at
higher altitudes, it is generally abundant, growing in various waste places and
cultivated fields. Northward it becomes more and more restricted to waste places
in towns and around farm buildings. To establish its northernmost limits, one
must search for it in the most protected urban areas.

Its relative rarity northward and general absence north of about the southern
border of Connecticut is attributed to the probability that its late-flowering habit
does not allow time for maturing of the seeds during the period from mid-Septem-
ber to the time of killing frosts. Further evidence of its dependence on length of
season is furnished by its presence in waste places near the shore of Lake Erie in
Pennsylvania. This narrow strip bordering the lake has a longer frost-free period
than areas to the south of it.

Although the material has been under observation for more than 10 years, the
application of the name to it was not readily made, since it was separated from
C. album in the keys (4) (10) by the leaves not being farinose and by the peri-
carp not being firmly attached to the seed. In neither of these respects is this
species appreciably different from C. album. Aellen’s original description of C.
missouriense indicated it to be a glabrescent (not farinose) plant, and later a
farinose var. Bushianum was described. The sheets on which these names were
based have been seen at the National Herbarium and all of them are plants that
are farinose and to the same varying degree as C. album.

terial is not at hand to indicate the limits of its distribution but the following citations

may a of value: New Yorx. Bronx Co.: Pelham Bay Parkway. Moldenke 20563 (NY.)
Oct. 1949. New Jersey. Bergen Co.: Between Moresemere and

Mackenzie 8232, Oct. 1917 (NY.).. Pennsytvanta. Numerous collections need poe be ied

Wahl 1493, 1453, 1510 have been distributed. Inp1ana. Howard Co.: fallow lot. Ek, Oct. 11,
Nos. Cass Co.: Friesner 10112 (Ill.). Piatt Co.: Jones 19356 (IIl.). Clay Co.:

Numerous collections by B. F. Bush from Courtney, Kansas City, Webb City, Sheffield, bear-
ing, in addition to those cited by Aellen, over 40 numbers
v44. C. strictum Roth var. glaucophyllum (Acllen) stat. nov.
C. glaucophyllum Aellen in Fedde Rept. Sp. nov. 26: 155. 1929.
C. strictum ssp. ne eet: (Aellen) Aellen and Just in Amer. Midl.
Nat. 30: 67.

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 39

The Asiatic C. strictum may be recognized by its prominently serrate, oblong-
ovate leaves 3 or more times as long as wide. American material referable to this
species has the lower leaves only about twice as long as wide, the margins abun-
dantly but shallowly serrate, the median becoming oblong and entire, the upper
lanceolate and entire (Fig. 7). Some exceptions in length of leaf occur and the
plants present a markedly different appearance from base to tip, but most of our
material seems varietally separable from the Asiatic.

The plants respond markedly to habitat and may be 3-5 dm. tall and then
often with only a few upwardly curved basal branches or they may be 2 m. tall
and with the profuse branching habit of C. album, etc. Not having seen the
plants in the field, it is difficult to formulate a relatively exact idea of their habit
but they seem characteristically to produce a few basal branches which project
horizontally 1.0-1.5 dm. and then turn sharply upward, a habit also characteristic
of various western species of the Fremontii group. In the present species, how-
ever, this habit seems not always to be expressed and the central stem may pro-
liferate extensively and produce lanceolate leaves unlike the oblong-ovate basal
ones. There is a distinct possibility that more than one taxon is being included.
Canadian and other northern collections are characteristic as are also others as
far south as Missouri; however, collections from Illinois, some from Missouri and
especially some from Arkansas are referred here only tentatively. It is hardly
to be considered a native plant, and the northern material is clearly adventive,
yet in its southern extension it is not behaving as other introduced chenopods.
Axillary inflorescences are usually spicate and stiff (Fig. 7) but terminally they
become paniculate and variously spreading, though hardly ever assuming the
gracefully nodding oe of C. missouriense. In shade it simulates the shade
form of missouriens

The bulk of ibe! paaberial is readily determinable by the shallowly serrate
oblong lower leaves and small seeds but collections including only upper branches
of large plants in flower or fruit at the same time as missouriense may not always
be certainly named. Most collections are from the Mississippi basin, New Eng-
land and s. Canada, but there are a few others. The eee 0 have been seen:

arris
way and llard, Sept. 15, 1933 Collins, 3780,
(NEBC.). Kidder, July 31, 1918 (GH.). Spontaneous Flora of Arnold A Arbore Pal
Sept. 1942 (PH., GH.). Suffolk Co. : Back Bay, Boston. .: bf rac gg 17, 1910 (U8).

Norfolk Co.: West Quincy. Kidder, Aug. 14, 1898 (NEBC.). Wor
Sept. 28, 1914 pI os g Faroe Co.: Springfield. Andrews 7, pkg 21. i9ti: 18, ei: 5,
1905 ; 21, Sept. 21, 1911 (GH.). Ruope Istanp. Washington Co.: Westerly. Bissell, Harger

erby, Aug. 21, 1913 (NEBC.). Ss Hartford Co.: Hartford. Bissell,

= 6,108, oa Blewett, Aug. 18, 1915 “(NEBC). Ni ce Ca: yu Sg Blewett
wn. Blewe Ne

429, Aug. 30, 1910. New Yor beck i e Yonkers Wool Mill. Bicknell, Tule i, "1804 (NY.).

40 BARTONIA

PENNSYLVANIA. Bucks Co.: Bristol. Fretz, Aug. 1, 1899. kee ay Sea Co.: Slateford.
Schaeffer range oe ih pan Lehigh Co.: Alle ntown. Pretz 11553, Sept. 17, 1922. (All

.) Micx Kalamazoo Co.: Vicksburg. ee: app 3719, Aug. 6, 1940, ge 3571, Sept. 1,
1940 Fico var. strictum) (both NY.). Ittrors. Vermilion Co.: Jon s 14993, Oct. 1941
(Ill, NY.). Lake Co.: Zion. Brown, Sept. 7, 1949 (Ill.). Minnesota. Ra aseits Co.: St. Paul.
Rosendahl, Sept. 1949 (OTB.). Iowa. Iowa Co.: West of Amana. Easterly 948, Aug. 1950
(OTB.). Missourr. Aellen cited 46 ogee by Bush from tye Gointnuss and Web
City. The following have been seen in a ion: age : 8108, 8108A, 8110, 8111,
8195, 8196, 8844, 11865 (all Ill.), 8195A (PH ae 8546B “(NY ; Nae Daxora. Cass :
Ste e . 1917 (US.

). Muenscher 11756, Sept. 1987 (NY.). Walsh Co.: Park River. Stevens 77, Sept.
1936 (OTB.). Sourn Daxora. Northville. Brenkle, Sept. 30, 1937 (Penn.). Mellette.

Brenkle 40-49, Sept. 6, 1 NesRASKA. Vale Bat tes, Sept. 1, 1 (GH
ASHINGTON. Klickitat Co.: Near a Suksdorf 11536, Sept. 1923 (NY., PH., US.)
(leaves longer, depauperate growth form). CaAtirorNIA. Stanislaus Co.: Turlock. Howell

15380, Oct. 1939 (US.). Mo nite tele eae rig mee 2064, Aug. 1949 (PAC.). San ion
Co.: Sims Station. Keck 1 N fe P

Collections referred hae Saal are: Missourr. Bush 7063, 7063A and 7063B from

sarap Aug. 26, 1913 (NY.) (which were named as C. album f. ‘lanceolatum by Aellen).

8223 and 11641- 11645, Sept. 22, ve (US.) ; 11698-11701. Sept. 29, 1929 (NY.). ARKANSAS.
vee Co.: Hot Springs. ap sued e 15802, Aug. 1937. Jefferson Co.: Pine Bluff. Demaree
16248A, Sept. 188 Gasdoloh Ca,: eee hontas. op eee 23694, Aug. 1942. Yell Co.: Darda-

e. Demar e 20026, ae 1939. (All NY.)

45... Pe ee Don, Prodr. Pl. Nepal. 75. 1825.

C. amaranticolor Coste and Reynier, Bull. Soc. Bot. France 54: 178. 1907.

There is no certainty in the author’s mind as to the identity of the taxon indi-
cated here. The names used above are given by Aellen and Just but the U. 8.
records questioned.

In Florida and Georgia there occur very large plants (to 3 m. according to
Small, Manual of the Southeastern Flora, 1933, p. 465) with large, sharply
doubly-serrate leaves, heavily farinose when young and then often presenting a
dull red appearance. Pre-flowering material seen indicates the plants are photo-
periodic, flowering in September, and is almost but not quite matched by robust
C. missouriense and essentially matched by some C. Bushianum. If Richards
3827 from waste ground, Athens, Georgia, Nov. 2, 1927 (Penn.) represents the
same taxon in fruit, however, then it is neither of these.

Nothing more can be done with the material at hand. It fairly well matches
European material called C. amaranticolor. Observation of it with reference to
photoperiodic response may be rewarding.

46. C. Berlandieri Mog.

The most abundant and widespread species of Chenopodium in western North
America, at least in the plains region and possibly excepting the pratericola group,
C. Berlandieri has, until the work of Aellen, generally gone unrecognized in whole
or in part. In general aspect and in size and shape of fruit it resembles C. album
but is sharply set off from that by the prominently reticulate pericarp (Fig. 9)-
When fruit is not present the characters of usually thicker leaves, broadly keeled
sepals, and the definite style base serve to distinguish it, even though the first
two characters are somewhat variable and the third is a bit difficult to apply.
Almost always, even in only partially mature fruit, the pericarp shows a yellow
area around the base of the style and there is a much more noticeable progression

of flowering from tip to base of the plants than in C. album

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 41

Associating it in any way with C. albwm does violence to phylogeny. There
can hardly exist a reasonable doubt, after a study of the material, that the C.
Berlandieri complex has come up from the south, in a manner comparable to that
recently so competently elaborated for the Prunus serotina phylad by MeVaugh
(11), while C. album is of Old World origin. :

Disregarding the primary origin of the group, the reticulate-seeded chenopods
constitute an assemblage of related taxa in which speciation has taken place in
the relatively arid and montane areas of Central America and western North and
South America. A postulate of the origin and ramifications of the Berlandieri
complex in North America is readily arrived at from representative series of col-
leections, with the works of Aellen, and Aellen and Just, as a background.

In the yegion of eastern Texas and northeastern Mexico are the relatively
small-seeded (1.0-1.3 mm.) and small-leaved (2.0-3.0 cm. long) forms with a
terminal bractless proliferation of the inflorescence, included by the cited authors
in ssp. yucatanum Aellen and ssp. eu-Berlandieri Aellen. Progressing eastward
through eastern Texas and the other Gulf states to Florida, the northward limits
undetermined but surely not extensive, is ssp. Boscianum (Moq.) Aellen, with the
same small seeds, more sharply serrate small leaves (Aellen and Just say 0.5 cm.
wide, but the primary ones, though usually much smaller, are up to 2.5 cm. wide
and occasionally 4.0 em. long) and a well defined delicate, terminal, bractless
inflorescence. This branch of the phylad presumably includes the progenitors of
C. macrocalycium of the northern coastal plain.

Westward from the original plexus through the southwestern states and north-
ern Mexico to southern California the tendency is toward plants with leaves be-
coming progressively larger, thicker, and with the terminal lobe of the leaves with
parallel sides, a tendency previously noted in other species. This constitutes ssp.
pseudo-petiolare Aellen, which reaches an extreme of its development on the west
coast, and especially on some of the islands (Clokey 4817 from Santa Barbara)
off the s.w. coast. (Aellen also provides var. californicum under ssp. Zschacket,
with similar characters.)

Back again to the Mexico-Texas-Gulf area, this time moving northward and
out onto the Great Plains, we follow the most extensive development of the com-
plex, breaking with considerable abruptness, strongly suggesting specific segrega-
tion, from its postulated progenitors. The plants in this series are characterized
by having generally larger seeds, strongly keeled sepals, usually thicker leaves,
a more leafy inflorescence and a general aspect which has been understandably
responsible for their inclusion under C. album. A large majority of these plants
are included in var. Zschackeit (Murr.) Murr. (ssp. Zschacket (Murr.) Zobel, of
Aellen and Just’s treatment), ranging from Texas, Arkansas, Missouri and Ilhi-
nois, north to James Bay and the Mackenzie Basin, west to the coast, in a pro-
lifie and intricate series of variations, with names available for many.

Concerning C. Berlandieri as a whole we are content at present to suggest the
following provisional and conservative treatment:

42 BARTONIA

1. var. Berlandierr. Including C. Berlandiert ssp. yucatanum Aellen and ssp.
eu-Berlandiert Aellen. Leaves membranaceous, 2.0-3.0 cm. long, more or less
trilobed, the basal lobe often bipartite; seeds 1.0-1.3 mm. in diam.; inflorescence
largely terminal and leafless. Texas and Mexico.

2.” var. sinuatum Murr. comb. nov. C. petiolare Kunth var. sinwatum Murr.
in Bull. Herb. Boiss., 2. ser., t. IV, p. 994. 1904. C. Berlandieri ssp. pseudo-
petiolare Aellen in Fedde Rept. Sp. nov. 26: 60. 1929. Leaves firm, with basal
lobes, the terminal lobe elongate, toothed, the margins parallel to near the tip;
seeds 1.0-1.3 mm. in diam.; inflorescence somewhat leafy. S.w. U. S. and Mexico.

3. “var. Boscianum (Moq.) comb. nov. CC. Boscianum Mog. in Chenop.
enum. 21. 1940, in part. C. Berlandieri ssp. Boscianum (Mogq.) Aellen in Fedde
Rept. Sp. nov. 26: 61. 1929. Leaves membranaceous, 2.0-4.0 cm. long, rhombic-
triangular, not prominently trilobed, conspicuously dentate or the upper becoming
entire, especially abundant on the branches; upper portions of the inflorescence
more delicate and becoming bractless; seeds 1.0-1.3 mm. in diam. East Texas —
to Florida.

4. var. Zschacker (Murr.) Murr. in Festschrift Aschers. 70. Geburtst., p. 227.
1904. C. Zschackei Murr. in Deut. bot. Monatschr. XIX: p. 39. 1901. C. Ber-
landieri Mog. ssp. Zschackei (Murr.) Zobel in Verz. Anhalt Phanerog. III, p. 70.
1909. Leaves thin to coriaceous, variable in size and shape but larger than other
varieties; sepals usually strongly keeled; seeds 1.2-1.5 mm. in diameter; inflores-
cence leafy. Central and western U. S. and Canada, e. to Ont., Ill., Ark. and
Tex. Also two collections seen from s.e. Pa. and one from s.w. Va.

As here considered, var. Zschackei is a variable taxon and includes the follow-
ing named varieties and subspecies of Aellen and Just’s treatment:

var. foetens (Ludwig) ne, smaller leaved, more farinose plants possibly
grading into var. farinosum

var. farinosum aadiwig) Aellen, C. dacoticum Standley, and possibly better
in the specifie category;

var. californicum Aellen, similar to and perhaps better included with var.
sinuatum ;

ssp. Esauae Aellen, with often entire leaves and glomerate inflorescence (simu-
lating C. album var. lanceolatum) ;

Fig. 7. Chenopodium strictum var. glaucophyllum: a, lower leaf; b, branch of inflores-
cence; c, fruit and

Fig. 8. Chenopodium macrocalycium: a, lower leaf; b, plant; c, fruit and calyx.

Fig. 9. Chenopodium Berlandieri var. Zschackei: fruit and calyx.

Fig.10. Chenopodium Standleyanum: portion of branch of inflorescence with young and
mature fruit.
Fig.11. Chenopodium gigantospermum: fruit —
Fig.12. Chenopodium hybridum: fruit and ca
Fig.13. Chenopodium serotinum: lower leaf.
Fig. 14. Chenopodium Fremontii: lower

Bushianu

leaf.
= — Chenopodium um: a, lower leaf; b, fruit and part of calyx; c, branch of

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 43

44 BARTONIA

ssp. platyphyllum (Issler) Ludwig, a noteworthy northwestern thin-leaved
series which may deserve separate varietal rank;

ssp. Ludwigianum Aellen, including smaller plants of more strict habit, the
branches sometimes not exceeding the leaves, representing the northern tendency
in the complex (not including C. ferulatum Lunnell).

These named taxa do not cover all the variation in C. Berlandieri. In Arkan-
sas a large form with usually thin leaves and enlarged calyx has been collected
at several places by Demaree. Arkansas material frequently does not fit in with
presently recognized taxa, not only in the Berlandieri series but in other groups
as well (cf. note under C. strictum var. glaucophyllum).

Also in the northwest, Wyoming to Oregon and northward into British Colum-
bia and Mackenzie Basin (Raup 2263, 2269, 7060, and 7079 (NY.)), is a variant
with strict habit, elongate leaves and finely reticulate and sometimes separable
pericarp. The latter feature is extremely unusual in reticulate-seeded species.

C. Covillet Aellen is of uncertain status. The only American collection re-
ferred to this species (said to be also from Switzerland) is a plant shortly before
anthesis, with sharply serrate rhombic-deltoid primary leaves and the upper ones
with parallel-sided middle lobes as in var. sinuatum. It can hardly represent a
separate species and, at best, determining material at this stage of development
is a hazardous procedure. It connects satisfactorily with other plants from the
Northwest, where there is indeed a tendency for the development in C’. Berlandieri
of the sharply serrate, hardly lobed, triangular-rhombic type of leaf, together
with seeds in the smaller size range and sepals less prominently keeled. C. Co-
vilet is included by Aellen in the smooth-seeded series, related to C. album, but
although uncertain because of its young condition it seems to belong to the Ber-
landiert series. The variations of C. Berlandieri merit continued study.

47. C. Bushianum Aellen in Fedde Rept. Sp. nov. 26: 63. 1929.

This species has been generally recognized by its larger flattened seeds (Fig.
15) and included in the manuals as C. paganum Reichenb. The combination of
large thin leaves and reticulate seeds 1.5-2.0 mm. broad produced in September
makes it easy to recognize in the herbarium. In the field one is immediately
attracted by the lighter green color (than album and missouriense) through early
summer; by all the plants coming to flower the last week in August; then, through
the Fall, the heavily drooping irregular inflorescences, usually lead-grey in color,
and often on plants by this time leafless, are characteristic. In Illinois a thick
(brittle) leaved form turns up in the region in which C. album, C. Standleyanum
and C. strictum var. glaucophyllum also show this character.

C. Bushianum occurs most often as a weed of cultivated places but is found
also in alluvium along streams and in waste places. The shade form is more
delicate, and in its extreme the leaves become less prominently serrate and even
entire. Aellen described forma acutidentatum with leaves sharply toothed, this

THE GENUS CHENOPODIUM IN NORTH AMERICA 45

occurring throughout the range. Var. cinerascens Aellen refers to the ordinary
late-season stage in which the inflorescence takes on its characteristic lead-grey
color. It does not have varietal significance. The stems often become red-
striped, but this is a characteristic of any of the species that flower later in the
season and are exposed to direct sunlight.

It is widely distributed in eastern North America; Massachusetts, Quebec,
Ontario and North Dakota, south to Virginia and western Missouri. It probably
exceeds these limits somewhat, but its relatively greater abundance in cooler
regions indicates it may not be common south of the range given.

48. C. macrocalycium Aellen in Fedde Rept. Sp. nov. 26: 123. 1929.

Closely similar to some forms of C. Berlandiert, this species with its character-
istic coastal distribution is distinguished by its generally thinner, coarsely but
sparingly toothed, rhombic, lower leaves reduced upward to conspicuous lanceo-
late bracts; by its spreading pyramidal habit, less conspicuous or absent style
base and enlarged calyx (Fig. 8). It is clearly separable from C. album and var.
lanceolatum, to which collected material has most often been assigned, by its
reticulate pericarp and lower leaves with little more than basal lobes, rather than
being sinuate-dentate throughout.

Three possibilities as to its relationships suggest themselves: (1) it may have
developed from the northeastern branch of the Berlandieri var. Zschacker com-
plex (unlikely), (2) it may be a coastal development from the inland C. Bushi-
anum, (3) (most likely) it may be a northward development, following the
coastal plain, of the southeastern extension of C. Berlandieri var. Boscianum.
Collections from the southern coastal plain, North Carolina to Florida, may throw
light on this postulate and might even connect the groups varietally. Virginia
material cited by Aellen under C. Berlandieri ssp. Boscianum probably belongs
here. The material is in flower and determination is uncertain but the inflores-
cence is leafy to the tip and entirely suggestive of macrocalycium. Godfrey and
Tryon 1562, Charleston Co., 8S. C. (US.) is also doubtful but probably belongs
with C. macrocalycium.

following citations indicate its distribution: CANADA: NewrounDLaNp.
Inland _ Fernald, Long and Fogg 230 —— not typical) and 231 sonal gad 1926 owe

Penn. and PH.). New Baowswiex, ‘ere ong oe , Aug. 29, 1937 (OTB ce EDWARD
eae ase Port Borden. Basse Nova Scotra. Yarmouth Co.: Pembroke
meee and Linder a1130, rae ae (PED. Luseabene Co.: Chester. Zinck 638, Aug.

: Manse, Nica Co.: Ocean Park. Molde org a Aug. 1931 (NY.). Massacuu-

. : e Islan
(Pea). Martha’s Vineyard. Seymouw r 1188, Sept "1916 (NY., PH.). Nelson and Ne
2558, Sept. 1937 (IIl.). Nantacket ete Bicknell, Sept. 16, 1899, Aug. 4, 1906, Sept. 16, 1907,
and 4018, Aug. 1909 (all NY.). Harshberger, Sept. 1, 1914 (Penn.). Ruop fp ISLAND. "Block
Island. Fernald, Long and Torrey 9433, Sept. 1913 (NY., ra B” (2), Aug. 9, 1929

46 BARTONIA

(Ill.). New York. Long Island. Ferguson, July 27 and Aug. 28, 1920; 980, 1921; 3211 and
3234, 1924; 5197, 1926 ; Kearney, Oct. 6, 1894; Taylor 1543, 1903 : Bicknell 3982, 1909 a and 4014,
1914; Gilly 240, 1939; (all NY.). Bicknell 4010, 1914 (PH.).. Staten Island. _Hollick and
Britton, June 27, 1916 (NY.). Harlem. Leggett, Fall of 1866 (NY.). Harlem River, Bicknell
(NY re) nega 20. 1949 (NY.). N JERS

: BY.

Bergen Co.: wees RMaskensis 2492, Sept. 1906. New Durham. Mackenzie 4501, Oct. 1909.

cean Co.: Barnegat Bay Beach. ai, ‘aly, 21, 1900 (NY.). Cape May Co.: Ocean
City. Eckfeldt, el 9, 1912; Reeds Beach, Ludwig 563, Sept. 1937; landeng Bank Ludwig 603,
Oct. 1937; Green Creek, Ludwig 643, Oct. 1937 (all Penn .). Detaware. Kent Co.: Sandy
beach, Persimmon Hu mmock. Larsen 1057, Sept. 1935 (Penn.) ‘eamnatohat uncertain). " Norri
CaROLINA, Cartere t Co.: Sand banks near Beaufort. Lewis 122, 1906 (NY.). [yprana,
Howard Co.: Ek, Seok 3, 1940 (NY.). Where the ranges of macrocalyciwm and Berlandiert
overlap it could be difficult to separate the former from thin-leave d forms of the latter. The
Ek plant, although representing an isolated station and within the range of C. Berlandieri,
is such characteristic material that one can have no hesitation to assign it to C. macro-
calycium; the occurrence of Coastal Plain species in the Upper Mississippi-Great Lakes
region is well known. It1rnors. Champaign Co.: 8 mi. ne. of Rantoul. Franklin, July
1949 (Ill.). Atypical in appearance, in flower and very young fruit, this plant matches well
the doubtful Delaware plant. No other disposition of the two presents i itself.

As is the case with various other taxa in the genus Chenopodium, recognition
of C. macrocalycium and study of its variations at the limits of its range may
throw additional light on its specifie relationships.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) acre 7. Illustrated Flora of the Pacifie States, Vol. 2, 1944. Stanford University,

(2) inion. aut qm zur Systematik der Chenopodium-Arten Amerikas, —* auf
Grund der Sammlung des United States National cer FE in Washington, D. C.

Fedde Rav. Spec. n ro Bees en. veg. 26: 31-64, 119-160.
(3) —————. Nom sckintheeeht Bemerkungunen zu einigen a Ostenia (Fest-
schrift fiir aan ten). Montevideo, Uruguay, 101.
(4) —————— and Just, Theodor. Key and Synopsis of the American Species of the Genus
1943.

Chen ieee v. Amer. Midl. Nat. 30: 47-76.
(5) Fernald, M. L. Rhodora 51: 92. 1949.
—————.. Gray’s Manual of Botany, ed. 8. American Book Co.,
(7) Fosberg, F. R. Notes on North pedticnns Plants, I. Amer. Mid) “7 26: 690-695.

(8) sineae Hy. Photoperiodic responses of Chenopodium quinoa Willd. and Amaranthus
us L. Amer. Journ. Bot. 36: 175-180.

(9) Gleason, Hs A. _ Britton and Brown Illustrated Flora, Vol. II. New York Botanical

(10) Just, Theodor kosiopidlicias, pp. 418-427, in Deam, Flora of Indiana. Indianapolis,

(11) McVaugh, Rogers. Suggested Phylogeny of Prunus serotina and other wide-ranging
Phylads in North America. Brittonia 7: 317-346. 1
(12) Standley, P. C. Chenopodiaceae. N. Amer. Flora 21: 1- 93. 1916.
(13) ——————. The Ciskoodiaeens of northwestern South America. Field Museum Natu-
History, Bot. Ser. 11: 115-126. 1931.
(14) belgee % Sereno. A Revision of the North American Chenopodiaceae. Proc. Amer.
cad, Arts Sci. 9: 82-126.

The illustrations accompanying this article were drawn by Miss E. - Hitch (now Mrs.
Allen M. Woodruff). As figured the fruits are about 6 times natural siz

Spores, Sporangia and Indusia of the Genus Dryopteris
in North America, north of Mexico .

CuiypDE F. Reep, Px.D.
Reed Herbarium, Baltimore, Maryland

Modern taxonomists are becoming cognizant of the variability which a species
may manifest under various ecological situations and are finding it necessary to
select the more stable criteria with reduced variability potentialities upon which
to base species. In the ferns much confusion has resulted when only leaf-cut,
venation and scales have been used as specific characters. Such confusion in the
genus Dryopteris in eastern United States initiated the present study of the genus,
to find out not only what species are more closely related, but also whether char-
acters based on spores, sporangia and indusia are not more dependable in estab-
lishing a species or variety than those characters more easily affected by such
ecological factors as food and water supply, sunlight intensity, ete.

Microscopic characters are often shunned by the taxonomist in favor of the
more visible ones, although they are just as, and perhaps more, pertinent to sound
taxonomic classification. Thus, studies of genetics and wood anatomy have aided
materially in the proper assignment of species to genera and of genera to families.
Many of these characters are tied up in heredity and are not apt to be affected
by ecology, except perhaps over a long period of time or under especially adverse
conditions.

Such microscopic characters as—the surface reticulation, pitting or pebbling of
the spore; the nature of the perispore and its markings which may be pits, spines
or striations and its method of covering the spore; the nature of the cell-walls of
the indusium as well as the presence or absence, and their characters when pres-
ent, of spines or filamentous hairs or cilia protruding from the indusial cells; and
the characters of the sporangia, as constancy or variability range, size and num-
ber of annular cells and the absence or presence, and then the position, of spines
on the sporangial side-walls—will be discussed in this paper.

The generic name Dryopteris is used here in the broad sense, for convenience
only, since the generic and subgeneric names applicable to the various groups of
species need to be more thoroughly and accurately defined before they can be
dogmatically used. Copeland in his Genera Filicum (1947) has segregated several
species groups in the Dryopteris-complex into separate genera. For the species
considered here, it will become apparent that some of Copeland’s segregates are
forced, when these microscopic characters are studied. The author has made
extensive study of the tropical species of these segregates and it is on this basis
that the few extending up into North America are considered at this time.

47

48 BARTONIA

The taxonomy, for the most part, is that of the Eighth Edition of Gray’s
Manual by Fernald, 1950. Morton’s treatment of the ferns in the new Britton
& Brown leaves much to be desired, especially as to certain varieties and generic
segregates, notably in the Dryopteris-complex and in Pellaea.

Key To THE SpeciEs oF Dryopteris 1x NorTH AMERICA, NORTH OF MEXICO

-

Sporangia with spin
B. Spines attached A the cells of the sides va the sporangia.
D. Phegopteris; D. hexagonoptera; D. subtetragona.
B. — on the stalk of the sporangia with setae spines on the side cells ie agets the _—
angia

ee

a

GA i without spines ; Geren D. patens).

B. Indusia with ce or spines.

C. Cilia sim
D; Cilia ape short, spine-like.
13E simulata ; D. Thelypteris var. pubescens; D. The-
voters var. ” Haleana; D. noveboracensis ; D. resinifera.
D. Cilia long, oe numerous.

D. patens ; D_ aioe var. puberula; D. normalis; D. dentata.

Me CO I ie ey a ae oie edi bak Kes dor canna D. reptans.
B. Indusia, if seers without emergences.
. Perispore
D. = etal so, spores small, cells in annulus 12-13 .................-. D. ampla.

D. Finely so, spores medium in size to large, cells in annulus 13-14. :
D. oreopteris.
C. Perispore wavy.
aviness acute, giving a wrinkled effect.
E. Cells of indusium with nearly parallel walls ... D. Goldiana; D. marginalis.
E. Cells of indusium with tortuous wa
D. Filiz-m mas; D. celsa; D. ludoviciana; D. rigida
var. arguta; D. patula; D. nevadensis

D. Waviness gentle, loose.
E. Indusium present.

F. Spore large, pits in the exospor
D. cristata; D. Cuntoniann D. Clintoniana var. ote 8
LD. Clatonten var. atropa ustris ; (D. gongylodes

F. Spore medium, prickly exospore
D. spi nulosa var. fructuosa ; D. spinulosa var. americana ;
D. secavieee var. dilatata; D. spinulosa (typical).

F. Spore small, prickly exospore ... D. intermedia.

Indusium apparently absent ................. D. disjuncta; D. Robertiana.

Be Denmnce very slight D. fragrans; D. reticulata.

Species oF Dryopteris HAVING INDUSIA AND SPORANGIA WITH CILIA

D. Phegopteris and D. hexagonoptera have spines on the side cells of the
sporangia, a characteristic not found in any of the other species of temperate
eastern North America. The sporangia of D. Phegopteris have occasional single
spines (figs. 43 and 44) on the upper cells, i.e. those contiguous with the cells of
the annulus. In Figure 45 the sporangium of D. hexagonoptera shows several
spines on the walls. The northern and southern plants of D. heragonoptera differ
in several ways. The annulus cell-count in northern plants varies from 10-13
cells, accompanied by a smaller number of spines on the sporangium and a less

nner -neemeinman g

ae

PLaTe 1. Spores of Dryopteris nee

egopteris; 2, heragonoptera; 3, noveboracensis; 4, dis - 5, simulata; 6 & 9,
Thelypteris var pubescens ; 7, Robertiana; 8, teris var. Fao ana; 10 & 11, Seg
12, patens; 13, resinifera; 14, gongylodes 16, ampla; 17, reptans; 18, fragrans; 19, den-
tata; 20, reticulata; 21 & 22, oreopteris; % narginalts; 24, id spedon 25, Filix-mas;
2%. Goldiana; 27, rigida; 28, celsa; 29, ludoviciana; 30, la; 31, cristata; 32, Clintoniana;
33, Clintoniana var. australis ; 34, Clintoniana ea tropalustris ; 35, sptnulosa ; 36, inter ia
var. concordiana; 37, spinulosa var. fructuosa; 38, nevadensis; 39, nahi var. dilatata;

spinulosa var. americana; 41, intermedia ; 42, Chatonians x Filix- ; 69, augescens var.

puberula ; 70, Clintoniana x intermedia: 71, marginalis x spinulosa ; 72,

cristata x spinulosa ;
73, Clintoniana x spinulosa ; 74, cristata x piciainake. Magnification about x 200.

ee Pees
yo hais ee + e) ‘ ae See
; hp ee 6 7A LS

PuLaTE 2. Cell-features of Dryopteris species:

erm ag 43 & 44, Phegopteris; 45, pag ster ster 46 & 47, patens; 48, pie let
56, Di, —— 58, fragrans ; 59, Clintontana x marginalis ; 60, Clintoniana var
atropalust 61, spin

n jet sin imalata 50 Bag J sohath ai dared dentata; 52 & 55, ieee VE
puberu Oy ae as; 5 ; 62, rep , Go fast 64, Chi mtoniana var. atropa fred
tris; 65, tapeas "66, Pe ite. ” 67, Rie sae ain 68, marginalis. Magnification about x 50.

SPORES, SPORANGIA AND INDUSIA OF THE GENUS DRYOPTERIS 49

pronounced cutting of the pinnae than southern plants which range northward
through Maryland and Pennsylvania and have 13-16 cells in the annulus accom-
panied by numerous spines on the sporangia and very deep cutting.

D. Phegopteris (fig. 1) has certain tendencies in the spore to D. simulata (fig.
5) and D. Thelypteris var. pubescens (figs. 6 and 9) and var. Haleana (fig. 3),
whereas D. hexagonoptera (fig. 2) leans more toward D. noveboracensis (fig. 3)
in spore size and in annulus cell-count. Southern D. hexagonoptera varies in the
annulus cell-count from 13-16 and D. noveboracensis from 13-15. The annulus
cell-count in D. Phegopteris is 13, rarely 14. However, in D. simulata the count
is 15-16 and in D. Thelypteris var. pubescens from 19-23 and in var. Haleana
from 13-17. The spores of var. pubescens (figs. 6 and 9) are larger than those of
var. Haleana (fig. 8), the probable reason for a larger sporangium with more cells
in the annulus.

D. simulata, D. Thelypteris var. pubescens and var. Haleana and D. nove-
boracensis lack sporangial spines, but, instead, have spine-like protuberances on
the indusia (fig. 49, D. simulata; fig. 50, D. Thelypteris var. pubescens). ‘These
are not mere hairs or cilia, but are stiff emergences, similar to the sporangial
spines in D. Phegopteris (figs. 43-44), and D. hexagonoptera (fig. 45). This
group of species have few, simple, relatively short spines on the indusia.

A Floridan species, D. resinifera, has a spore (fig. 13) quite different from
that of other species in this group, and its annulus has 13 cells. This species can
be better evaluated after a study of the characteristics of additional tropical
species has been completed.

Another group of species has simple, long, numerous, but filamentous cilia on
the indusia, including D. patens (fig. 54), D. augescens var. puberula (figs. 52 and
55), D. normalis and D. dentata, all of which belong to tropical and subtropical
regions from Florida southward to the West Indies, Bahamas and South America.
Figures 51 and 55 show the positions of these in the cells. The indusium of D.
normalis (fig. 53) shows cells which have lost their cilia, exhibiting the way in
which the cilia emerge. The annulus cell-counts of all these species vary from
15-17, rarely 14. D. patens, varying from 14-17 cells in the annulus, differs from
the other members of this group in having spines on the stalk of the sporangia,
with a few aborted filamentous protuberances on the side-cells, as shown in Fig-
ure 47. When these protuberances are absent, large dark areas replace them, as
seen in Figure 46. The cilia in the indusia of D. dentata are shorter and stiffer
than others in this group (fig. 51), yet they are numerous, and thus this species
differs from D. simulata, D. Thelypteris and D. noveboracensis. The spores of
D. patens (fig. 12) and D. normalis (figs. 10 and 11) show some similarities,
while D. dentata (fig. 19) differs from the others in this group in perispore archi-
tecture and in size of spore. The spores of D. augescens var. puberula (fig. 69)
are quite different from those of D. patens and D. normalis. All of the foregoing
species are placed in the genus Lastrea by Copeland (Gen. Fil., pp. 138-140.
1947).

50 BARTONIA

With D. oreopteris it is a different story. This fern of Alaska, northwestern
North America, and Europe is the genotype of Lastrea, according to Copeland
(Gen. Fil., p. 186. 1947). It is unfortunate that Copeland chose to throw in
some 500 other species, mainly from the tropics, making a heterogeneous junk-
pile, which was already in considerable disrepute due to the presence of such
names as Thelypteris, Phegopteris, etc.

In Copeland’s diagnosis of the genus Lastrea little is said about indusia and
spores, and nothing concerning the fact that all the species included above from
D. hexagonoptera to D. normalis have spines on the sporangia or indusia, as do
a great number of Copeland’s species of Lastrea but not D. oreopteris; mention
is made of bilateral spores for all the species allocated to the genus, ignoring the
fact that the type species, D. oreopteris, is quite different from all the others in
its spores being nearly globose in one plane and ovoid in the other (figs. 21 and
22). Nothing is said concerning the perispore of D. oreopteris being unique
among the 500 species putatively related to it, in its being prickly. The cell-
count in the annulus is 13-14 for D. oreopteris. Amazing that such an atypical
species should be taken as the type of a genus of over 500 species which have so
little in common with it!

After a preliminary study of a couple of hundred species placed by Copeland
in Lastrea, the author has been unable to find any character or set of characters
in the spores, sporangia or indusia which would hold all of them to D. oreopteris,
hence to Lastrea. Should any students of ferns say that the characteristics of
the spores, sporangia and indusia are not pertinent, my reply would be to study
the slides of over 700 species of ferns as represented in my collection. When
genera and species of ferns can be accurately identified by only the spores and
sporangia, these must be of some value in taxonomic considerations.

One species of Dryopteris lacking spines on the sporangia, but possessing
large once- to thrice-forked stiff emergences on the indusia is the Floridian D.
reptans (fig. 62). Its spores (fig. 17) stand alone also among North American
species of Dryopteris, and better fit in with some other tropical species of the
genus. The annulus cell-count varies from 17-19.

Spines do occur on the sporangia in D. subtetragona (fig. 48) of Florida. Its
spore (fig. 42) could possibly fit into the D. Phegopteris-D. simulata-D. Thelyp-
teris-complex, closest to D. Phegopteris. The annulus cell-count is 14 for D. sub-
tetragona and 13 for D. Phegopteris.

Another unique Dryopteris is D. ampla of Florida. Its perispore has large
protuberances situated directly over the papillae on the surface of the spore (figs.
15 and 16), giving an echinate appearance. This species has been transferred to
Ctenitis by Copeland (Gen. Fil., p. 124. 1947), and its spore and perispore
characteristics truly best fit that genus. The annulus cell-count is 12-13.

SPORES, SPORANGIA AND INDUSIA OF THE GENUS DRYOPTERIS 51

Species or Dryopteris LACKING CILIA ON INDUSIA OR SPORANGIA

Characters of the perispore and spore architecture are the main criteria sepa-
rating the remaining species of Dryopteris found in North America, while cell
characteristics of the indusium are sometimes also helpful. These species are
treated by Copeland under Dryopteris, with D. Filix-mas as genotype.

The perispores of the species comprised here may be divided into two main
groups: (1) those with an acute waviness which gives a wrinkled effect to the
spore, and (2) those in which the perispore is loose. To the first group belong
D. marginalis, D. Goldiana and D. Filix-mas and their close relatives; to the
second group belong three sets of species centered around D. cristata, D. Clintoni-
ana, D. spinulosa and D. intermedia.

The first main group may be further divided into two minor groups of species:
those having the cells in the indusium respectively in parallel files with nearly
straight walls, and in irregular patterns with bending tortuous walls.

To the straight-walled parallel-celled sub-group belong D. Goldiana and D.
marginalis and its forms. In Figure 63 the parallel files of cells of the indusium
of D. Goldiana are quite evident, in Figure 69 of that of D. marginalis. The
annulus cell-count in D. marginalis is 13-15, forma elegans 12-14; in D. Goldiana
13-14. The spores of D. marginalis (fig. 23) are small as compared to other
species in this large wavy perispore group.

The spore of D. Goldiana (fig. 26) represents a beginning of a long line of
species and varieties in the Eastern North American ferns related to D. Goldiana,
D. cristata and D. Clintoniana.

Between D. Goldiana and D. Clintoniana lies a series of species having acute
waviness of the perispore, but with tortuous walls in the cells of the indusium.
D. celsa is the connecting species of this group, which includes D. Filix-mas,
D. ludoviciana (fig. 67), D. rigida var. arguta and D. patula. The spores of all
these show similarities in pitting and perispore orientation. However, the species
fall into two subgroups: one in western United States, including D. rigida var.
arguta, D. patula and D. nevadensis, the other in eastern, including D. celsa (fig.
28), D. Filix-mas (fig. 25) and D. ludoviciana (fig. 29), leaning toward D. margi-
nalis in spore characters. The indusium of D. Filix-mas is very similar to that
of D. celsa. The annulus cell-count for D. Filix-mas is 14-16, for D. ludoviciana,
13-14, and for D. celsa, usually 13.

The western species, D. patula and D. rigida var. arguta, have respectively
14-17 and 13-16 cells in the annulus. The spores of these species are alike (figs.
27 and 30), those of D. rigida var. arguta being a little larger than those of D.
patula (fig. 30). The indusia of D. patula and D. rigida var. arguta are similar,
but D. rigida var. arguta has tendencies toward D. nevadensis. The spore of
D. nevadensis (fig. 38) is similar to others in this group and the annulus has from
14-16 cells. However, D. nevadensis also has tendencies toward D. Thelypteris
varieties in spore architecture, spore size and annulus cell-count. The indusia

§2 BARTONIA

lack the spines in their cells, so characteristic of D. Thelypteris. The bending
tortuous walls of the cells of the indusium are found throughout this group. This
bending is also found in a subarctic species, D. fragrans (fig. 65), having from
18-22 cells in the annulus (fig. 58), its variety remotiuscula, 19-20. The spores
are very smooth, there being a tight fitting perispore (fig. 18).

As mentioned earlier, D. Goldiana stands at one end of a series containing
D. cristata and D. Clintoniana. D. celsa affords a stepping stone from D. Goldt-
ana to the D. Clintoniana-complex in spore characters, in indusial cell irregu-
larity and sporangial makeup. Since D. cristata is found in Europe, but D.
Clintoniana is not, and since in central eastern North America great fluctuation
exists in areas where D. Clintoniana lives, it is reasonable to believe that this is
the species with the greater variability potentialities. One of the varieties is
found below the Fall Line (i.e., the geological boundary between the Coastal
Plain and the Piedmont Plateau in eastern United States), namely D. Clintoni-
ana var. atropalustris (Small) Reed [Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Maryland 13: 51.
1943]. The spores of this variety (fig. 34) fit very well into the Goldiana-Clin-
toniana-complex. The leaf-cut resembles to some degree that of D. Goldiana, but
the spore is closer to D. Clintoniana in size, architecture and perispore. Another
variety of D. Clintoniana is var. australis which is found above the Fall Line in
swampy places. The spores of var. australis (fig. 33) are smaller than those of
var. atropalustris (fig. 34) and of typical D. Clintoniana (fig. 32). Not only does
the leaf-cut of var. atropalustris tend to D. Goldiana, but also the cells of the
indusium (fig. 64) are more or less regular, sub-parallel walled. Thus var. atro-
palustris stands between D. Goldiana and D. Clintoniana in many features. The
range in variability in annulus cell-count in var. atropalustris (fig. 60) is 13-14,
similar to D. Goldiana. It is difficult to say whether var. atropalustris is a vari-
ety of D. Clintoniana or of D. Goldiana, and from all evidence in distribution it
might be a fertile hybrid, but due to the fact that D. Clintoniana usually is found
with var. atropalustris, the author considers it a variety of the very variable
D. Clintoniana. The potentialities in this species will be considered further
when hybrids and their relative abilities to propagate themselves by spores are
discussed.

The spore of D. Clintoniana (fig. 32) is the largest of this group. The indusial
cell structure (fig. 66) is not too far removed from that of D. cristata, even
though the annulus cell-counts are significant, since that of D. cristata is 13-14
and that of D. Clintoniana is 13-16. The spore of D. cristata (fig. 31) is similar
to that of D. Clintoniana. A top view of the sporangium of D. cristata is shown
in Figure 56, bringing out the broad narrow cells of the annulus. In Figure 60 the
side view shows the nature of these cells for D. Clintoniana var. atropalustris.

D. cristata is found in Europe, but D. Goldiana is not; likewise, x D. Clintont-
ana is a North American entity, further substantiating its hybrid nature from
D. cristata and D. Goldiana rather than being a variety of D. cristata. The

genetics of this group needs to be thoroughly studied.

SPORES, SPORANGIA AND INDUSIA OF THE GENUS DRYOPTERIS 53

Another group of species centers around D. spinulosa. There is some indica-
tion that D. cristata may have been ancestrally close to this group. The most
significant character here is the fine prickliness of the perispore, of which there
are traces in the spore of D. cristata (fig. 31). In D. spinulosa there is a con-
sistent annulus cell-count from 12-14. The size of the cells in the annulus of
D. spinulosa (fig. 61) is smaller than in D. cristata and D. Clintoniana, and so
are the spores smaller. The varieties of D. spinulosa, var. fructuosa (fig. 37),
var. americana (fig. 40) and var. dilatata (fig. 39), show many of the spore
characters of D. spinulosa (fig. 35) in size, architecture and perispore. A smaller
spore is found in D. intermedia (fig. 41), as well as smaller cells in the indusium.
The cells of the indusium of D. spinulosa, its var. fructuosa and var. americana
are very similar in sizes and structure. The spores of D. intermedia var. con-
cordiana (fig. 36) are smaller than those of other varieties and forms of D. spinu-
losa, and grade into those of D. intermedia.

One other group of species in eastern North America includes D. disjuncta
(D. Linnaeana), its form glandulosa, and D. Robertiana. The spores of D. dis-
juncta (fig. 4) and D. Robertiana (fig. 7) are quite similar in size, architecture
and perispore. In D. disjuncta the cell-number of the annulus varies from 10-11;
in the form glandulosa, from 11-13; and in D. Robertiana, from 11-12. Among
the species of Dryopteris in North America this group stands alone, and until
more species of the tropics are studied it is uncertain in what section they belong.

HYBRIDS AND VARIATIONS AMONG THE NorTH AMERICAN
Species or Dryopteris .

Genetic variability and hybridity are two different processes causing variation
in a population. Taxonomists to date have not considered this matter when
naming a plant, with the result that to write x D. Clintoniana is meaningless
unless sufficient genetic data are at hand. To say the phenotypic expressions of
factors validate the genetic relationships is not sound. Because a plant has the
leaf-cut of one and the marginal serration of another parent, relationship does not
necessarily follow, because genetic variation or mutability could account for the
difference without a new set of genes from another parent, which hybridity would
involve. However, this has been the method by which most of the hybrids have
been named. Further, to establish varieties or forms again presupposes that we
know that the plant at hand is only a genetic variation. Ecological variations or
forms have in general not been separated from variations due to genetic muta-
tions or from hybrids.

All the eastern North American species of Dryopteris proper, belonging to the
D. marginalis-Goldiana-cristata-spinulosa-complex, have formed hybrids. Tra-
ditionally, the parents are listed alphabetically, with no indication from which
the male or female component was derived. For the time being, the author fol-
lows this plan. A hybrid produced by male Clintoniana cells and female margi-

54 BARTONIA

nalis cells may be markedly different from one produced by male marginalis cells
and female Clintoniana; such reciprocal hybridization may well be the cause for
the wide variation in specimens often called the same hybrid.

A brief summary of the hybrids of this group follows. The first set involves
the type species of Dryopteris, D. Filix-mas.

a) D. Filiz-mas x marginalis. This hybrid retains more of the characteristics
of the indusium of D. Filix-mas than of D. marginalis (fig. 68), showing none o
the parallel-celled indusial cells of the latter.

b) D. Clintoniana x Filix-mas. Besides showing the irregular thin cell walls
characterizing the indusium of D. Filix-mas, the spores of this hybrid are also
more like those of that parent. (Compare figures 25 and 42.)

c) D. Filiz-mas x spinulosa. (xD. remota Braun). This hybrid differs from
D. Filix-mas in the longer stalk, broader blade, almost completely pinnate pinnae
and the spinulose-mucronate teeth; from D. spinulosa in the stouter stalk, nar-
rower blade, less divided pinnae and shorter-pointed teeth. This hybrid is also
recorded as being highly sterile by Manton [Brit. Fern Gaz. 7: 165. 1938; Hyde
«& Wade, Welsh Ferns, p. 100. 1949]. Besides being found in the United States,
it is also known in Wales and Germany.

d) D. Filix-mas x oreopteris. This is a remarkable cross, if real. An account

of this hybrid in North America was given by the author [Amer. Fern Journ. 37:
53-54. 1947], after it had been described from British Columbia by Ewan in
1944. Reed pointed out that the same hybrid had been recorded by Domin from
Subcarpathian Russia in 1929. Whether the American plant is really a hybrid
of these two species was doubted by Ewan since “ there was no sign of D. Filizx-
mas anywhere ”, and “ the form of the lobes and the position of the sori approach
D. oreopteris”. It may be only a variation of the latter. If Copeland’s typifica-
tions of Dryopteris by D. Filiz-mas and of Lastrea by D. oreopteris are valid,
and they appear to be so, then this is a bigeneric hybrid, just as Asplenosorus is,
but without a name. It is interesting that D. oreopteris is the only member of
the Lastrea-complex that hybridizes with any of the true dryopterids. But then
again it is unlike everything else placed with it by Copeland in Genera Filicum.

The next set of hybrids centers around D. marginalis.

. Goldiana x marginalis. (x D. Leedsii). This hybrid shows characters
of the indusium unlike either of its parents, both of which have nearly parallel-
walled cells. The scales on the stipe are dark centered like those of D. Goldiana.

f) D. cristata x marginalis. (x D. Slossonae). This shows more of the fea-
tures of D. cristata in the spore (fig. 74). The other characteristics are inter-
mediate between the two parents.

.g) D. Clintoniana x marginalis. This retains more of the characters of D.
Clintoniana than of D. marginalis, especially in the indusial cells. Its sporangia
are small and often sterile (fig. 59) and without spores (in the specimens studied).
The characters of D. cristata and D. Clintoniana seem to dominate those of D.
marginalis

h) D. marginalis x spinulosa. (xD. pittsfordensis). In this, D. marginalis
seems to dominate the characters of D. spinulosa, as indicated by the regimented
cells of the indusium and the spore features (fig. 71). The spores in the speci-
mens studied were not well formed.

i) D. intermedia x marginalis. This hybrid was not studied.

SPORES, SPORANGIA AND INDUSIA OF THE GENUS DRYOPTERIS 55

Additional hybrids of D. Goldiana comprise:

j) D. cristata x Goldiana. (x D. atropalustris Small). This hybrid shows
stronger characters of D. cristata, especially in the indusial cells. Its spores are
shown in Figure 34, where this plant (the specimens from Kent Co., Delaware)
is treated as a variety of D. Clintoniana. The reasons for this are: the spores are
very like those of D. Clintoniana, not those of D. cristata, and definitely unlike
those of D. Goldiana; the plants grow on the Coastal Plain a great distance from
any plants of D. Goldiana, the nearest known locality being on the Piedmont in
upper New Castle Co., Delaware; both D. cristata and D. Clintoniana have been
collected by the author in this Delaware swamp. The southern specimens of x D.
atropalustris which Small had may be something different.

k) D. Goldiana x spinulosa. (D. Clintoniana forma sylvatica Poyser). This
shows strong spinulosa-characters. No spores of it were obtainable in this study.

1) D. Goldiana x intermedia. (x D. separabilis Small). This hybrid has many
of the features of the D. intermedia parent including the numerous secondary
leaflets. Its spores were not studied.

m) D. Clintoniana x Goldiana. (x D. celsa (Palmer) Small). The spores
fig. 28) are intermediate in size and characters between those o D. Goldiana
(fig. 26) and of D. Clintoniana (fig. 32). So far as is known D. celsa does not
form hybrids with any other species of this complex.

The hybrids of D. cristata show its predominating influence over the indusial
characters of the other species, except with D. spinulosa.

n) D. cristata x spinulosa. (xD. uliginosa Newm.). This hybrid has spores
(fig. 72) which are intermediate between those of D. cristata and D. intermedia
or D. spinulosa. The indusium has cells somewhat like those of D. marginalis
x spinulosa, only thinner. Manton (l.c., p. 165) and later Hyde & Wade (L.c., p.
100) state that this hybrid is highly sterile in Wales and Europe, due to spore
abortion which has been brought about by irregular chromosome pairing. Abnor-
mal spores were quite frequent in the slides of American specimens studied.

0) D. cristata x intermedia. (x D. Boottii). In this plant the indusial cells
are similar to those of D. spinulosa and D. intermedia.

The remaining hybrids are those of D. Clintoniana with two others:

p) D. Clintoniana x spinulosa. This hybrid has small irregularly shaped spores
(fig. 73), probably sterile, brought about by uneven chromosome pairin

q) D. Clintoniana x intermedia. The spores of this hybrid are large, proba-
bly lacking the final cell division of the tetrad of spores (fig. 70), but exhibiting
the prickliness of the perispore characteristic of D. intermedia (fig. 41).

There are a few other species of the dryopterids which have been placed in the
genus Dryopteris in the past, but now are variously assigned to closely related
genera. These are found in the tropics and barely reach continental North
America by way of southern peninsular Florida.

D. gongylodes (= Cyclosorus goggilodus) represents one of these tropical spe-
cies, and should not be placed among typical North American ferns until a similar
study of the tropical ones is completed. However, for comparison, Figure 14
shows the spore of this species. This is the genotype of the genus Cyclosorus
which according to Copeland (Gen. Fil., p. 141. 1947) contains about 300 species.

56 BARTONIA

Two other tropical species reaching up from South America are D. reticulata
and D. serrata, which range as far north as southern peninsular Florida and are
again included only for comparison. The spore of D. reticulata (fig. 20) repre-
sents a different type than any other known among the North American species
of Dryopteris. The sporangia (fig. 57) of D. reticulata are quite large and have
about 17 cells in the annulus. Both of these species have been placed in the genus
Meniscium, for which D. reticulata is the genotype.

The data presented in this paper are based upon several hundred actual
indusial cell-counts from slides of each species taken from different sheets of the
same species and often from different localities; the spores illustrated represent
typical ones for a given species. It must be understood that since only a single
_ spore has been selected for illustrating the species, there will be some variation
when many spores are studied, which should be kept in mind when comparing any
one illustration with material from several sheets. Also, the spores must be
cleared properly to be compared with the illustrations herein. These prepara-
tions have all been cleared in clarite.

From these preliminary studies of the comparative morphology of the spores,
sporangia and indusia of species of the Dryopteris-complex in North America,
there are definite indications that these characters not only are substantially uni-
form for a species and tend to hold ecological variants together, but also manifest
sectional uniformities which can aid in properly placing species within a genus
or subgenus, or even in distinguishing between closely related species or genera.
In a more compendious work, the spores of all known species of ferns will be
illustrated.

Color Variations of Two Plants in the Southern Appalachians

RALPH M. SARGENT
Haverford, Pa.

1. Habenaria ciliaris. This handsome fringed orchid is described in both
Gray’s Manual, 8th ed., editor Fernald, p. 473, 1950, and the New Britton and
Brown, editor Gleason, Vol. 1, p. 462, 1952, as orange in hue. The present writer
has seen H. ciliaris in many locations throughout its range, and with the excep-
tion about to be mentioned, has found this color characterization to be accurate.

Correll, however, in Native Orchids of North America, p. 64, 1950, describes
H. ciliaris as having “ Flowers bright yellow or deep orange.” The present writer
has observed in two separate, but similar, locations in the mountains of western
North Carolina communities of H. ciliaris producing distinctly lemon yellow
flowers; the hue could by no means be described as “ bright yellow’. The first
of these locations is on Yellow Mountain in the Blue Ridge, near Highlands; the
second, some 40 miles distant, on the Devil’s Courthouse, a landmark in the
Balsams near Brevard. Both are at an altitude of approximately 5,000 ft., in
small depressions in granite rock, moist, but fully exposed to the sun. In that on
Yellow Mountain typical orange-flowered H. ciliaris also occurs, and gradations
between this and the lemon yellow form can be found. At the Devil’s Courthouse,
only the yellow form has been noted.

The existence of these lemon yellow Habenarias at once raises the question of
hybridization: Are they the product of H. ciliaris x H. blephariglottis? As long ~
ago as 1836 Rafinesque, in his Flora Telluriana, described a Habenaria bicolor
in his characteristic style: “ Apparently a hybrid of 128 and 131 [H. bleph. &
H. cil.|. Yet Orchides cannot produce hybrids, the fecundation being so intimate;
it is rather a deviated N. Sp. beautiful, the yellow is pale nearly buff color.”

In our own country, Ames recognized two hybrids of H. cristata: H. Chap-
mani (H. cristata x H. ciliaris), and H. Canby: (H. cristata x blephariglottis).
Although H. cristata grows in the Flat Rock bogs, some 30 miles from one loca-
tion of the lemon yellow Habenarias referred to in this note, there is no question
of this orange orchid being one of the parents of the (possible) hybrid.

However, Correll (p. 64) did record the occurrence of (probable) hybrids
between H. ciliaris and H. blephariglottis: “The rich golden yellow flowers of
H. ciliaris contrast vividly with the snow-white flowers of H. blephariglottis.
Where these two orchids occur in proximity, plants with pale cream-colored
flowers are often found, doubtless representing a hybrid population of these
closely allied species.” It is worth noting that Witmer Stone, Plants Southern
N. J., p. 368, 1911, considered Rafinesque’s H. bicolor to be H. ciliaris x H. blepha-
riglottis.

57

58 BARTONIA

The interesting point about the lemon yellow H. ciliaris in the N. C. moun-
tains is that it occurs without the presence of H. blephariglottis. There is no
record, in fact, of the latter at that altitude there: Correll gives the range for
H. blephariglottis in N. C. from sea level only to 2,000 ft.; for H. ciliaris, up to
5,500 ft.

Correll (p. 62), under H. Chapmani, records this further discovery: “ Speci-
mens of what I consider to be typical x H. Canbyi were collected in Hardin
County, Texas. However, so far as can be determined, H. blephariglottis (except
for a probable disjunct station in Galveston County, Texas) has neither been
reported nor collected in the South any farther west than Mississippi, whereas
H. ciliaris occurs rather abundantly in eastern Texas. The occurrence of typical
x H. Canby? in Texas, in consideration of the apparent lack or rarity of H. blepha-
riglottis in both Louisiana and Texas, is most disconcerting and arouses suspicion
as to which species are the true parents of this hybrid.” Can it not be that the
light yellow Habenaria which occurs in Texas, as in the mountains of N. C., with-
out the presence of H. blephariglottis, represents a similar phenomenon?

In any case, two explanations seem possible for the existence of the lemon
yellow Habenaria in the N. C. Appalachians: (1.) a hybrid of H. ciliaris x H.
blephariglottis has been able to maintain itself after the disappearance of one of
its parents from the habitat, or, (2.) lemon yellow is a true color form of H. cili-
aris. These North American Habenarias, and the problem of their hybridization,
would seem to deserve further study.

2. Clintonia umbellulata. The fruit of this species is listed as black in both
Gray’s Manual, 8th ed., p. 439, and in the New Britton and Brown, Vol. 1, p. 425.
The color of the fruit has sometimes been regarded as a distinguishing field mark
from C. borealis, whose berries are blue, or even white. Harned, however, in Wild
Flowers of the Alleghanies, p. 117, 1931, noted the existence of a Clintonia show-
ing floral characteristics of C. umbellulata but producing blue fruit and named it
C. allegheniensis. Fernald, loc. cit., suggests this as a possible hybrid between
C. umbellulata and C. borealis. It has apparently not been reported outside of
West Virginia. The writer records that he has observed in the Blue Ridge Moun-
tains, near Highlands, N. C., at altitudes from 3,000 to 4,500 ft., many specimens
of C. umbellulata with blue berries. The color in different specimens ranges all
the way from a dark navy blue to the most brilliant sky blue. C. borealis does
not occur at this altitude in this locality.

A Field Trip to the New Jersey Pine Barrens

This résumé of the June field trip of the Philadelphia Botanical Club is written
from the viewpoint of an amateur, so as to record the value of the trip to the
layman. To name all the plants identified would prove tedious and uninteresting.
Lists of the blooming and fruiting time of Pine Barrens plants are available else-
where and to make another such list would serve no purpose. In any study or
observation it is frequently the little homely stories and phrases of description
that give most meaning and feeling, and so it often was on this occasion. It is the
writer’s purpose to tell of the things outstanding in her memory of the day, of the
sometimes small but intimate bits of information gained, and of the really spec-
tacular floral displays.

On Saturday, June 5, 1954, at 1:00 P. M., a cavaleade of five automobiles left
the Academy of Natural Sciences to be joined at Medford, New Jersey, by two
others. We were fortunate in having as members of the group several experi-
enced botanists, including Dr. Edgar T. Wherry, the leader, and Dr. Robert B.
Gordon, Mr. Louis E. Hand, Dr. Theodore P. Haas, Mr. Harry W. Trudell, and
Mrs. Ida K. Langman.

The first stop was made shortly after passing Ellisburg on N. J. Route 70,
where Dr. Wherry pointed out an unusually fine specimen of sour gum, Nyssa
sylvatica. I think usually of the Nyssa as an unimpressive tree growing in the
confines of the woods. The tree at which we now looked had had, in an open field,
opportunity to develop its true form and was a beautiful example of the pictur-
esque, irregular outline the Nyssa will assume when given room to grow. As there
were so few leaves we could see the branches and strong framework of the tree in
a way that would not otherwise have been possible. This Nyssa is well known
to botanists and is pointed out to students; yet many of the present group had
often passed the spot unobserving. At this stop also we saw Rubus laciniatus,
the cut-leaved blackberry which, though not native, has spread widely over the
country. Its hooked prickles and laciniate-cleft leaf once seen will always be
recognized.

Our first impression on entering the true Pine Barrens, beyond Medford, was
of the beauty and abundance of the laurel, Kalmia latifolia. All day the delicate
coloring of these flowers greeted and surrounded us. We stopped to see a stand
of lupine, growing in the very middle of a typical Pine Barrens road. The flower-
ing period was finished, but the plants still bore their seed pods. On the white
oaks at this spot were many white oak galls, like fluffy cream colored cotton
balls, each with beautiful red dots. The gall-wasp or fly which causes these galls
will pass by other species of oak and go only to the white oak. Mr. Trudell cut
open one of the galls, revealing the grubs within, which to the uninitiated might
be mistaken for seeds in a fruit.

59

60 BARTONIA

Any study of the Pine Barrens plants would of necessity center largely on the
heath family, and it was so today. We noted the delicate fragrance of the
Leucothoe racemosa. We saw the sheep laurel, Kalmia angustifolia, growing
under varying conditions; some, notably on the dry level at Atsion bog, consisting
of but a single low stunted stem, yet covered with a mass of pink flowers. Speci-
mens of the various blueberries and huckleberries were identified, examined, and
individual characteristics pointed out. We observed the green stem and pale
leaves, fairly large and broad, glaucous underneath, of the late low blueberry,
Vaccinium vacillans, and the huckleberries, with dots of yellow wax on the under-
side of their leaves: Gaylussacia baccata, the most common; G. frondosa, the
dangleberry, taller, with its leaf light green. Dr. Wherry pointed out the leaf-
like bracts back of each flower of G. dumosa. The red coloring of the stamens
in this dwarf species is one of its distinctive characteristics; and the name “ red
stamened huckleberry ” coined on the spot by Mrs. Langman, gave a homely and
easily remembered identification for G. dumosa.

Rivaling the Kalmia latifolia in abundance and beauty of bloom were the
fragrant white swamp honeysuckle, Rhododendron viscosum, and the stagger-
bush, Lyonta mariana. We saw R. viscosum in varying shades—not always
white—the unopened flowers especially sometimes being a quite deep pink. Along
the Hampton Road we found R. viscosum var. glaucum growing with the type
R. viscosum. Seeing the two so close together, the difference between them was
easily discernible. Our eyes and attention were forcibly drawn to the paler,
glaucous leaves of the variety.

The road into Hampton Bog was one of the loveliest places we visited this
day. A single flower head of turkey beard, Xerophyllum asphodeloides, brought
exclamations of delight. But this was but the outpost of larger clumps which so
enchanted us we stopped for closer examination. As we drove further into the
woods the white spires became so abundant we no longer exclaimed; from this
point on to Batsto River the turkey beard dominated the landscape.

The ditches along the Pine Barrens roads often yield the greatest treasures,
passed unnoticed unless sought for. On the moist bank of such a ditch on Hamp-
ton Road we found the first thread-leaf sundew, Drosera filiformis. Here, too,
was the first pitcher plant, Sarracenia purpurea. Later, in Atsion bog, Dr. Haas
found a beautiful specimen of the latter and pointed out the small bracts, the red
sepals which resembled petals, the one dried true petal which was still attached
(the others already having dropped), the large green “ umbrella ” of the style, the
absence of stamens which had already disappeared—the little, intimate details on
a flower often seen, yet so seldom observed with “ eyes that see.”

On the Hampton Road we occasionally passed small stands of Iris prismatica
and stopped at one larger colony to enj oy it leisurely. We walked along through
the open woods of pitch pine, Pinus rigida, their “ candles ” pointing to the sky,
the tree widely spaced, showing to perfection their irregular outline. Mr. Hand’s
comment “nothing very formal about these trees” spoke so simply and ade-

A FIELD TRIP TO THE NEW JERSEY PINE BARRENS 61

quately of their appearance. We passed magnificent stands of Virginia chainfern,
Woodwardia virginica, and cinnamon fern, Osmunda cinnamomea, growing so
thickly together it was difficult to tell one from the other until Dr. Wherry pointed
out the black stem of the chainfern as a distinguishing feature. Dr. Gordon dis-
covered a large “ cookie ”, which he passed around for refreshment, the scabrous
stemmed Boletus, Boletus scaber. Dr. Gordon ate it with great enjoyment; others
tried it but admitted it had little taste. Still others, hesitating to trust even a
botanist in the matter of mushrooms, refused even a small nibble.

But it was at the end of Hampton Road at Batsto River that the climax of
the day was reached. We parked in a dry field so thick with Lyonia mariana
it was impossible not to crush some of the plants, and walked east from the road
where, in the utterly dry sand, was a magnificent floral display: The Pine Barren
sandwort, Arenaria caroliniana, was at the height of its bloom, and the entire
field of sand bordering the stream-side bog was covered with the white stars of
these flowers.

In this narrow strip of bog we came to what was for many the botanical high-
light of the trip. For here, so hidden in the rank growth of cinnamon fern that it
would have gone unnoticed without our leader to find it for us, was that relative
of the Curly Grass, the rare climbing fern, Lygodium palmatum. We found speci-
mens in all stages of growth, some showing to perfection the peculiar dichoto-
mously branched fruiting frondlets, some showing the dried spore cases of last
‘year, which resembled minute pine cones. We saw the stalk-like fronds twining
around the supporting cinnamon fern, carrying their palmately lobed frondlets
upward. What photographing here took place! And what patience was needed
to provide the proper background and to get the exact position necessary to
photograph such small, delicate ferns.

But the day was growing late, and we had still two more stops to make. We
turned into Quaker Bridge Road to see an especially interesting bed of the Spurge,
Euphorbia ipecacuanhae, where there were many plants of the same species, yet
no two alike—different leaf colorings and different forms in each plant. We were
told these tiny plants had roots that went down for three or more feet.

The last stop was at Atsion bog. Here, at the end of the trip, as we looked
over the little spires of the foxtail clubmoss, Lycopodium alopecuroides, point-
ing upward from the bog, how easy it was to let the mind wander, and in imagi-
nation enter the age of the giant clubmoss, when the great ancestors of these tiny
plants before us reigned supreme on the earth in just such bogs as this. But
today the little white puffs of Eriocaulon decangulare, the orange of Polygala
lutea, and the yellow of Utricularia clandestina mingle with the inconspicuous
Lycopodium, and its green is passed unnoticed by the many who rush by.

So we came to the end of this day. Often have we gone to the Pine Barrens,
individually and in other groups, but never, I think, have we entered more closely
into the intimate life of its wealth of plants——MarGaRET G. BUTLER.

62 BARTONIA

Program of Meetings

Date Subject Speaker Attendance
Jan. 24, 1952 A Study of Ranunculaceae ............ A. David Hammond 26
Feb. 28 Memorial to Dr. Francis W. Pennell ........ ................ 53
Mar. 27 Botanizing with the Okinawans ............. Egbert H. Walker 34
Apr. 24 “A: Wild Orchid Pilgrimage |... 22)... 60.4. H. P. Sturm 31
May 22 A Study of the Genus Lygodium ........... Mrs. Elizabeth A. Valentine 24
Sept. 25 Studies in American ieee Aes Oks: ca Henry T. Skinner 35
Oct.. Se. Western Wild Flowers ............5....-4... Edwin O. Geckeler 45
Nov. 20 se iter Pines of the Southern Appa-

eres et ie eg Wes ee ee oa Ralph M. Sargent 39

Dec. 18 panne Guan in the idler Flora .. Edgar T. Wherry 47
Jan. 22, 1953 Exploring in the Rockies ............. Paul B. Green 40
Feb. 26 A Hobbyist’s Rog yeti hr Photceae of

Wie, SE Sd oo See. seeks C. Irwin Stiteler 41
Mar. 26 Relative Merits a Gray’s Manual of “Brown | Edgar T. Wherry 31

Ed. and the aly Britton and Brown { Bayard Long

Ghee fo. ere iRise Gating Wendell H. Camp
Apri 33 “Movementa wm Plata <s.. 2 A oo David R. Goddard 23
May 28 Wayside Botanizing in Mexico .............. John M. Fogg, Jr. (es
Sept. 24 Plant cape in Honduras with a Color

[AE a Theodor P. Haas 38
Oct. 22 Wildflower - Porras in Chor ee Raymond D. Wood 56
Nov. 19 Wildflowers, Bees and Butterflies ........... Miss Josephine deN. Henry 70
Deco Af The Pilot Family oe oo PP oe Edgar T. Wherry 33

List of Officers and Members, 1952-1953

Mrs. J. Norman Henry, President Harry W. TrupeE.u, Treasurer
HueGu E. Stronn, Vice President Bayarp Lone, Curator
Water M. Benner, Secretary Epcar T. Wuerry, Editor

ACTIVE MEMBERS (as of November 1, 1954)

Elected
Waites Atnswoeen, 426 Crous St}, Ann Arbor, Mich)... 0 os oe a 1946
Mrs. F. E. Atkins, 3422 Queen Lane, Philadelphia 29, Pa. ..............0.cccceceeeees 1953
Mr. & Mrs. Curis. H. Baker, 8 Valley View Lane, Newtown Square, Pa. .........----- 1954
Mrs. Watter Bancrort, 5321 Wakefield St., Philadelphia 44, Pa. ...............--+e0-- 1954
meee: Ach Sates Cate Bere, Pe 1942
Pewit b. Diwali, Dose, Pa. fe ee ee 1906
J. Russert Besrer, 6245 Seoegeern Ave, Piacoa 44, Pas. a a 1919
Dr. Watter M. Benner, 5636 Lore ta Ave., Phitadelphia Sh Pe. sss iss i Sea 1912
Jasper T. Bentiey, 201 W. > Hill Ave., Philedetuhia 16. Pas 6.5, cee ctace 1933
shee Peewee Lonekiin Pe... 4... sc 943
Li i eens, 1 1, Chars Wal Obig gn 1924
Miss ErHer Baveaxen. Peat, Ieee, Bee ee ea a ee ee, 1939

Wim C, Brumnacu, weer Pe es 1943

LIST OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS, 1952-1953 63

Miss Marcarer Butter, 4598 Castor Ave., Philadelphia 24, Pa. ...........-..-.--seees 1953
Dr. Wirx1am W. Capsury, 274 W. Main St., Moorestown, N. J. 2.2.2... eee eee e eee ees 1950
Ricuarp B. Cumtas, 233 Winona Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pa. ........... 60. eee ee eee eee 1942
Joun W. Cosurn, 120 Nippon St., Philadelphia 19, Pa. .. 1951
Miss Carora Cortins, 1728 Pine St., Philadelphia 3, Pa. ....... .. 1954
W. L. Drx, 801 Crown St., Morrisville, Pa. ........... 6s cece eee erence eee e ence eeeees 1942
Aubert Donacuy, 203 E. Wellens St., Philadelphia - 1g. a ES Og A Ne og eae 1952
Rosert R. Dretssacu, 301 Helen St., Midland, Mich. ............ 005-0 eee ee eee eee eee 1922
Miss ExizasetH C. Earze, 4209 Chester Ave., sires Os cid ci cieve wiles wae 1935
Howarp W. ErxinTon, 6514 Germantown Ave., Philadelphia 19, Pa. .......-...++++++- 1931
Mrs. Neri ErisMAN, 1821 Mt. Vernon St., Philadelphia 30, Pa. .........-++--+++++++ 1945
Mrs. Harorp Evans, Awbury, E. Washington Lane, Philadelphia 38, Pa. ........---.-- 1931
Mrs. Ricuarp Evans, 4012 Pine St., Philadelphia 4, Pa. ...........seeee eee ee eee eee 1953
Cart W. Fennincer, 1632 Chestnut St., Philadelphia 3, Pa. .......----++e eee eeeeeeeees 1947
Apert J. Ferxer, 1101 N. 63rd St., Philadelphia 31, Pa. .......-.-+-e sees erence ee eees 1948
Miss Euizaseru H. Fravert, 6146 Wayne Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pa. ......-----.-+++0+5 1946
Dr. Joun M. Foca, Jr., Morris Arboretum, Philadelphia 18, Pa. ........+-++++ss+++05: 1921
Farman R. Furness, Media, Pa. .......... ccs see c cect recess eteg ee esesesnececnsncoues 1935
Miss Carurine Fussett, Bettws-y-Coed, Bryn Mawr, Pa, .....-.--+++++ees reer eee eeee 1954
Miss Exizapetu A. Gest, R. D. 1, Telford, Pa. .........0. 00 eee reece eee e eet e eee e ences 1944
Joun Gut, 2 Linden Ave., Haddonfield, N. J. .....--.-seeeereeeeseste ses teteeeeceees 1939
Dr. Tuomas 8. Girnens, Cambridge Apartments, Philadelphia 44, Pa. .........-++++++ 1945
Dr. Rosert B. Gorvon, 415 Sharpless St., West Chester, Pa. .......+++++++e+eeeeeeeeee 1942
Dr. THEopor P. Haas, Phila. College Pharmacy & Science, Phila: 4, Pa... .6c..sc.eses 1946
Louis E, Hanp, Natchez Trail, Medford Lakes, Medfo bs, Bat BOR Gene en a 1936
Miss ANN Harsison, The Barclay, Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia 3, Pa. ...........- 1944
Aurrep J. Hatrman, 2138 Bellevue St., Philadelphia 40, Pa. .......--++++++++eeeeereeee 1952
Mrs. J. Norman Henry, Gladwyne, Pa. ........------ceeee reece ssesereereseresererces 1932
Miss JosEPHINE DEN. Henry, Gladwyne, Pa. .......-.-----eeeee reer tree strstr eres 1938
Mr. & Mrs. A. H. Horcomss, Jr., 1330 Youngs Ford Road, Gladwyne, Pe 6. 1949
Miss Nancy E. JAMEs, 4043 Baltimore Ave., Philadelphia 4, Pa. .....---.+++++ee+eeees 1942
Pror. Marton A. Jounson, Dept. Botany, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N. J. ... 1946
Miss Nataur B. Kimser, 538 E. Locust Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pe Se. ie iecurs 1928
egos A. Kogtnav, 159 N. 2ist St., Philadelphia 3, Pa. ...---.-.---++eeereeereseserees 1952
Mrs. Ipa K. LANGMAN, 3509 Baring St., Philadelphia Sa ees ee 1937
Miss gies H. Lewis, Sedgley Apts., 400 S. 45th St., Philadelphia 4, Pa. .......--- 1954
Dr. Hur-Lin Lt, Morris Arboretum, Philadelphia 18, Be 0a ea wee 1944
Dr. Harry A. Lroyvp, 200 N. 35th St., Philadelphia 4, Pa. .......----++++-+++eeerreeeee 1931
Bayarp Lone, 250 Ashbourne Road, Elkins Park, Philadelphia 17, Pa. .....----++++++++ 1906
Miss Karuryn Lovart, 5023 Cedar Ave., Philadelphia 43, Pe ai as 1953
James McCuurken, 1623 E. Berks St., Philadelphia Dg a einarirn pean re eS ST a a 1953
Joun R. McIntosx, 304 Winona Ave., Philadelphia 44, Sy Rede peep aor anESr are 1945
Dr. Epwin T. Movut, Dept. Botan. y, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N. J. ..-...-- 1945
Freperick M. Oxpacu, 323 Wellesier Road, Philadelphia 19, Pa. ......--------++++++++ 1951
Mrs. Grorce B. Orr, Willowbrook Farm, shania We ia ceekeameaene eet 1935
Miss Exizasere G. Ostuermer, Jenkintown, Pa. ......----------serrrrrr seer 1933
Dr. Samvuet C. Parmer, 26th & Chestnut Sts., grees a el eee Sia 1929
Warren Parsamm, Route 16, Media, Pa. .--..-.-- +--+ +> -+--<se- ee eeer teers 1952
Mrs. Frank Parker, 400 S. 45th St., Philadelphia 4, Pa. .......--..----se2eeercreerees core

Dr. Rutu Parricx, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 3, Pa. ........-----+--

64 BARTONIA

pean W.. Peer, 193 8, 17 Bi, Atte. PAs Ss od. capes) 055 . cae i own awn Bes 1909
Dr. Cuartes W. Retmer, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 3, Pa. ........... 1953
aed. Prius © Hoos. Miaugn Pa. tii a oot < orek cu ceeuces Cha hea’ ae 1953
Bains OMe Howrane, Meadowbrook, Pa. 2). 2335 ei ccs tee. bes 1948
Mrs. Kart Rueart, 612 Bryn Mawr Ave., Penn Valley, Narberth, Pa. ................. 1942
Dr. Ratepn M. Sarcent, 4 College Circle, Haverford, Pa. i... 0.05.0... cc cee ee eee cecees 1948
Dr. Rosgay L. Scuaurrmn, Je., 32 N. 8th St., Allentown, Pa. ....0. 0. 6.505. cee ec cswe eee 1988
Dr. J. R. Scorammo, Morris Arboretum, Philadsinhia 46 Pic i . (0S ap casweed. soleus 1937
Dr. C. Earte Smita, Jr., Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 3, Pa. .......... 1953
Dr. & Mrs. Roper V. eer: vac Coder Ave... Haddonfield N: J.i 64. gta. Saws, 1947
gon <>. 1, Gere, 507 Wolsey, Coeitet Pas os ecacnns bbb. Ris ea ee ee 1945
precn ©. Sroms, Whitehall Apts, Haveriord. Pa... cciris idl. ods, ciudecks se see reveals 1892
Miss Mary Surzrivan, Montgomery Court Apts., Narberth, Pa. ................2.005- 1954
Dr. Rosert R. Tatrnarr, 236 Lancaster Ave., Wynnewood, Pa. .............0e cece eens 1928
Dr. Georce S. eat 158 Cromwell Ave., Staten Island 4, N. Y. ......... SG shee 1950
Mrs. Howarp W. Taytor, Monk Road, Disteons Ro bend. ia reli 2 cs. be cereeuinge 1952
Horace E. THompson, 5016 Setnyler St.; Philateiphia 44) Pace i. ads cause bk as 1920
Miss ExizaserH TuHorp, 403 S. 41st St., Philadelphia 4, Pa. ............... ccc eee eee 1953
Harry Stanton Trtrotson, 48B Sellers Ave., Upper Darby, Pa. .............-...00 eee 1951
R. J. TirHertneron, 6317 N. Norwood St., Philadelphia 38, Pa. ..............-e000005- 1942
pramny W. Taveets, 1500 Bighland Ave, Abington: Pa. 2650.60 5 os feck ot ido hs oa ads 1915
Mrs. ExizaperH A. VALENTINE, 3943 Locust St., Philadelphia MR g Mere tet a eo eee ee 1949
Mrs. J. H. Vancz, 148 Montgomery Ave., Bala-Cynwyd, Pa. .........0..00. cece eee 1950
Dr. Paut R. Wacner, Ursinus se ea Collecsviile. Phi gals hal, Fish. tb eres 1935
EPsror Watxer, 611 Lynmere Road; Bryn Mawr, Pa. 6.60. 655 en dins se ei ca dii- 1939
Mr. & Mrs. Joun A. Wattace, Rose Glen Road: Giladwiwie; Pass .0 fsa h coaue 1953
Mrs. Marcuerite L. Warnxe, 142 S. Logan Ave., Audubon, N. J. ...........00-0-- 00 1935
Miss Hitpa L. Waser, 1020 Earl St., Philadelphia 25, Pee cota SE in he 1950
Miss Everyn Wetts, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 3, Pa. ...........---- 1947
Rosert F. WarsH, 325 Chestnut St., Philadelphia 6, Pa. .............0.-.e0e eee eee tees 1909
Dr. Encar T. WuHerry, Dept. of Botany, net of Pennsylvania, Phila. 4, Pa. .... 1925
Haste Wuxews,-08 G, ith Gt. Ronding, Passio oid. i oe vic a Ss ck vee 1928
Miss ExizasetaH Wisrar, 200 ‘cine Ave,, Philadelphia 18; Pa. o.005 «fase d- 1952
Wiis. FH. Wiese, Hieselville Pa. BR. D> oie A eS Ew ie

Howarp Woon, Jr., “ Aloha,” R. D. 1, Co rehchindkes, PR alk Ra cca ees 1944
Miss Mary F. Wricut, 231 Winona ‘Mee: wppmeetphia B64 Pte oe we. ooh ow eens ai SE 1928

HONORARY MEMBER
Dr. Epwarp E. Witpman, 409 E. 2nd St., Moorestown, N. J. 2.0... 222. 1935
CORRESPONDING MEMBERS
Dr. Ermer D. Merritzt, Arnold Arboretum, Jamaica Plain 30, Mass. ..........----+++: 1945
Dr. Harorp Sr. Joun, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, T. H. ...............000220-e 1927
Dr. Wirt1Am Ranpotpx Taytor, University of ery Ann Arbor, Mich. ......---- 1921
Dr. Campsetr E. rain Chevy Chase, Washington 15, D. C. ... 2.0.0. coe cece eee 1904
Dr. Heser W. Youncken, Massachusetts College of Samia Boston, Mass. .......: 1918
MEMBERS RECENTLY DECEASED

Joun Bricut eas November 3, 1952
Rev. Wiiu1aM U. Kistrer . March 4, 1953

Ricuarp Brossom Fartey, “ Sarobia” Eddington, Pa. ..............---++- September 10, 1954

Af 73

No. 28 1954-56

BARTONIA

JOURNAL OF THE
HILADELPHIA BoTANICAL CLUB

CONTENTS

A Century of Botany in America C. Earte Smits, Jr 1
Our Dwarf Bindweeds 3 ..+++-Epcar T, WHerry 32
Notes on Color, Lobing and Freaks in Phlox subulata ....Watter ArnswortH 34
Bennett Bog Now a Nature Sanctuary .... fies EPWR pee
Molinia caerulea at Home in Wayne Co., Pa. ee Wie Fee
In Memoriam 7 eo

§ ‘ - ‘Ts

Liprat

Dox itel ONY

JOURNAL OF THE
PHILADELPHIA BOTANICAL CLUB
No. 28 1954-56

A Century of Botany in America

C. EARLE SMITH, JR.

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia

With the present emphasis in North American botany centered on the prob-
lems of cytogenetics, it frequently appears to the younger taxonomist that the
knowledge of North American plants is now well circumscribed. Certainly the
day when one could walk into the field and find a new species of phanerogam in
the northeastern United States has passed. This is not so true for those working
in the southeast or in the west. There new taxa still may be discovered; nor
does the botanist always need to go into the field to find them. Indeed, some
remain unrecognized among the older collections already mounted and in the
various herbaria.

Even the taxonomist working on the mechanics of variation within groups of
species must depend upon the basis for nomenclature laid by the early botanists.
Mass collections and cytological preparations may elucidate the most logical
boundaries for species, but the names for the species are largely derived from
older work. It is easy to see the utter confusion which would result were there
not this unifying historical approach to systematics. Certainly the development
and universal acceptance of the type concept and the principle of priority has
civen botany a lasting basis intelligible to all whose work depends upon plant
materials (notwithstanding the shudders of applied scientists and horticulturists
when the discovery of an earlier name means a change from a well-known one).

Because of the dependence of taxonomy upon the history of the science, it is
particularly important that today’s taxonomists recognize the important changes
which have come about in the philosophy underlying systematic work. The
changes in methods are more apparent, although still obscure to some of the
younger workers. In order to fully appreciate today’s problems in nomenclature,
some knowledge of the development of botany during the period from 1800 to
1900 is essential. It was during this period that the most radical reversals in
philosophy occurred.

2 BARTONIA

American Botany Prior to 1800

By way of introduction to the period to be discussed, a brief summary of
the early history of American botany is needed. The tropical areas of the
Americas were the first to be explored and colonized, principally by the Spanish
and Portuguese. Long before the first permanent colony was established in
North America, the Portuguese had established trading stations in Brazil by
1500 (Merrill, 1954) which served the shipping route from Lisbon to Goa, India.
The Hispanic peoples had a deep interest in the products of the New World
(primarily with a view toward profit) and early supported the exploration of
large areas. Thus, before 1650 Georg Marcgraf (1610-1644) had gone into
northeastern Brazil, Charles Plumier (1646-1704) soon thereafter explored the
island of Haiti and some of the Lesser Antilles, and Luis Feuillée (1660-1732)
worked in Chile and Peru. We are all acquainted with the botanical studies of
Sir Hans Sloane (1660-1753) on Jamaica, and of Patrick Browne (1720-1790)
in the West Indies. Carlo Maria de la Condamine (1701-1774) took the botanist
José de Jussieu on his notable expedition to the Andes.

Perhaps the most famous of the early Mexican explorers was Francisco Her-
nandez (d. 1578), Protomédico of the Indies, whose extensive reports were never
published in their entirety. Late in the 18th century, concerted effort was made
to explore the Spanish-held areas of America when Charles III authorized the ex-
peditions of Ruiz and Pav6én to work in Peru, and Sessé and Mocifio to work in
Mexico. Martin Sessé y Lacasta (d. 1809) headed the latter mission, which
began work in 1788. He was soon joined by the Mexican José Mariano Mocifio
(d. 1819) who was the most active worker of the expedition. As had happened
two centuries before, the scientific results of the Mexican expedition were never
published during the lifetime of the authors.

All of the exploration in Latin areas of America and in the British West
Indies had been instituted primarily with a view toward learning about those
plants which were economically important. The tremendous fund of knowledge
about the remainder of the plant world in the area was incidental to the major
purpose of the explorers, and it is vastly to the credit of these early botanists
that they had such a wide interest in the world around them. Because the
sponsoring individuals or institutions were European, the collections made during
this period returned to Europe, and, in fact, often became the basic material for
herbaria which are now world-renowned. Taxonomic work in the New World
was impractical as the only bases for comparisons then were the Old World
collections and the herbals and other literature which had been written largely
to satisfy a practical demand. F requently the authors had drawn their informa-
tion from plants in botanical gardens associated with educational institutions and
trade societies.

A CENTURY OF BOTANY IN AMERICA 3

It was to enrich the gardens of Europe, and to discover the economic plants
of North America that the earliest collectors were employed in this continent.
Some few of these very early botanists may well have been reporting on plants
about them in which they were particularly interested. Rev. John Banister
(d. ca. 1692), one of the early missionaries in Virginia, was instrumental in mak-
ing the observations recorded in a “ Catalogue of Plants Observed in Virginia ”
published in England by Ray. John Clayton (1686-1773), who came to Virginia
in 1705, is well known for his “ Flora Virginica” of 1739-43. Most of the
contributors to American botany during this period were sent specifically to in-
vestigate the plants which might be used in Europe. Mark Catesby (ca. 1679-
1749) had visited our shores and was persuaded to return by Sloane and Petiver.
His “ Natural History of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands ” (London,
1731) was the result. Through the interest of Peter Collinson (1674-1768), the
first native American botanist, John Bartram (1699-1777), began his famous
series of observations and collections, the latter consisting largely of live material
destined for the gardens of England, but supported by specimens for identifica-
tion. In a published letter (Darlington, 1849) of 1735, Collinson gives Bartram
detailed instructions for putting up the specimens which were to be sent back
once a year in papers furnished by his patron. Bartram assembled much of his
material in a “ botanic garden ’”’ which was probably more in the nature of a
holding nursery for maintaining stock until such time as he could make ship-
ments. A relative of Bartram, Humphry Marshall (1722-1801) also established
a “ botanic garden ”, undoubtedly for the same use as that of Bartram, as he too
shipped plant material to England. To him goes the credit of having written
and published the first wholly American botanical work, “ Arbustum Ameri-
eanum ” (Philadelphia, 1785).

Increased interest in botany had developed all along the eastern colonies.
As early as 1737, John Brickell, M.D. (fl. 1730-1745) had published a “ Natural
History of North Carolina”. John Fraser (1750-1811), an English nurseryman
who had visited Newfoundland in 1780 to 1784 and the southern states from
1785 to 1796, was instrumental in having Thomas Walter’s (d. 1788) “ Flora
Caroliniana ” published. Sweden sent Peter Kalm (1716-1779), a pupil of Lin-
naeus, on a trip to the Philadelphia area and northward. André Michaux (1746—
1802) was sent by the French to collect material for the continental gardens.
His “ Flora Boreali-Americana’”’ of 1803 was the first attempt at an overall
treatment of the plants of North America. Famous nurseries like that of Conrad
Loddiges (1743?-1826) stocked plant introductions from the collectors Michaux
and Bartram.

This, then, was still an era of exploration sponsored from Europe for the pur-
pose of discovering the useful plants of North America, 7.e., useful either eco-
nomically or esthetically. Many “non-useful” plants were being found in the

4 BARTONIA

process, and excellent taxonomic work classifying the collections was the result.
But, until this time, roughly the end of the 18th century, all of the material
living and dried was passing to the institutions of the Old World. Another thing
to be noted at this point is that the herbarium collections were not being made as
an end in themselves. This is well pointed up by the previously mentioned letter
to John Bartram from Collinson wherein he states, “ Thus, when now and then
thee observes a curious plant, thee may treat it in this manner, [pressing] by
which thee will convey a more lively idea than the best description; and when
thee gathers seeds, mark the same number on the seeds as thee marks in the
sheets where the specimen is,... 7”. The collection of herbarium specimens for
study in themselves was to be a direct outgrowth of the great interest in securing
a knowledge of all the parts of the world so recently opened to Europeans.

During this phase of the development of botanical science, the definition of
new entities was, and for another half-century would be, carried out under a
restrictive theological philosophy. It must be remembered that this period was
also a time of awakening religious curiosity; the strong bonds with the great
Roman church were broken, and many sects had turned to fundamentalism.
While the taxa to be described were many and varied, the problem of individual
variation was not seriously considered. It could not be because of an absolute
adherence to the book of Genesis of the Bible which stated in essence that God
had created the species. Admission of variation and the attendant possibility
that such an agency might create new species would be an unpardonable act of
heresy. (A few naturalists including Rafinesque had dared to print such ideas,
but they were not taken seriously). Thus, taxa which were similar were often
placed in one general species whose geographic limits were utterly fantastic in the
light of our present knowledge of the mechanics of speciation and geographic
distribution. Here, too, is to be laid the blame for the very generalized locality
data supplied with collections; New England, Carolina, Canada, or even North
America being considered sufficient to designate a sample of an “invariable ”
species to be found there. This would serve as a basis for comparison for similar
material from any part of the continent.

The latter part of the 18th century saw an important development in the
history of North American botany. By this time, the foundations for the great
comparison collections in Europe had been well laid. The value of these dried
samples was established, and the growth of large private collections of herbarium
specimens for their own interest and inherent use was assured. Where the
Bartrams and the Marshalls had only prepared herbarium specimens for the
convenience of their European customers, in identifying the living material which
they were sending (the earlier collectors having apparently kept no herbaria
for their own use), American botanists were by now starting their own herbaria.
Furthermore, they began their own taxonomic studies. Very fortunately, the

A CENTURY OF BOTANY IN AMERICA 5

young American Philosophical Society began to accept collections for a “ natural
history cabinet,” to be consulted by associated scientists. Shortly after the turn
of the century (in 1812), the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia was
founded, the specific aim of which was the bringing together of specimens for
collections, as well as the scientists who would use them.

By way of review of the geographic area touched by botanical collectors at
the beginning of the 19th century, suffice it to say that the coast and river drain-
ages of the South American land mass had been sampled (it is still incompletely
collected). The West Indian islands, smaller and with a more restricted flora,
were more thoroughly known. Thanks to the Royal Expedition to New Spain,
Mexico was being explored, although the publication of the results from these
collections was to be delayed. The colonial area along the east coast of North
America was more assiduously collected than any other area in the New World.
Small collections on the Arctic fringes at Greenland and Labrador had been
made, and expeditions had touched the west coast of the North American con-
tinent.

American Botany from 1800 to 1900

At this time, Philadelphia assumed its undisputed position as the center of
culture in eastern North America. The new United States was to expand both
geographically and culturally from this center. And, foremost in the develop-
ment of Philadelphia as a botanical center was the tradition for local plant
collections begun by John and William Bartram. Not far away in Lancaster,
Gotthilf Henry Earnest Muhlenberg (1753-1815) had assembled a remarkable
collection of both living and dried plants. A pastor largely restricted to his
local area, he assembled his material by correspondence with a number of
European and American botanists including taxonomists, collectors and nursery-
men (who were still furnishing new material for the gardens of the Old World).
Among the American nurserymen, Bernard MeMahon (fl. 1775-1816), a Phila-
delphian, and John Lyon (d. 1814), another Philadelphian who travelled widely
in the southeast, were well known for their new discoveries. Constantine Samuel
Rafinesque (-Schmaltz) (1798-1840) was a professional traveller, and an in-
veterate describer of new species. By the nature of his occupation as a naval
surgeon, William Baldwin (1779-1819) travelled widely, and his keen observa-
tions eventually led to his publication of new species of Rhynchospora, and to his
appointment as botanist on Long’s Rocky Mountain expedition. Some of
Muhlenberg’s friends and correspondents were local botanists who worked in-

1In reference to a confusion in collection numbers on the Baldwin specimens in Muhlen-
berg’s herbarium, the following is a sufficiently clear statement taken from a letter from
Baldwin to Muhlenberg dated August 7, 1813 (Darlington, 1843), “I beg you will correct a
ridiculous mistake in the numbers of my last letter, in w ic have made a most preposterous

transition from 1099 to 2000 through haste and inadvertence. The numbers contained in the
last packet were 1109 to 1178. I now send you 1179-1191.”

6 BARTONIA

tensively within a relatively small area. William Bartram (1739-1823), son of
John, the famed botanist to the King, had travelled in the south, but his later
years were spent largely in the Philadelphia area. John Brickell (1749?-1809)
who settled in Savannah, Georgia, collected in that region for Muhlenberg and
others. One of the more famous of the local botanists who collaborated with
Muhlenberg was Stephen Elliott (1771-1830) of Charleston, South Carolina,
who brought together a herbarium of his own, and published the famous “ Sketeh-
book” (Elliott, 1816). Muhlenberg himself was an industrious collector not
only of specimens, but also of observations which he recorded in very cramped
handwriting in numerous journals and record books. From the notes and ma-
terials which he assembled came the first of the wholly American floristic works
“Catalogus plantarum Americae septentrionalis,” published in Philadelphia in
1813. Other publications resulting from his work were notes on Juglans, Fraxi-
nus, Quercus, Salix and, posthumously, on grasses. He also published a list of
the Lancaster, Pennsylvania, flora.

One of the more important contributions of Henry Muhlenberg and the col-
lectors who belong to his period was their correspondence with European bot-
anists, who, at that time, had charge of the only named collections of American
plants with which comparisons could be made. Through these contacts some of
Muhlenberg’s discoveries were published; while by exchange, much comparison
material came to his own herbarium. Muhlenberg was especially interested in
cryptogamic plants and assembled a fine collection of them, but the only new
species he published were those sent to European authorities. From the fly-leaf
of one of the manuscript journals now at the library of the American Philosophi-
cal Society comes this list of Muhlenberg correspondents, reproduced as he wrote
them;

C. H. Persoon, Henr. Adolph Schrader, Carl Ludw. Willdenow, B. 8. Miiller,
D. Smith President of the L. S., [and in another hand, Citoyen Palisoto-
Beauvois |.
Additional correspondents, whose names are taken from the lists of plants in
various day books, are Hofman, Hedwig, Schreber and Sprengel.

One of the most talented of the early American botanists was the Moravian
churchman, Lewis David von Schweinitz (1780-1834). After receiving his early
training in America, Schweinitz was sent to Europe for his higher education.
While there, he became associated with Johannes Baptista Albertini (1769-1831),
and in 1805, they jointly published “ Conspectus fungorum in Lusatiae superioris
agro Niskiensi crescentium”. Returning to take over a church post in Salem,
North Carolina, Schweinitz found time to begin the assembly of one of the most
complete of the early private American herbaria, His interest in cryptogams led
him to collect these in quantity, but he did not slight the seed plants of the area.
His keen observations led to the preparation of a “Flora Salemitana ” with
descriptions of many new species. This was never published (the manuscript is

A CENTURY OF BOTANY IN AMERICA 7

now in the library of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia). He
did publish, through Christian Fridrich Schwagrichen (1775-1853), “ Synopsis
fungorum Carolinae superioris secundum observationes, ete.” at Leipzig in 1818.
After another work on the cryptogams, “ Specimen florae Americae septentrionalis
cryptogamicae, ete.” (Raleigh, 1821), Schweinitz turned largely to monographs
including treatments of Viola, Carex, and Sphaeria (all genera which still oc-
casion difficulty in the eastern United States). He ably identified the plants
collected by Thomas Say (1787-1834) on Stephen H. Long’s expedition to the
source of the St. Peter’s River. Finally, in 1831, he published a notable synop-
sis of American fungi.

As Muhlenberg had done, Schweinitz built his collection largely by corres-
pondence. The volume of this, his carefully executed paintings of fungi, cura-
torial work with his specimens and the activities connected with his position as
American head of the Moravian brotherhood (after his move to Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania in 1822) must have left him little time for anything else. Among
the American botanists, many were correspondents of both Muhlenberg and
Schweinitz. Stephen Elliott and William Baldwin contributed substantially to
both herbaria. Moreover, on the death of Baldwin shortly after he had joined
Major Long’s expedition to the upper Missouri, Schweinitz purchased Baldwin’s
private collection, adding it to his own. Covering a period somewhat later
than Muhlenberg, Schweinitz had among his American botanist friends the two
young New York botanists, John Torrey of New York City and Asa Gray of
Utica.

Among the European botanists who contributed to his herbarium, Schweinitz
lists Agardh, Bentham (then a young man who sent in Pyrenees plants), Brong-
niart, P. DeCandolle, Fries, Greville, W. J. Hooker, Jacquin, Kunze, Ledebour,
Martius, Reichenbach, Schwiagrichen, Sprengel, Steudel, Treviranus, Wallich
and J. M. Zeyher. Thus, a certain amount of the finest material coming into
the European botanical centers found its way to the new collections in North
America. Also, the opinions of the European experts must have had a great
influence on the work of naming plants in the New World.

This period in the development of American botany saw also the growth of
interest among those who contributed the financial incentive for carrying out
botanical work. In the Philadelphia area, William Hamilton (1714-1813),
owner of “ Woodlands”, a famous estate on the Schuylkill, became the foremost
patron of the collectors of horticultural material. His grounds were reported to
have had one of the finest collections of plant material outside of the gardens of
Europe. With a more academic interest in botany, Benjamin Smith Barton
(1766-1815), professor of materia medica and botany at the University of Penn-
sylvania, hired two outstanding young botanists and collectors. Frederick Trau-
gott Pursh (1799-1811) worked first for Hamilton, but, under the tutelage of
Barton, he came to know the eastern American flora through long collecting

8 BARTONIA

trips southward to Carolina and northward to New Hampshire. The collections
from the Lewis and Clark expedition of 1804-06 were turned over to Barton who,
in turn, entrusted their study to Pursh. Thus, the collections being assembled
by Barton with a view to preparation of an American flora were later well
utilized by Pursh when he published his “ Flora Americae Septentrionalis ”’
(London, 1814) under the patronage of Aylmer Bourke Lambert (1762-1843).
Thomas Nuttall (1786-1859) was the second botanist to be benefited by the pat-
ronage of Barton. Again, collecting trips, this time into the opening west, were
made at the instigation of the patron. Thus two Philadelphia patrons of the
early 19th century helped shape the course of taxonomic study of American
plants.

At least one Philadelphian of this period left the field of American flora and
became an important contributor to the knowledge of Old World botany. Thomas
Horsefield (1774-1859) spent sixteen years in Java where he made many col-
lections. He finally settled in London as keeper of the museum of the East
India Company.

The private collections assembled by the two most diligent botanists of the
Philadelphia area, Muhlenberg and Schweinitz, still exist in the herbarium of
the Academy of Natural Sciences. The former is the property of the American
Philosophical Society. Another fine herbarium of the period, the Benjamin
Smith Barton herbarium, is likewise at the Academy (also the property of the
American Philosophical Society). Finally, a portion of the Lambert herbarium
including American collections of the period was purchased at the London
auction by Edward Tuckerman, Jr. and presented to the Academy herbarium in
1855. In order to understand something of the significance of these specimens,
it is necessary to have a knowledge of the philosophy underlying their collection,
and the mechanics of the early curating to which they were subjected.

Among the first considerations is the fact that the specimens thus preserved
were collected mainly in the search for novelties which, in the early 19th century,
was still gathering momentum. No thought was given to geographic distribu-
tion or variation within a species. In the first instance, distributional data had
little influence on the newness of entities; one specimen could stand for a new
species as well as a suite of specimens could. In the second instance, variation
was incompatible with a fundamental interpretation of the Bible (as has been
mentioned before), and taxonomists were not looking for variation although
some of them may have been acutely aware of it. Furthermore, it must be re-
membered that the science of botanical taxonomy was growing, not as an in-
tegrated whole, but in a multitude of directions as diverse as the minds of the
many botanists involved. These workers were isolated from one another more
widely in time and in space than we are today, even though they may have
lived and worked during the same span of years. It is indeed remarkable that
botany at this period had achieved as coherent a pattern as we now see in retro-

A CENTURY OF BOTANY IN AMERICA 9

spect. The concept of a type specimen had not yet appeared. Any example
of a species identified by an expert in the field of world botany stood with
as much value as types do today. This may be well illustrated by a citation
from DeCandolle’s Prodromus (vol. 4, p. 60) under Hydrocotyle Langsdorfii
where we find ‘ V. 8. comm. & cl. Fischer”. Another source of trouble in older
work resulted from the preparation of descriptions from garden material; again,
an example from the Prodromus (vol. 4, p. 322) under Sambucus ebulus L.
var. humilis, where the specimen is cited “in hortus interdum culta. (v. v.) ”.
Indeed, authors sometimes gave no indication of having had a specimen at all,
for example, Physalis pubescens in Pursh’s Flora, where he merely states “ v. v.”
leaving the quest for a [type] specimen annotated in Pursh’s handwriting up to
present-day botanists. There were, moreover, no rules of priority, and botanists,
on occasion, renamed species or even genera because the original name was not
to their liking.

When we consider the curatorial procedures current during this period, we
must again note that the workers had not realized the importance of variation.
Many methods of storage for the specimens were used. Paper was expensive,
particularly in America. Muhlenberg often brought together all his specimens
of a species in a loose fold of paper, or again laid several half sheets of loose
specimens representing different species into a single fold. If there were a tag
affixed to the stem by a slit, this was left. Sometimes a loose slip was laid on the
sheet, probably directly on top of the specimen to which it referred. However,
notes in his day books fortunately carried considerable information about Muh-
lenberg’s herbarium specimens. This important collection is only now in the
process of being mounted. Some European institutions still use a similar method
of storage, although a single specimen is now generally pinned to the fold in
which it is stored.

Schweinitz, on the other hand, employed large books to preserve his speci-
mens. The species name was written at the top of the page. All specimens of
the species were strip mounted, often one over another when the page became
crowded. Because original labels would have taken up much space on the page,
they were almost universally discarded, and two cryptic notes were added along-
side the specimen, one denoting the general area where the specimen was col-
lected (Sal. for Salem, North Carolina, Can. for Canada, ete.) and the other
naming the person who had sent the specimen to Schweinitz. (Hook. for Hooker,
Str. for Steinhauer, etc.). Sometimes Schweinitz indicated a secondary source
as “ Leitn. ex Ludw.” for Leitner from Ludwig. The specimens have now been
taken from the pages and mounted on herbarium sheets with the Schweinitz
notes. Where the specimens were crowded on the page, there is no assurance
that the notes pertain to the proper specimen, nor have we any way to ascertain
the collector when the donor was obviously another person. In many instances,
of course, the donor was also the describer of the species, and the specimen may

10 BARTONIA

be an isotype whose authenticity would only be determinable by comparison
with the type specimen.

Barton used a combination of the two storage methods, some of his personal
collections being mounted in books with the data written on the page, other collec-
tions being laid into sheets and kept loose with the label data. These latter speci-
mens have now been mounted on herbarium sheets with supplementary labels
adding information which was not apparent on the original label. Here, again,
there still remain various mysteries which are gradually being resolved by a care-
ful historical study. Certain of the Pursh types have now been definitely recog-
nized and annotated by Mr. Joseph Ewan and are thus much more easily accessible.

Both the Muhlenberg and Schweinitz herbaria included a quantity of crypto-
gamic material which is of considerable importance. Both collectors packeted
the fungi, mosses, hepatics, and lichens in small slips of paper with notes on the
outside. The Schweinitz material has now been largely repacketed (the original
packet being placed in a larger one). Unfortunately, many of the original
Schweinitz fungi packets had been opened in 1855 to 1857 by Ezra Michener
(1794-1887), who divided the specimens, mounted a set for the Academy herbar-
ium with transcribed data, and kept a set for his efforts.2 Thus, even the
Schweinitz notes have frequently been lost from the packets of fungi. The Muh-
lenberg packets of fungi and lichens have not been reworked except to roughly
protet them by enclosure in another fold of paper. Here the data are much more
fragmentary, consisting largely of numbers referring back to notes in journals.
E. G. Britton carefully examined the mosses in the Muhlenberg herbarium, and
they are now well packeted and annotated. There seems to have been little
cryptogamic material in the Barton collection.

Philadelphia in the early years of the 19th century was the undisputed cen-
ter of American botany. The largest and most accurately identified collections
of American and Old World plants were here; the herbaria of the Academy and
the American Philosophical Society held the bulk of the American collections
in the United States. This period saw the beginning of extensive western ex-
ploration as the new nation sought to learn about the large undeveloped tracts
of land that were being acquired. For identifiers as well as for collectors, the
government turned to Philadelphia. The Long expeditions to the Great Lakes
region and westward to the Rocky Mountains were staffed in part by scientists
from the Philadelphia area. Schweinitz’s part in identifying Say’s plant col-
lections, and Pursh’s connection with the Lewis and Clark collections have al-
ready been mentioned. Nuttall worked in the Academy herbarium off and on
until about 1840. During this period he concentrated on his own collections,

Michener was not the first mycologist to raid the Schweinitz collection. M. A. Curtis
had visited the Academy in 1851 at which time he acquired Schweinitz specimens spare
sufficiently large to divide with his co-worker, Berkeley, in England, and with t ounger

Fries in Sweden. Again, in 1853, Henry W. Ravenel (181 4-1872) visited Philadelphia, and
took away with him portions of “ Near 150 authentic species” of the Schweinitz herbarium

A CENTURY OF BOTANY IN AMERICA ll

placing duplicates in the herbarium as well as specimens of foreign material
which he had apparently received by exchange. The entire Schweinitz herbarium
including the Baldwin plants came to the Academy in 1834. Charles Pickering
(1805-1878) contributed much to the Academy’s growth. Dr. John Torrey
(1796-1873) was a frequent visitor, working with Nuttall and consulting the
specimens in the herbarium. The Academy herbarium was growing rapidly
now because it was recognized as the outstanding American collection. Speci-
mens of Arctic plants from W. E. Parry’s northern trips, Canadian plants from
the Franklin expeditions, Poiteau plants from Haiti, La Sagra collections from
Cuba, and others filled out the northern and southern American representation.
Collections from Pitcher in Arkansas and from Tainturier in Louisiana sup-
plemented the mid-western material.

This growth was to continue more slowly after the care of the collections
passed into other hands. The bases for the study of the material were the phi-
losophies previously noted. New species seemed to be one of the prime requisites
of a collection. Thus, in 1831, Torrey wrote to Schweinitz (Shear and Stevens,
1921), “ During my stay at Princeton I was diligent in collecting plants, but my
research for new species was not successful”. Furthermore, the donor of the
material was frequently considered to be more important than the collector. In
a letter to Torrey in 1832 (Shear and Stevens, op. cit.) Schweinitz states, ‘“ In
the labels which I shall give those [specimens] you wish—I will carefully note
the place & the source [donor] from which I have derived them.”

After 1840, the curatorship of the Academy herbarium passed into the hands
of Elias Durand (1794-1873). While he was an amateur botanist, he had suf-
ficient experience to publish several papers on collections coming to the Academy
(Durand 1855 and 1860). His limited viewpoint in regard to curating the col-
lections is much to be regretted. Pennell (1935 and 1944) has amply told of
Durand’s shortsightedness in picking out from the Academy’s bundles a single
specimen of each species for the working comparison set of the “ Herbarium
Boreali Americanum”, and his assignment of ‘“ duplicates ” (that is, other
specimens of the same species, not our understanding of duplicates) to be used
for exchange. His relegation of the Rafinesque herbarium to the trash heap
was probably one of the most reprehensible acts which he committed. Other in-
fringements on currently acceptable methods were his selection of Nuttall’s
specimens for Asa Gray (who had by then become the leading American botanist
and, in Durand’s opinion, the proper owner for this material), and the mixing
of many specimens in Short’s tropical American collection on single sheets out
of the bundles in which they had been stored. In line with the general careless-
ness concerning the important collections in his care, Durand allowed a succes-
sion of visiting mycologists to divide the specimens of the Schweinitz collection
so that fragments are now scattered in the Michener collection in Washington,
the Fries herbarium at Uppsala, the Curtis material at the Farlow Herbarium
in Cambridge, the Berkeley collection at Kew, and the Ravenel material at the
British Museum. (See footnote on page 10).

12 BARTONIA

Under Durand, the philosophy of the invariability of the species reached its
peak in Philadelphia. The many thousands of specimens stored in bundles in
the Academy herbarium were loosely handled (the single specimen of each
species in Durand’s Herbarium Boreali Americanum was all he considered need-
ful for comprehensive botanical work). As a result, much difficulty is experienced
by present-day botanists in trying to find authentic specimens in the collection.
Two recent instances come to mind. In the first, a request to look for a Sit-
greaves collection of Lupinus was filled by the loan of a sheet with two frag-
ments accompanied by an appropriate Sitgreaves label. The monographer wrote

was amazed at the plants and I still am. I hadn’t expected either of
the two on the sheet to be within several hundred miles.” Later, he wrote, “. . .
I believe that the explanation lies in the label of Aubrey Smith’s [a third speci-
men on the sheet] in which there is some confusion at crossing out two of the
states above and then erroneously writing in the wrong one below.” Thus, the
Sitgreaves Arizona specimens are apparently lost, and the labels really applied to
specimens of A. Smith’s California collection!

The second case, involving Nuttall material of Helenium, is stated in a letter
from the monographer thus, “ The first sheet bears a cut-out and pasted-on
label of Nuttall’s in his manner of designating a new species, and the label reads
L. |Leptopoda| *denticulata Nutt... .. This specimen is not denticulata and
I feel Nuttall would be the first to agree... .” Here, another case of scattered
specimens and mismated labels has been found. In Durand’s time, since all
specimens of the same species were considerd to be equal, such mixing of data
seemed unimportant. It was not until John H. Redfield (1815-1895) took over
the management of the Academy herbarium that the job of mounting the speci-
mens was begun, and the collection reactivated, this time under an entirely
different philosophy, as we shall see later

The period during which Philadelphia flourished as the center of American
botany was still a time of exploration and collection for the European botanists.
This was to continue for many years, although the emphasis on collection would
turn northward and westward. It is interesting to note that Nuttall was sending
live plant material to England and, in 1813, a catalogue of his plant importa-
tions was published listing 89 species at the Fraser Nursery in London.?

3In line with the recent controversy concerning the plant names listed in the Fraser

Catalogue and their authorship, I would like to once again emphasize that American botany
had its s in horticultural sollects ns. Taxonomic botany was a side development which
fo ately, was fol d a up of who were scholarly, but nevertheless were indi-
viduals, e with their own ideas of nomenclatural priority and professional ethics. Mucl

r of the Pp gireapr: of today, business men undoubtedly drew together hasty
lists of pad wares, and the of emphasizing new : pam as a Sales “ gimmick ” mus ve
occurred to them. Also, Paes se Nuttall was involve the collection of horticultural mate-

rial, it is -. extraordinary that he might have supplied the names for the Fraser list (obvi-
ously intended for sales promotion and n

not as a scientific publication) as an aid to a friend

cus . This in no way reflects on Nutt: gba seer Br integrity as a taxonomist,

inasmuch as the philosophical aspects of taxonomy w agreed 1 upon and codified by
the workine botanists.

Nuttall may well have ition the Aa “blurb”, but this cannot

A CENTURY OF BOTANY IN AMERICA 13

Previously, Archibald Menzies (1754-1842) had been one of the first collectors
along the Pacific coast of North America. Francois André Michaux (1770-
1856), son of the famous French collector, was sent to America to study the trees,
resulting in his “ Forest trees of North America”. John Bradbury (1768-1823),
collector for the Liverpool Botanic Garden, met Nuttall at St. Louis in 1811.
From 1817 to 1820, John Goldie was in America, followed soon after by Thomas
Drummond on the second Franklin Expedition in 1825-28. Drummond returned
after 1831, partly at the suggestion of Torrey, and collected for the Glasgow
Garden. David Douglas (1799-1834) was in North America on the west coast
from about 1825-1833, collecting for the Royal Horticultural Society. There-
after, the list of explorers in the west rapidly enlarged. English collectors, alone,
searching for both botanical specimens and horticultural material, include John
Scouler (1804-1871), Thomas Coulter (1793-1843), Carl Theodor Hartweg
(1812-1871), David Lyall (1817-1895) and William Lorb (1809-1863). The
last-named collector was sent out by the famous Veitch Nursery.

During this early period in American botany, another aspect developed as
the local workers became more confident of the determinations available through
correspondence with botanists in the centers at Philadelphia and New York. In
1811, John Eaton LeConte (1784-1860) published a catalogue of the plants of
New York followed shortly after by Jacob Bigelow’s (1787-1879) “ Florula
Bostoniensis ”, perhaps the first wholly American local flora. Previously, local
floras had their basis in work done in Europe on the collections from individual
American areas. There then followed a host of local floras and lists covering
much of the eastern area; W. P. C. Barton’s “ Philadelphia Flora ” (1818),
Brereton’s “ Prodromus Florae Columbianae” (1830), C. W. Short’s “ Florula
Lexingtoniensis ” (1830), and many others. In themselves, such floras had very
little taxonomic significance, but they served as useful guides to the plants of
special areas. Perhaps their most important impact on American botany lay
in the manner in which they pointed out the patterns of distribution of individual
taxa. Further, specimens sent by the local botanists to the larger herbaria for
identification or confirmation added greatly to the scope of these collections,
even though some curators were to temporarily store them away and depend

be proven without his own statement to this effect. There is one piece of proof which has
been overlooked indicating that Nuttall used at least one of these names apart from his
published taxonomic work. Of the material listed in the Frase ag logue, hoc Academy of

2. Allium stellatum ; 4. Amorpha egg ns; 6. Astragalus crassionrpus 20. Ca menia ser ca
28. Dracocephalum peter ies siuataiee Evolvulus vceeions , ypericum surculosum ; 54.
Oenothera albicaulis ; 55. ees oe serrulata; Pye paler eae dichotomum. These names
several variations of the notation “ Fraser’s cat: (or catal:) of Nuttalls Plants” are
written on the sheets in A. B. Lambert’s hand. On one sheet (40. Hypericum surculosum) the
upper right hand corner bears the name in Nuttall’s script written on a piece of paper much
acd than the Lambert herbarium paper. This may well have been cut from the folder in
ich Lambert received the s specimen. _ However, even to Nuttall may have been the

Therefore, unless the es have subsequently s aldated. and used, why accord them
any more attention es we now sive en horticultural listings?

14 BARTONIA

upon a single sample for comparative work. The constant inflow of minor
variants from local areas must also have emphasized the violations of the sup-
posed principle of species—invariability for such workers as Torrey.

When Nuttall and Pickering left the Philadelphia area, the center of American
botanical activity shifted about 1840 to New York, where Torrey had gained
prominence as the outstanding American systematist. Torrey had begun, in
1824, his “ Flora of the northern and middle seétions of the United States ” fol-
lowing the Linnean system. However, he must have fully subscribed to the ideas
on classification expounded by John Lindley in the “Introduction to the natural
system of botany” (London, 1830) for he promptly set about preparing an
American edition of this, for which Schweinitz was asked to furnish a list of
fungi. This edition appeared in 1831 and Torrey presented a copy to Schweinitz,
but the change to a new system must have been difficult for the older man, as he
left his collection in the Linnean arrangement. In spite of his comment to Tor-
rey in a letter of March 29, 1832 (Shear and Stevens, op. cit.), “I fairly de-
voured it”, Schweinitz’s copy of Lindley remained uncut until 1953, when the
present author cut it in order to get at the introductory pages. Thus, with the
center of taxonomic botany swinging to the northward, a change in viewpoint
regarding systematics was also coming about. Torrey now became one of the
most sought after botanists in the Americas, being entrusted with the identifi-
cation of material from the numerous expeditions sampling the vast western
area. In 1833, he hired Dr. Asa Gray of Utica, New York to assist him in his
scientific work, thus beginning the collaboration which was to give such a co-
herent pattern to the further development of American botanical taxonomy.

Torrey continued in the earlier tradition of acquiring material and opinions
by exchange with the botanical specialists in the Old World. He was in active
touch with all of the well-known workers both in eryptogams and phanerogams,
including such authorities as W. J. Hooker, Greville, Sprengel, DeCandolle, and
Martius. His contacts with numerous local American botanists greatly enriched
his collection and, also, his understanding of the American flora. These included
William Oakes (1799-1848) collecting in New England, Abraham Halsey (1790—-
1857) around the New York area, William Prince (1766-1842) of Long Island,
whose garden was stocked with living material of American plants, Lewis Caleb
Beck (1798-1853) of Albany and Missouri, J. E. LeConte who collected on Long
Island and around his family residence in Georgia, William Darlington (1782-
1863) of West Chester, Pennsylvania, Moses Ashley Curtis (1808-1872) of
Hillsboro, North Carolina, who was primarily a mycologist, Charles W. Short
(1794-1802) of Lexington and Louisville, Kentucky, and Increase Allen Lapham
(1811-1875) of Milwaukee, Wisconsin Territory. These collectors and many
others were furnishing the evidence for the distributional limits of American
plants, but, of far more significance, they were providing examples illustrating
species variability. That this variation was apparent to Torrey, and indeed

vite

A CENTURY OF BOTANY IN AMERICA 15

caused him considerable worry, is amply recorded in his correspondence, and in
the lengthy notes and queries often included with specimens.

There had emerged in American taxonomy specialists in groups, for example,
Chester Dewey (1784-1867) working almost exclusively on Carex, and Joseph
Barrett (1796-1882) studying the genus Salix. Such workers must also have
emphasized the variation to be observed both in the delineation of new species
which seemed too finely drawn to Torrey, or in the species complexes drawn with
over-extended limits of variation. However, the major effort in taxonomy was
still directed to the recording of new species from the many collections pouring in
from the west.

One of the most opportune developments in American botany was the found-
ing of publication media wherein results could be placed on record within a
reasonable length of time, and made readily available to fellow workers. In the
early days of American botany, the native botanists were at a distinct disadvan-
tage when compared with their fellows in Europe as no regular media of publi-
cation were open to them. Many of the early species recognized by the workers
in the New World became known only through a liason arrangement where the
American sent his material and manuscript to be subjected to the editorship of
an Old World authority before being published. Much of Muhlenberg’s work
in cryptogams was thus treated. When an American author decided on local
publication, he had to make his own arrangements for printing, oversee the
composition, and pay for the run from his own funds with little expectancy of
immediate profit (if any profit at all were forthcoming). Productive people like
Muhlenberg had much material in manuscript which could never be published
from lack of outlets and finances. The new publications of the American
Philosophical Society and the Academy of Natural Sciences partially filled the
need. Torrey, himself, helped organize the New York Lyceum of Natural His-
tory whose publications furnished a still further outlet. Benjamin Silliman
(1779-1864) had founded in 1818 the “ American Journal of Science and Arts ”
which provided a convenient serial medium for the publication of papers. It
was only with these publication outlets that American botany could develop
at an accelerated pace, for the large volume of work done by Torrey would
probably have been largely lost if it had had to depend upon private publication.
Much of the botanical results of official government expeditions were now ap-
pearing as appendices to reports printed at public expense, providing a still
further outlet and wide distribution for the results of the researches of Ameri-
can botanists.

Torrey had early become involved in the identification of collections being
returned to the east from the many expeditions. David Bates Douglass (1790-
1£49) had collected plants while on the Cass expedition around the upper Great
Lakes region which were identified and reported on by Torrey in 1821. Dr.

16 BARTONIA

Edwin P. James (1797-1861) collected in the Rocky Mountains and his speci-
mens were published upon by Torrey in 1823, 1824, and 1828. The last paper,
“Some account of a collection of plants made during a journey to and from the
Rocky Mountains, in the summer of 1820, by Edwin P. James, M.D., Assistant
Surgeon, U. 8S. Army,” was the first American memoir arranged according to
the Natural System. We have already mentioned Torrey’s ready acceptance
of Lindley’s revision of the Linnean system into a more logical arrangement
of groups. In 1838, Torrey and his young assistant, Asa Gray, published the
first part of the “ Flora of North America” which started to treat the region
westward to the Mississippi, but the flood of material from the western explora-
tions overtook it. Drummond’s Texas collections and Douglas’ and Nuttall’s
California collections were added for consideration. By the time that the third
volume appeared in 1848, the flood had grown to such tremendous proportions
that it became impractical to attempt further work on an overall flora, In 1848,
as New York state botanist, Torrey also published a flora of this state. Carl
Geyer (1809-1853) had collected plants on the surveys conducted by Joseph
Nicholas Nicollet (1786-1843) in 1836-1840. Torrey published on these in 1843.
Thereafter, report after report carried Torrey’s signature as botanical authority.
These included plants from Fremont, Emory, Stansbury, Marcy, Sitgreaves,
Pope, Beckwith, Gunnison, Whipple, Williamson, Parkes, Wilkes (Pacific coast
plants), and the railroad survey collections. One of the most voluminous reports
was that of the Mexican Boundary Survey on which Parry, Wright, Bigelow,
Schott and Thurber were employed as collectors. The last of the expedition re-
ports, the botanical part of which was prepared principally by Torrey, was the
Ives report on the Colorado River.

During this period, another botanist by avocation (Torrey had begun his
career as a medical doctor and professor of chemistry) deserves special mention
because of his intensive study of difficult groups and his interest in promoting
the collection of plants from less well known areas. A doctor with a large prac-
tice, George Engelmann (1809-1884) devoted his small amount of leisure time
to the study of plants. His interest in western botany led Engelmann into
treatments of Cuscuta, Juncus, Cactaceae, conifers, Agave, Yucca, and other
groups. He was a frequent collaborator with Torrey and Gray on the identifi-
cation of survey material. In addition, he took an active interest in stimulating
the collections of botanists like Lindheimer. His herbarium became the basis
for the collection at the Missouri Botanical Garden. While he did not devote
full time to botany, he was responsible, in large part, for stimulating interest
in a knowledge of western plants and he contributed materially to the ideas
expressed in the work of the eastern botanists.

A CENTURY OF BOTANY IN AMERICA 17

It is to be emphasized that the whole viewpoint of the mid 19th century
American botanists was flavored by the continuing search for new entities which
had been started in the 17th century by the collectors from Europe. The ex-
ploration was now being conducted by Americans; the taxonomy was being
worked out by American botanists; even more important, the prime collections
of specimens were remaining in the New World, frequently in private herbaria,
but nevertheless within easy reach of the critical workers. The emphasis in the
collections had now definitely turned from the discovery of horticultural novel-
ties to the accurate classification of the plants being discovered. Government-
sponsored surveys had replaced the earlier individual plant explorations to a
large extent, although European nurseries and gardens had some collectors in
North America until late in the 19th century. For these collectors, however,
the American flora was being abandoned in favor of horticultaural material from
temperate Asia and greenhouse plants from the American tropics. In essence,
the philosophy implying that horticultural botany carried a certain taint was
developing in American institutions and the taxonomists in the “classic ” tra-
dition were adhering more strictly to a study of wild material only. From the
viewpoint of Federally sponsored collection and identification this seemed to be
imperative, as the purpose of the surveys lay in a general evaluation of the
natural products of the large western area rather than in the esthetic qualities
of the plants.

The basic species concept remained essentially the same for Torrey during
his most productive years, although Lindley’s system had been fully accepted by
him, and the individual variations within a species had obviously been noted.
For most of the botanists of this period in the 19th century, the pressure for
practical taxonomy, the naming of collections, was too great to allow much de-
liberation on theoretical concepts of speciation.

One of the most interesting governmental undertakings of the period was
the Wilkes expedition manned by naval personnel accompanied by a scientific
corps which included three botanists. Charles Wilkes (1798-1877) became
commander of the expedition essentially by default. He later proved to be an
invaluable ally of the scientists by insisting that the work on the reports be
continued in as near the original plan as possible, forestalling curtailment of the
publications, although he was inclined to dictate policy much to the scientists
disgust. Charles Pickering, William Rich and William D. Brackenridge were
the botanists participating in the collecting. Subsequently, portions of the iden-
tifications were made and reports written by Torrey, Gray, Bailey and Harvey,
Curtis and Berkeley, Sullivant, and Tuckerman. While the undertaking had so
many delays in starting, and the reports were never completely published, the
Wilkes expedition proved that the United States had evolved a group of able
scientists who need no longer be dependent upon Europe for guidance.

18 BARTONIA

In 1842, Asa Gray, associate and friend of Torrey, was appointed to the
Fisher professorship at Harvard College. His duties there involved a course
of lectures and the care of the Harvard Botanic Garden, one of the first real
botanical gardens in the United States. Fortunately for the course of botany
in New England, John Amory Lowell (1798-1881) became an outstanding
patron, influencing the science through the people he brought to the area for
the Lowell lectures and the collections arriving through his subscriptions. The
founding of the Lawrence Scientific School was to be another factor in making
Cambridge the new center of American science. Botany, though, was to
center primarily around Asa Gray. As the close associate of Torrey, he be-
came the next authority to identify the materials arriving in a full flood from
the western explorations. He had started his botanical career in the flora of
upper New York state, where his early training was in medicine. During the
period prior to his move to Cambridge, he had made exsiccati sets of plants
from the east, monographed Rhynchospora and Melanthium and had gained
much floristie experience from his association with Torrey. Unlike Torrey,
Gray was a man of more catholic botanical interests. To resolve some of the
problems in eastern American botany, Gray had gone to the European collections
in 1838 and 1839 to make comparisons and notes. He became widely acquainted
in Europe where the Hookers, Bentham, Decaisne, and many others found Gray
a sharp observer and capable worker. From this he became interested in the
history and background of the science. He authored a “ Botanical Text-book ”
for students, and, later, “ First Lessons in Botany ”. His general knowledge in-
cluded physiology, anatomy and morphology. He became the first prominent
American botanist to work with collections made outside of the North American
continent. He had been offered the post of botanist with the Wilkes expedition,
but had resigned because of the delays. He, however, worked over much of the
Wilkes plant material. This, in turn, led him into plant geography and the
problems of distribution in a way never apparent in the work of his old friend
Torrey. His paper comparing the floras of Japan and the United States ap-
peared in 1846.

By 1850 American botany was destined to be centered in Cambridge, leaving
behind the old Philadelphia Academy herbarium in the hands of Elias Durand,
and the work of Torrey in New York. We have seen how the former was being
curated through a strict scriptural creation interpretation of the species unit;
while Torrey’s work had a provincial flavor dealing almost exclusively with the
delineation of new American species. This is not to imply that Gray would not
respond to the lure of new discoveries. That he was still involved in the primary
task of providing pigeon-holes for the American flora is amply proven by the
many names authored by him. In Gray’s hands, however, American botany was

A CENTURY OF BOTANY IN AMERICA 19

to be given an opportunity for lateral expansion which had been denied under the
older concepts.

Gray was to become the leader of a rapidly evolving science in which philo-
sophical concepts would be radically changed. T he accumulation of collections
had now pointed up the need for more precise distributional data and therefore,
better locality data with the specimens. While Durand was still maintaining a
herbarium in bundles and filing a single species representative with inadequate
locality labels in a North American series, Gray was mounting material with
the original data to avoid its loss. Perhaps as a final remnant of the older
philosophy, many small specimens supposedly of the same species were fastened
to the same sheet, posing a later curatorial problem when they must needs
be separated, but they at least retained their identity as to collector and locality.
Unfortunately, even Gray confused data to some extent, as he frequently as-
signed arbitrary numbers to collections of the same species from different locali-
ties as a convenience in distributing sets of material. For example, we have
Gray’s own statement in the foreword to Plantae Wrightianae, p. 6: “ The
numbers prefixed to the names are those under which the specimens are dis-
tributed.”, and on page 7, under number 1, the citation reads, “ Bluffs of the
Rio San Felipe, July; also in the pass of the Limpia, in valleys between the
mountains, Aug.; in fruit.”

An even more fundamental philosophical change was to be accepted and
supported by Gray. In his “ First Lessons in Botany ” of 1857, in a footnote on
page 195, he states, writing of a system of classification, “It is often obliged to
make arbitrary divisions where Nature shows only transitions, and to consider
genera ete. as equal units, or groups of equally related species, while in fact they
may be very unequal, . . . to assume on paper at least, a strictly definite limita-
tion of genera, of tribes, and of orders, although observation shows so much
blending here and there of natural groups, sufficiently distinct on the whole, as
to warrant us in assuming the likelihood that the Creator’s plan is one of
gradation not of definite limitation, except as to the species themselves.” In
1859, Charles Darwin (1809-1882) published “ Origin of Species ” which was
to split natural science into two camps. Gray was a correspondent of Darwin
and thoroughly supported his views. As established leader of American botany,
his was a strong position, enabling him to shake free of the older Biblical con-
cept of unit creation, and to lead the American botanical school into a new
understanding of variation. He could now apply the concept of “ gradation .
to the species as well as the higher units, providing a more realistic interpreta-
tion of the taxa with which he was working. In actual practice, though, it has
been only with the increased knowledge of the mechanisms of variation since
Gray’s time that the concept has been successfully applied to the delimitation

of species.

20 BARTONIA

The center of American botany remained in Cambridge during the lifetime
of Gray. Until his death in 1888, he continued to publish voluminously on new
collections of plants from western North America as well as from areas outside
of the Americas. His widespread interests continued in other aspects of botany,
for he published on nomenclature, elementary botany, physiology, pollination,
and plant geography. His early acquaintance with the European botanists con-
tinued as correspondence and exchange, enriching his herbarium much as had
been those of Muhlenberg, Schweinitz and Torrey. And, much in the manner
of Torrey, Gray had trained assistants who became eminent botanists in their
own right, carrying on some of the principles acquired from their teacher.
Sereno Watson (1826-1892) was to carry on in Cambridge, identifying new
collections and revising the taxonomy of numerous plant groups with much of
the same insight into the problems of the opening west as had characterized
Gray’s work. William Gilson Farlow (1844-1919) gained an overall interest in
botany from Gray’s teaching. He specialized on the eryptogamie plants, having
gone to Europe for post-graduate training. Returning to Cambridge, he ac-
complished for his specialty what Gray was doing for phanerogamic botany.

Several of Gray’s students, developing an interest in areas of botany apart
from taxonomy, were to take the lead in enlarging the scope of American botany.
Charles Edwin Bessey (1845-1915) was one of these. While he knew the funda-
mentals of taxonomy, his interests were in other aspects of botany brought to
his notice by Gray. The fields of morphology, anatomy and physiology had
been opening in Europe while Americans were still engaged in a headlong rush
to catalogue the flora of the country west of the Mississippi. Bessey and others
of his time met the new situation by incorporating the new facies of botany into
the instruction they were offering at several of the American colleges. In a sense,
then, Gray served as a turning point in American botany around whom the
science was to open into new fields, as well as the champion of a new concept of
the species based upon the gradual derivation of new forms by evolution.

Taxonomic botany was to continue during the latter part of the 19th century
in the primary phase of exploration for new species. Canada had its John
Macoun (1831-1920)), while the western United States was replete with col-
lectors both in and out of government service. Some of these such as John White
Chickering (1931-1913), George Thurber (1821-1890), George Vasey (1822-
1893), Julien Reverchon (1837?-1905), and Samuel Botsford Buckley (1809-
1884) collected primarily within the United States. Many of these men
contributed more than just specimens, functioning also in administrative capaci-
ties. Still another group extended their explorations south into Mexico, com-
pleting the distribution records for many southwestern species and adding further
to the knowledge of the flora of North America. Jean Louis Berlandier (d. 1851),
Edward Palmer (1831-1911), Charles Christopher Parry (1823-1890), and Cyrus
Gurnsey Pringle (1838-1911) were among these. Several explored in the

A CENTURY OF BOTANY IN AMERICA 21

American tropics; John Donnell Smith (1829-1928), Augustus Fendler (1813—
1883), and Charles Wright (1811-1885) belong in this group. Gray’s widespread
interests led him to sponsor Wright in his extensive foreign collection program.

Subsequent to the days of Schweinitz and Torrey, more emphasis had been
laid on the seed plants than on the lower groups. Study did not entirely
languish, but it was not until the middle of the century that new interest in the
cryptogams resulted in increased work in this field. William Starling Sullivant
(1803-1873) in mosses and Edward Tuckerman, Jr. (1817-1886) in lichens were
leaders in their fields, and pioneered the study of these groups in the United
States. Sullivant hired Leo Lesquereux (1806-1889) as an assistant to establish
the well-known team, which was duly augmented by Thomas Potts James
(1804-1882). The fungi and algae of the Wilkes Expedition were farmed out
partially to Europe because of lack of comparison material and specialists in
the United States. Miles Joseph Berkeley (1803-1889) of England worked with
Moses A. Curtis on the fungi in a cooperative effort, which foreshadowed many
other joint papers on fungi collected by American botanists. William Henry
Harvey (1811-1866) of England worked with Jacob Whitman Bailey (1811-
1857) on the algae. Farlow at Harvard was to lay the foundations for one of
America’s large cryptogamic herbaria.

Lesquereux was interested not only in the mosses of America. The treat-
ment of fossil plant remains had long been relegated to chance observers whose
casual reports provided no real basis for scientific investigation. Lesquereux
stepped into this void to become the foremost authority on American paleo-
botany. The geologists of the western surveys turned quantities of material over
to him, enabling Lesquereux to lay the lines for comparative studies with recent
plants as well as the fossil floras of various ages. Others such as John Strong
Newberry (1822-1892) rose to prominence in the field, but Lesquereux’s close
association with Gray gave him an advantage as he was able to observe the
growth of Darwin’s theory at first hand, and thus, more thoroughly understand
the material which he was studying.

The ferns, too, became the focus of special study for the first time in the
history of American botany. George Edward Davenport (1833-1907) and
Daniel Cady Eaton (1834-1895) devoted the larger part of their time to the
study of the lower vascular plants. Davenport assembled a notable fern her-
barium, collected, however, primarily in accord with the older tradition of nomen-
clatural records rather than the newer ideas on distribution and variation.

The local botanists were also active during the Gray period. Many of them
filled the spaces in the herbarium left by the criscrossing trails of the survey
parties, for local botanists were now represented throughout the United States.
George William Clinton (1807-1885) of Buffalo, New York and Joseph Hinson
Mellichamp (1829-1903) of South Carolina restricted their activities rather
severely to small areas. Others worked on a state-wide basis, producing local

Ze BARTONIA

floras for a wider area, and serving as supply agents for the needs of the workers
in the large herbaria. Charles Theodore Mohr (1824-1901) and Augustin Gat-
tinger (1825-1903) worked at this level, filling a valuable position in detailing
ecological preferences and minute distributional limits not apparent in the mere
lines collected across large areas by itinerant field parties. Still a third group
of specialists worked on the botany of the United States on a regional basis.
Torrey and Gray had started on the northeastern states primarily because there
were insufficient collections from other areas in America to warrant greater scope.
Gray continued his interest here, producing the famous “ Manual” now in its
eighth edition. The real pioneer in regional floras was Alvan Wentworth Chap-
man (1809-1899) who produced a flora for the southeast before extensive col-
leetions had been made. A botanical pioneer in northwestern Florida, Chapman
had to do much of the field work himself before he could produce his flora.
Thomas Howell (1842-1912) was in a somewhat more advantageous position to
write his northwestern flora as explorations had partially covered the far north-
west. John Merle Coulter (1851-1928) had participated in the exploration of
the Rocky Mountain area. With Thomas C. Porter, he had published a synopsis
of the Colorado flora. Building on this, he published the “ Manual of the Botany
of the Rocky Mountain Region ” in 1885.

Toward the end of the century, the science of botany in America began to
break away from the influence of any one person or institution. The United
States had been particularly fortunate in that the early leaders in botany had
been men with broad backgrounds able and willing to accept new ideas and the
expansion of the science beyond their immediate aims. While specifically cen-
tered, botany had progressed rapidly along a central theme of exploratory
taxonomy. As the pattern of collecting began to alter, the number of taxono-
mists working in systematics grew. Each maintained his own working herbarium.
From these expanding collections came the diffusion of botanical effort away
from one center. The Smithsonian Institution had been founded in 1846. It
housed a collection which had little active use. The migrations of the plants
from the Wilkes Expedition have been well catalogued. Even such a nucleus
did not early lead to the establishment of an active taxonomic group in Wash-
ington.

In 1870, the Arnold Arboretum became a part of the Harvard University
botanical empire, adding another facet to the taxonomic work under way at the
Gray and Farlow herbaria and the experimental work of Goodale of the Botani-
cal Museum. Charles Sprague Sargent (1841-1927) gave the initial impetus
to the new collection of living woody material with its accompanying herbarium.
The Arnold Arboretum soon became the American focal point for exploration
for horticultural material. As the horticultural horizon had now shifted toward
Asia, the new institution developed into the American leader in temperate Old
World botany, progressing from living plants to specimens on which identifica-
tions could be based, much as botany had begun in America more than one
hundred years before.

A CENTURY OF BOTANY IN AMERICA 23

The last decade saw the final dissolution of any central repository for Ameri-
can botanical collections. The collections of Engelmann became a part of the
Shaw Garden at St. Louis, a project modeled after Kew Gardens in England.
William Trelease (1857-1945) successfully took charge of the collections and
taxonomic work. During the 1890's three large institutions had their start. The
United States National Herbarium finally became a true national repository
and center for government-sponsored taxonomic research. Nathaniel Lord Brit-
ton (1859-1934) was one of the founders of the New York Botanical Garden
which, by arrangement with Columbia University, took over the care of the
Torrey herbarium and taxonomic work in the New York area. The Field
Columbian Museum was established in 1894 as a permanent memorial to the
Chicago Exposition, receiving its first collections from the exhibits sent from all
over the world.

With the diffusion of taxonomy into many areas, there arose the inevitable
clashes of opinion. While Rafinesque had been the rebel of early American
botany, he had been accorded little recognition, and he has left his mark primarily
in nomenclatural muddles occasioned by the short-sighted destruction of many of
his specimens. As Gray relinquished his place at the head of botanical taxonomy,
Edward Lee Greene (1843-1915) became the renegade botanist who needled the
more staid taxonomists working on the identification of western plants. From a
fund of field observations and an adherence to an older species concept, Greene
progressed to species naming with little reference to the overall relationships
involved and without much insight into the processes by which the species had
come about. His place in American botany is important not so much because
of the validity of his species (these have frequently proven to be infraspecific
variants) but because he and other individualists brought about a keen self-
inspection by the classical taxonomists. The darts of Greene could only logically
be turned by the weight of studied fact, not by emotional answers. Another
of the individualists was Marcus Eugene Jones (1852-1934) whose botanical
efforts were of higher calibre than those of Greene. By his sharp criticism of the
work of others, he drew much fire, but, like Greene, he became a needle to prick
the conscience of many coworkers. Needless to say, he and Greene were almost
diametrically opposed in their contributions to the progress of western botany.

Another change was occurring in American botany. DeCandolle had drawn
up a set of rules governing botanical nomenclature for presentation to the
congress meeting at Paris in 1867. The American botanists were not represented,
and portions of the rules were not acceptable to them. The leadership of Britton
in botanical nomenclature to America resulted in the adoption of the “ Ameri-
ean” code at Rochester in the later years of the 19th century. The American
group favored a strict priority and the designation of types. For the first time
in American botany all of the workers in the field of taxonomy had a set pro-
cedure to follow in relegating names to synonomy and in fixing the identity of

24 BARTONIA

new species. So long as the problems of nomenclature had passed through one
central figure, first Torrey and, later, Gray, a coherent pattern was possible.
When the number of institutions and botanists became too large to look to a
single person for guidance, the problem of placing nomenclature on a _ basis
acceptable to all was acute. The early workers pointed up the great amount
of redundancy in the field in their constant efforts to equate specimens with the
names proposed by one or another of the early botanists who had published
widely on American plants. One of Greene’s problems in his relationship with
Gray was the pique he felt at submitting his notes and material to Gray for
comparison to avoid duplication of nomenclature (see Rodgers, 1944, page 254).
A code of botanical ethics had developed which included recognition of priority,
but an individual could ignore this if he so chose. Effectively, each man settled
his problems according to the dictates of his own working method and the criti-
cisms of his contemporaries. It was to be many years before the better features
of both the European and American rules would be combined and taxonomists
throughout the world would agree on a single set of working principles. Benjamin
Lincoln Robinson (1864-1935), succeeding Watson at the Gray Herbarium, was
to follow the tradition of cooperation with the European botanists which had
characterized the early phases of American botany. Followers of Britton, Per
Axel Rydberg (1860-1931) in western, John Kunkel Small (1869-1938) in south-
eastern, Henry Hurd Rusby (1855-1940) in South American botany and many
other associates and contemporaries followed the American code. With time,
even this dichotomy in American taxonomy has disappeared.

By the end of the 19th century, American botanical science had begun to
graduate from the primary phase of pigeon-holing new taxa to the more precise
work of consolidating the many entities into recognizable, workable groupings.
Monography had begun in the days of Schweinitz on a limited scale. The vast
accumulations of collections illustrating variation and distribution were now
available so that this work could be presented in a more finished form. The
synopses of Gray and Engelmann paved the way to fuller consideration of the
genera found in North America. Monographie work and synopses presented be-
fore the impact of Darwin’s “ Origin” were limited by the concept of Divine
creation. Yet, 1859 cannot be taken as the starting date for a new concept of
speciation, for much pioneer work had to be done to elucidate the processes and
mechanisms by which evolution functioned. While a new idea had been pre-
sented, it was to be many years after the turn of the century before it could be
practically applied as a measure of the taxa.

The earliest American botanical center had long been quiescent when Gray
became the acknowledged leader in American botany. While specimens were
added, and some identification was carried on by Elias Durand, it wasn’t until
John Howard Redfield (1815-1895) became curator that the collections of the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia were mounted and the herbarium

A CENTURY OF BOTANY IN AMERICA 25

once more put on an active basis. Many of the western collections would not
have been deposited in Philadelphia had it not been for another group of Ameri-
can botanists. These men are largely unknown to the botanists of today except
as occasional collectors or donors of material. During the 1800’s many persons
who could not indulge in the active naming of specimens spent their funds and
time accumulating large collections of specimens. Subsidizing the work of col-
lectors by subscribing for sets of plant collections became a hobby which was
particularly pronounced around the Philadelphia area. One by one, as the as-
semblers passed away, the collections came into a permanent repository at the
Academy herbarium. One of the better known collections was that of C. W.
Short of Kentucky which came to Philadelphia because the first recipient was
unable to care for it. Short had published and corresponded regularly with
Torrey, Gray and others so that he is well known to present-day systematists.
But the collections of Gross, Williamson, Jackson, Rau, Garber, C. E. Smith,
Ruth and others now nearly forgotten provided the venerable Philadelphia her-
barium with the vouchers it would otherwise have missed during the western
exploratory period in American botany.

Summary

The history of American botany from 1800 to 1900 is a story of radical
changes in philosophy. From the concept of primary creation of rigid, in-
variable species to the plasticity of species within an evolutionary concept, from
lack of integrated nomenclature and individual foibles in description to widely
accepted codes, from scanty data and loosely handled specimens to permanently
secured vouchers with accurate information; this is all part of the American
botanical heritage. The early search for the useful and the ornamental with
supplementary dried material for identification, was succeeded by the quest for
new species, and, finally, by the effort to more fully understand the complexities
of the American flora. By the end of the 19th century, American botany had
erown so large that it had split its breeches in two directions. Taxonomists
worked primarily on collections from the wild, divorcing themselves as completely
as possible from horticulture where the discipline had had its beginnings, horti-
culture becoming, as it were, the stepchild. Furthermore, the working botanists
separated into two factions over nomenclature ; the one group remained conserv-
ative, and followed the lead of the Europeans and their codes, the other group
sponsored radical innovations. American botany had expanded considerably
from bare identification to monography, from primary taxonomy to morphology,
physiology, ecology and still other fields.

Though herbarium specimens had at times been mishandled, according to our
present standards, enough were preserved for our use. We have only to make
allowances for the occasional mistakes to realize that we owe our present stability

26 BARTONIA

in botanical taxonomy to the pioneers who had to grow into the ideas which we
now acknowledge as mandates. The old collections, however, still provide the
nomenclatural information basic to all of the new developments in botanical
science.

REFERENCES

Following the general references used in the preparation of this paper, works concerning
individuals are listed in alphabetical order under the name of the principal subject

General References
meen te J.H. Some American botanists of former days. Journ. N. Y. Bot. Gard. 10: 177-
1909.

Berin whl G. M. The — herbarium. Amer. Journ. Pharm. 66, no. 5. 1894.

Blankinship, J. W. A century of botanical exploration in eee. 1805-1905. ‘Collectors,
herbaria and bates: Mont. Agric. Coll. Sci. Stud. Bot 1-31... 1905.

Britten, J. “pe a! S. Boulger. A biographical index of ee Butish and Irish botanists.

. Lon 1931.

Chardon, C.E. Los naturalistas en la America latina. I. Ciudad Trujillo. ia

De Candolle, A. P. Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis, ete. vol. 1830.

Eastw oo x Early bocaaical explorers on the Pacific coast and the trees they Seiad there.
Quart. Calif. Hist. Soe : 1-12.

Elliott, *S. A sketch of the botany of South Sect and Georgia. Charleston. 1821.

Ewan, C . Rocky Mountain naturalists. Denve
suse se . Some early botanists of the Maisie oot Philosophical Society. Proc. Amer.
il. Soe.

1. 1942.

ae. me historical aspects of plant taxonomy. Rhod. 44: 21-43.

Gager, C. Ss. ‘Bot tanic gardens of the world. Materials for a history. ed. 2 Anak. Bot.
Gard. Ree. 27: 151-406. 1938.

Gee, W. South Carolina botanists: biography and bibliography. Bull. Univ. So. Car. no. 72.
1918. (Typed copy in library, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila.

Geiser, S. W. Naturalists of the frontier. So. Meth. Univ. 1937.
Gray, A. Plantae Wrightianae Texano-Mexicanae, etc. Part I. Smithson. Contrib. Knowl.
no: 3.1 Part I mithson. Contri q

; i 0. 5,
—_———. First lessons in botany and vegetable physiology. New hae 1857.
Haskell, D. C. The United States Exploring Expedition, 1838-1842, and its publications,

1874. New York. 42.
aang a oe a iggy of Philadelphia and their work. Philadelphia. 1899.
\f ot. no. 18 30-1935.
Lindow. Ais iieatiee: ee the natural system at Rigo § etc. First American edition by
J. Torrey. New York. 1831. (Presentation ¢ oL. von Pecunia )
Macowan, P. and H. Bolus. Catalogue of pr he tin — papers relating to South Africa.
Part 1, botany. Trans. So. Afr. Phil. Soc. 2: —187. 2

i T. The plants of Lewis and Clark’s seth: oe across the continent, 1804-1806.
Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila. 50: 12-49. 1898.
Merrill, ‘E. D. The botany of Cook's voyages. Chron. Bot. 14: 1064.
Beige ts E. J. A short history of the Academy of Staal Sciences a ad Ne Philadel-
pal

— E. BW. oO collectors of the Philadelphia local area. Bart. 21: 38-57. 1941;

wee seg e botanical collections of the American Philosophical Society and the

Academy of g faites: Sciences of Philadelphia. Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. 94: 137-151. 1950.

ame M. Be fe Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc.
4. 19

Porter, T. C. The Pennsylvania-German in the fie'd of the natural sciences. Proc. Pa.-Germ.
boc. 6: 1-15. 18

seers RR The Columbian Institute for the Promotion of Arts and Sciences. Bull. U. 5.
Nat. Mus. no. 101. 1917.

Rodgers, A. D. TEt. Plt: ican botany, 1873-1892. Decades of transition. Princeton. 1944.

A CENTURY OF BOTANY IN AMERICA 27

Ruschenberger, W. 8S. W. A notice of the origin, progress, and present condition of the
Academ y of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Philadelphia. 1860.

Rydberg, P. of Scandinavians who see foe ibuted to the knowledge of the flora of North
America. oo Libr. Publ. no. 6. 190

Standley, P. C. Trees and shrubs of Mixico. Contrib. U. S. Nat. Herb. 23: 9-19. 1920.

Urban, I. hoe ‘camiaphiode peregrinatorum Indiae Scouts botanicorum. Symb. Ant.
: 14-14 1902.

Washington perr emy of Sciences, Journal. Vol. 44, no. 11. 1954. —— to Lewis and
Clark, with a number of articles evaluating a mean of 1804-18

Biographical References
William Baldwin
Darlin — W. Reliquiae Baldwinianae, ete. Philadelphia. 1843.
Joseph Barrat
Wea ret iy C. A. Old-time Connecticut botanists and their herbaria. Rhod. 23: 121-125.

siete Smith Bar
Bar toy EL, Brief sketches of some collectors of specimens in the Barton herbarium.

pe t.9:3
a F. W. The elder Barton—his plant collection and the mystery of his floras.
Bart. 9: 17-34. 1
Smith, om F. Benjamin Smith Barton, an American naturalist. Univ. of Pa. 1916.
John Bartra
Barnhart, 3H 3i gnificance of John Bartram’s work to botanical and horticultural knowl-
edge 4-34. Sa

—__—_.. Bartram bibliogr: raphy. Bart. Spec. issue: 51-67. 193
Darlington, W. Memorials a John Bartram and Humphry Marchal, ete. Philadelphia.

William a ay
Harper, F. The Vultur sacra of William Bartram. The Auk 53: 381-392. 1936.
Merril, E. D. In defense of the validity of William Bartram’s binomials. Bart. 23: 10-

The work of William, son of John Bartram. Bart. Spec. issue: 1-4. 19381.
Cid: ‘Boatharn
Jackson, B. D. George Bentham. London and New York. 1906.
John hedbery
A ans sfield. H. Plant collecting in Missouri. Liverpool Bull. 1: 17-31. 195
R A sketch of the life of John Br: adbury including his uapublished correspond-
nce with Thomas Jefferson. Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. 68: 133-150. 1929
ga sabe, Lord Bri
e, M. A. Nathaniel Lord Britton. Journ. N. Y. Bot. Gard. 35: 169-180. 1934.
Alvan cate Chay
Ki me "4 W. "Reminiscences of Alvan Wentworth Chapman. Journ. N. Y. Bot. Gard. 22:

Moses Ashley Cartis
Diehl, W

_W. The — os the Wilkes Expedition. Mycol. 13: 38-41. 1921
Shear, C. L. and N. :? ens. The mycological work of Moses Ashley Curtis. Mycol.
li: 181-201.
See also. Henry W. Hiv enel,
a Coulter

eh. R. The travels of Thomas Coulter, 1824-1827. Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 33: 65—
uF

70.
William Darlington
Sharpless, W. fe Oy, William Darlington, physician and botanist. Bart. 14: 1-13. 1932.
Charles Robert Darwin.
Harshberger, J. W. Charles Darwin as a botanist. Amer. Journ. Pharm. 1909: 342-351.

MacFarlane. J. M. Charles Darwin. Three appreciations. Philadelphia. 1909.
A. Charles Sane: Smithson. Report 1909: 431-452. 1910
David Bates ; Encl :
Torrey. J. Notice of the plants collected by Douglass, etc. Amer. Journ. Sci. (1818) 4
"56-69. 1821.

28 BARTONIA
Elias Durand.
ase, A. The Durand herbarium. Bart. 17: 40-45. 1935.
Durand, E. Plantae Prattenianae Califernienc. Ete. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 3:
855.
———.. Plantae Kaneanae Groenlandicae. Ete. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 3: 179-
204. 1
See « sketch of the Beco! of the basin of the Great Salt Lake of Utah. Trans.
r, Phil. Soc. 11: 155-18 860.
Penacll co W. Eli as Durand os his association with the Academy of Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia. Bart. 17: 33-39. 1935.
See also, romagg tine Samuel Rafinesque.
George Engelma
Tr - se, WwW. er A. Gray, ed. Botanical works of the late George Engelmann. Cam-
idge ci re
William Gilson
Clin cs William Gilson Farlow. Soa ea 10: 1-8. 1920.
beak C.L. William Gilson Farlow ead. Arts & Sci. 57: 484-491. 1922
Taylor, W. R. William Gilso apne ann ‘of picakagien! research in America,
1844-1919. oe 2: 53-70. 5.
John ge Fremon
: “Botanical explorers of Colorado—III. John Charles Fremont. Trail & Tim-
Tae 1943.
Asa Gray.
radiate List of the writings of Asa Gray.
y, J. L., ed. Letters of Asa Gray. Boston.
Joauk “Datton Hooker
ac a he M. The late Sir Joseph Hooker. Old Penn Rev.
—— n, B. L. Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817-1911). Proce.
957-266. 1928.
Edwin ee
wan, J. Botanical explorers of Colorado—II.
267. gt

Amer, Journ, Sci. 36: append. 1888.
94.

1912. :
poe ex Arts & Sci.

Edwin James. Trail & Timberline no.
Marcus roti ey
Ewan, J. Hotaiied explorers of Colorado—VI. Marcus Eugene Jones. Trail & Timber-
th e no. = 107-113. 1945.
— Mask
SF seme: Bartram.
Aah “Micha
runet, 0. ‘Notice sur les plantes de Michaux et sur son voyage au Canada, ete. Quebec.
Mae A. Flora boreali-americana, etc. Paris. 1803. (Copy belonging to L. D. von
ch Z.)
France ae André Michat
Dur E. Bingraphicol memoir of the late Francois André Michaux. Trans. Amer.
Phil. Soc. 11: xvii-xxviil. :
Histoire des arbres forestiers de l’Améri ique septentrionale, etc. Paris.
Ezra Michener.
Shear. = oe nd N. E. Stevens. The botanical work of Ezra Michener. Bull. Torr. Bot.
Clu : 547-558. 1917.
Gotthilf Per Ernest Muhle nberg.
Hitchcock, A. e grasses of the Muhlenberg herbarium. Bart. 14: 27-52. 1932.
Mawes J. Bar “Gothilf Heinrich Ernst Miihlenberg als ae Ree sag gSesing Rundschau.

Merrill, fe D and §. Y. Hu. Work and publications of Henry Masrayt ag with special
atten ne ‘e unrecorded or incorrectly recorded binomials.

Muhlenberg, G E. catalogue of the hitherto known nares and natur: alized plants

of North America. Lancaster. 13

Thomas Nuttall. :
Beidlemann, R. abe The 1818-1820 Arkansas journey of Thomas Nuttall. Ark. Hist.

uart. Autumn, 1956.
Durand, E. Bi eathice notice of the late Thomas Nuttall. Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. 7:
297-315. 1860.

A CENTURY OF BOTANY IN AMERICA 29

Graustein, J. E. Nuttall’s travels into the old northwest. Chron. Bot. 14: 1-88. 1951.
Pennell, F. W. - English obituary account of Thomas Nuttall. Bart. 19: 51-54. 1988.
+, Travels and apiagheirs collections of Thomas Nuttall. Bart. 18: 1-51. 1936.
satan W. H. Be ome facts in the life of Thomas Nuttall. . 62: 389-391. 1925.
nall, R. R. Nuttall’s reas collections in southern Delaware. Bart. 20: 1-6. 1939.
Sune Bonsai Parish.
L. Sa ane Bonsall Parish. Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot. 16: 427-444. 1932.
Charles Cheatorher Par
Ewan, J. tanical godless of Colorado—I. Charles Christopher Parry. Trail & Tim-
1941.

berlin = Ang 268.
Charles Picker
Rus ghewiasene W.S. W. Notice of the late Dr. Pickering. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila.
30: 166-170. 1878.
Thomas Conrad Porter.
ritton, N. L. Thomas Conrad Porter. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 28: 369-373. 1901.
wan, "i : Botanical cee of Colorado—V. Thomas Conrad Porter. Trail & Timber-
i 305: 55-5 944

e
Porter, T. C. and J. M. Coulter. Synopsis of the flora of Colorado. U.
Mis = Publ. no. 4. 1874.
Cyrus Gurnsey Pringle.
i Life and works of Cyrus Gurnsey Pringle. Burlington. 1936.
Predeviek Traugott Pursh.
MeVaugh, A study of the plant tamer ER made by ee Pursh during a trip to
New York and Vermont in the year 1807. Bart. 17: 24-32. 1935.
Pursh, F. T. Flot moet sco iesee etc. ed. 2. London. rer
Conmantnk Samuel Rafine
Merrill, E. D. A gener nally. overlooked Rafinesque paper. Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. 86: 72-
90. 1942.

S. Dept. Int.

= EL sore ty — from the standpoint of world botany. Proc. Amer.
Phil. Soc. 87: 110-11 55

ee a ee ee with notes on his publications in the Harvard libraries.
Harv. Libr, Bull. 2: 5-21. 1948.

Pennell, F. W. The life and work of Rafinesque. Transylv. Coll. Bull. 15: 10-70. 1942.

ee 7 i 3-46. 1944.

—___——. ne
Quatre, H. Rafinesque: a concrete case. Arch. Bot. 24: 3-18. 1948. (H. Quatre is the
nom de plume of Leon Croizat).
Henry hi “Raven el.
Stev N. Sa Two southern botanists and the Civil War. Sci. Month. 1919: 157-166.
1919.

______ The mycological work of Henry W. Ravenel. Isis 18: 133-149. 1932.
John Howard Redfie Id.
Meehan, T. John nerey Redfield. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 47: 292-301. 1895.
Benjamin Unrate Robins
L. Biaerephioal memoir of Benjamin Lincoln Robinson, 1864-1935. Nat.
Acad. Sci. bbe Mem. 17: 305-330.
ee en arin Linvols Robinson (1864-1935). Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts & Sci. 71:
539-542. 1937.
Henry Hurd Rusby.
Moldenke, H. As iesels Hurd Rusby. Chron. Bot. 7: 230-231. 1942.
Charles peepee Sar
ehder, A. Charles Sprague Sargent. Journ. Arn. Arb. 8: 69-86. 1927.
Lewis David von Schwein:

Arthur, J. he cearetes of Schweinitzian and other early descriptions. Amer.
Nat _ 1883; 77-78. 1883.
and G. R. Bisby. An annotated translation of the part of Schweinitz’s two
papers ne ing the rusts of North America. Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. 57: 173-292. 1918.
Barnhart, J. H. The botanical correspondents 0 of Schweinitz. Bart. 16: 19-36. 1934.
Benedict, D. M. pe is David von Schweinitz, the mycologist. Bart. 16: 12-14. 1934.
Schweinitz’ botanical eheay: Bart. 16: 14-19.

Johnson, W. R. A memoir of the late Lewis David von Schweinitz, P. D. Philadelphia.
1835.

30 BARTONIA

Keating, W. H. Narrative of an expedition to the source of St. Peter’s River, etc. Phila-
delphia. 1824. With an appendix by Schweinitz on the Say ser collections.

Pennell, F. W. The botanist Schweinitz and his herbarium. Bar

Siog ee D.P. On the dates of publication of Schweinitz’s sy seach Mycol. 36: 526-531.

Sshatert P. O. Schweinitz’ collecting ground in North Carolina. Bart. 16: 8-12. 1934
1D: Flora Sa

Schweinitz, Le von. Flor lemitana onesie plantas et vegetabilia, ete. 1821. Manu-
script in the librar ae Aaah of Natural acest of Philadelphia

Eide ce cet sae Haar (of the Schireinitz ‘herbar m), with a list of contributors Manu-
script, ‘library of t cademy o ral Ee of Phi lade

elp
Shear, C. L. and N. E. Soyeuse. oo a ihe Schweinitz collections of fungi. I. Mycol.
9: oo 1917. II. Mycol. 9: 333-344. 1917.
—__—__ The correspondence of Schweinitz and Tor y. Mem. Torr. Bot. Club. 16:
119-300, 1921. Includin ng, anika ito Ho bio abhieal notices of persons mentioned
ee ee correspondence. pp. 290-300.
Char — Wilkin Shor
S: D. Piceraphical sketch of Charles Wilkins Short. Philadelphia. 1865.
Wilhelm - ti Suksdorf.
arter, E. A. Suksdorf, pioneer botanist. Amer.-Germ. Rev. 8: ll- 1942.
eber aug A. The botanical collections of Wilhelm N. Suksdorf, sand Abed Res. Stud.
State Coll. Wash. 12: 51-121. 1944
William Starling Sullivant
dgers, A. D., III. “’Noble Fellow” William Starling Sullivant. New York. 1940.

Anonymous. Death of Professor Torrey. N. Y. Observer. mice 13, 1873.
————.. Death of Dr. Torrey. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club. 1873.
Gray, A. John Torrey: « tieurapbical notice. Amer. Journ. Sci & Arts 5: 1-11. 1873.
Eile G. Inaugural aitecs: Bull. Torr. Bot. Club. 4: 26-39. 3.
also, — David von Schweini tz.
William Trelea
Buchholz, a T. William Trelease, 1857-1945. Sci. 101: 192-193. 1945.
Thomas da Ite
Max a We ‘R. Thomas Walter, botanist. Smithson. Mise. = a no. 8. 1936.
Walter, T. Flora Caroliniana, ete. London. 1788. Reprint.

PLATE 1

of the continent. Both Frederick Pursh and Thomas Nuttall found profitable collecting in
the wilds of the eastern mountains.

ower Map. By the mid 19th century, when the centers of American botany had shifted
to John Torrey i be New York and Asa Gray in pia a flood of specimens inundated the

— fro e area west of the Mississippi River. The magnitude of the collections
may be urmised peak the cobweb of exploration routes sa hice the western portion o
United St: tate

Appendix

As an aid to botanists who must struggle with the historically important 19th
century American collections, a selection of samples of penmanship has been pre-
pared. Some recent botanists whose handwriting is better known, have been
included in the hope that it will assist in the identification of some of the numer-
ous unsigned annotations found on the sheets in many herbaria. The penmanship
of several European botanists has been included because of their important work
on American plants, and their frequent exchanges of specimens with American
botanists. These samples were compiled largely from correspondence in the
library of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

PLATS. 1.

Nw bare
TK SA
ENG

\ — eee
WZ iS S\Sara (¢

7 a ee fs
Nea RO I:
ara aves iN j
pil, ,

pues

PLATE 2.

J. W. Bailey

B. 8. Barton

William Baldwin

George Bentham

Joseph Barratt

Jacob Bigelow

T. S. Brandegee

aoe M. A. Curtis

N. L. Britton

G. E. Davenport

A. W. Chapman

Chester Dewey

PLATE 4.

J. B. Ellis

W. G. Farlow

D. C. Eaton

E. M. Fries

Beas Vie
17, 27 Ver 3 pcafe phy .
— : 7. uf La Le ay. _ : .

big ae oes Conn fem rrr Tt ss ate we a " : my

George Engelmann

Asa Gray (about 1830)

PLATE 5.

R. K. Greville

W. J. Hooker

KE. L. Greene

T. P. James

W. H. Harvey

M. E. Jones

PLATE 6,

Leo Lesquereux

Thomas Nuttall

André Michaux

Elias Michener

Wilham Oakes

H. G. Muhlenberg

8S. T. Olney

PLATE 7.

C. H. Persoon

B. L. Robinson

C. 8. Rafinesque

C. 8. Sargent

H. W. Ravenal

J. H. Redfield

L. D. von Schweinitz

/ oe :

Ce: Mat: on
ce Za : he ae, -

eee FT Fr ‘n aber Lee

fran ke ee .
es
Wa; pete KF eer ge oie
re is

a Md

CR wey
a Poet, Lv nt

é of cere ah fo

tena:
- Pd

PLATE 8.

C. F. Schwigrichen

John Torrey

C. W. Short

Edward Tuckerman

W.S. Sullivant

Sereno Watson

Our Dwarf Bindweeds

Epcar T. WHERRY

University of Pennsylvania

The only North American dwarf bindweed which came to his attention was
named by Linnaeus! Convolvulus spithamaeus. His specimen ” shows oblong
leaves with cuneate to truncate base, and although the young growth is rather
pubescent, the mature leaves are but sparsely so. ee

In the course of his visit to Quebec, Michaux * collected a taxon differing in
the leaves being auriculate and the pubescence more lasting, and named it Con-
volvulus stans. This was reduced to C. spithamaeus var. stans by Fogelberg.’ A
related plant from the north-central plains was named by Greene *® C. camporum,
but it differs so little from that of Michaux as to be deemed a variant unworthy
of nomenclatorial recognition.

When Pursh © explored the shale barrens around Warm Springs, West Vir-
ginia, he observed another member of the group, characterized by narrowly ob-
long auriculate leaves retaining copious pubescence to maturity, and named it
Calystegia tomentosa. His species epithet can not be used in Convolvulus be-
cause previously applied in that genus to a wholly different taxon, so the writer |
renamed the shale-barren one Convolvulus purshianus. In the supplement to his
Flora Pursh * recognized the existence further south of still another taxon, and
named it Calystegia catesbeiana. Gray considered this unworthy of species
status, and since it showed a tendency to twine, classed it as Convolvulus sepium
var. pubescens (although it is by no means always especially pubescent).

In a herbarium study of these plants, Tryon ! accepted only two taxa, Con-
volvulus spithamaeus, typical [var.] and var. catesbeianus. The unique shale-
barren endemic was classed as ‘an intermediate between” the two, and not
awarded nomenclatorial recognition. In the 8th edition of Gray’s Manual Fer-
nald™ agreed with this viewpoint, but, as the rules require, transferred Gray’s
varietal epithet to replace catesbeianus.

Field trips on which search for these plants was emphasized, extending from
Minnesota to Quebee and to Georgia, have led the writer to favor a different

1 Species Plantarum: 158, 1753.

* Illustrated in Rhodora 41: facing p. 416, 1939.

3 Flora Bor.-Amer. 1: 136, 1803.

4 Trans Wisc. Acad. Sci. 30: 24, 1937.

5 Pittonia 3: 328, 1898.

6 Flora Amer. Sept. 1: 143, 1814.

7 Proc. Pa. Acad. Sci. 7: 163, 1933.

8 Flora Amer. Sept. 2: 729, 1814.

® Man. Bot., ed. 5: 376, 1867.

10 Rhodora 41: 415, 1939.

11 Man. Bot., ed. 8: 1181, 1950.

32

OUR DWARF BINDWEEDS 33

interpretation. In his experience four taxa can be recognized by habit and
foliage, readily while travelling on foot, and with fair certainty from a moving
automobile. As their habitats and ranges, though overlapping to some extent, are
on the whole dissimilar, they are now considered worthy of subspecies segrega-
tion, and the following combinations are accordingly proposed: Convolvulus
spithamaeus L. subspecies:

a-spithamaeus Wherry ;'* the original taxon.

catesbeianus (Pursh) Wherry; Calystegia catesbeiana Pursh, loc. cit.

purshianus Wherry; Convolvulus purshianus Wherry, loc. cit.

stans (Michaux) Wherry; Convolvulus stans Michx., loc. cit.

KEY TO SUBSPECIES OF CONVOLVULUS SPITHAMAEUS

A. Stem gas for more than half its length; petiole often half as long as leaf- oni Pike
~ to be ovate and cordate-auriculate, and varies markedly in edinin: wh* range, Fla.

oe a ee le we ere eee ee ee ies WR ei ee ee AOS Oe Se 8 eee 88 8 ee ee Ow

tesbeian nus.

~
LS
=
sic
H
ae
oo.
oO
“
°
baa
bo]
—_
°
oR
=
+
4
ne
=|
it
|=,
os
>
°
3
—
Z
-~
=
©
5
jm ag
2
ia
aad
_s
=
is 7]
=
ie")
i=)
as
a
ioe
Bo)
oO
=e
fo)
—
fa)
&
n
i=
~
—
=
<>
—
ia)
7]
mn
=
+s
~
=)
=
=

as lon
B. Mature pking sp Batt to moderately pubescent; leaf-blade tending to be gags ee
or elliptic, padi cuneate, truncate, or obscurely auriculate; range, Tenn. to s
2. napithenendl

B’. Mature foliage copiously pubescent; leaf-blade cordate-auriculate: C, C’.
CG: af- pera tending to be narrowly oblong and petiole less than 1/3 as long as pent range,
Ee ees ee ere re wie wa ee Pees Sila ye eae rshianus.
(O4 Leaf-blade tending to be broadly oblong and petiole 1/3 as long as blade; a tos
per

a catesbeianus is regarded as the most primitive of the group, in that
it retains considerable of the tendency to twine which characterizes the presump-
tive ancestor, Convolvulus sepium. It grows on gravelly or loamy slopes over
both limy and siliceous rocks from the Gulf coast to the Appalachians, Florida
to Indiana and Virginia.

Its descendant subspecies a-spithamaeus occupies similar habitats over a
somewhat more northern range, Tennessee to Wisconsin, southernmost Canada
and Maine. It has an uncanny ability to appear suddenly on fresh road cuts and
fills, presumably from fragments of its rhizomes brought in as “ hitch-hikers ”’ on
earth-moving equipment.

The one designated subspecies purshianus is a striking member of the endemic
flora of the Appalachian “ shale-barrens,” south-facing ledges of hard Devonian
shale developed especially along the Virginia-West Virginia border. It is, how-
ever, not limited to these barrens, and locally spreads into areas of softer shale or
clay-loam, northeast as far as central Pennsylvania.

Subspecies stans is the most northern of the group. It grows especially on
heaps of glacial till and alluvial gravel, but also invades prairie grassland. Its
range is from Iowa and Minnesota eastward to Nova Scotia, overlapping that of
ssp. purshianus at latitude 41° in Pennsylvania.

12 bias writer favors designating lower a including types of higher ones by the
prefi Workers who prefer stricter conformity with current rules ~s sap! delete the
prefix oud the author’s name to obtain the isla anonymous tautonym

Notes on Color, Lobing and Freaks in Phlox subulata

WALTER AINSWORTH

Pontiac, Michigan

The following observations were made on Phlox subulata L. growing on what
are known as the “ Unionville Barrens”. These barrens are characterized by
serpentine rock and are situated 1.6 miles northeast of Unionville in Chester Co.,
Pa. They center at 39° 54’ 41” North and 75° 42’ 54.5” West. The barrens were
visited on May 21 and 22, 1950, a year in which spring was late. The frequency
as well as the intervening threat of rain greatly restricted the possible number of
observation dates.

At first sight the flowers on the barrens seem to have corolla lobes of almost
infinite variety, but actual measurement shows them to stay between a “ rounded ”
extreme which is 544 mm. long by 7 mm. wide and a “ narrow ” one 10 mm. long
by 6 mm. wide. In no case was one found less than 5 mm. long or 5 mm. wide.
Measurements of length were made from the edge of the throat of the tube to the
base of the notch at the center of the outside edge of the lobe. This notch ranges
in depth from 0.5 mm. to 2.0 mm., varying somewhat even on the same plant.

As is well known, this phlox presents great variation in the color and pattern
of the markings on the corolla lobes. By far the most common color, a bluish
pink, was well represented by J6 on plate 43 of the Maerz and Paul Dictionary
of Color. A less common color type, of the distinctly red hue, was matched by
K6 on plate 43.

In any exact studies of the color of the lobes, the element of fading will have
to be given special attention. This point forces itself upon the observer as he
notices plants on which several of the flowers are white, while the rest are a pale
pink; or other cases in which the pink area of the lobe is completely bordered by
white around its edge. The question then arises, how much of a factor is fading
and does it have a pattern?

Another notable feature is the great variation in “ eye-spotting ” at the base
of the corolla lobe. In the usual case, there is a small white area a few milli-
meters wide at the base of the lobe, of which there is a “ V ” shaped mark of a dark
cherry color. (Matching this with the color guide is difficult due to its small
size.). Variations in this usual type of spotting noted were: entire lobe pink, with
no white at base; entire lobe pink with a small much redder diffuse patch at its
base; and lobe pink, the white “ eye” at base bearing two small delicately violet
spots. Of particular interest was the occurrence of pairs of flowers, one of whose
lobes has the white “ eye ” while the other flower’s lobes haven’t a trace of white
at the base. Among such pairs, those lobes having the “ eye’ spot also bore the
dark cherry “ V ”, while those lobes not having any white had the redder diffuse
area at the base. The presence of these ‘‘ white vs. non-white” pairs of flowers
on the same plant is very striking.

34

NOTES ON COLOR, LOBING AND FREAKS IN PHLOX SUBULATA 35

One possible explanation of this is that the dark cherry “ V” pigment gradu-
ally spreads through the immediately surrounding white tissue. The occurrence
of the dissimilar pairs would lend some support to this idea, but, on the other
hand, their relative infrequency—about 1 pair per hundred flowers—would indi-
cate that the matter needs further investigation.

In the course of the present observations, in which about 2,000 flowers were
examined, there appeared quite a few flowers whose corollas had less or more than
5 lobes of the usual type. By actual count, 24 flowers were 4-lobed; 36 were 6-
lobed; 6 were 7-lobed and 1 was 8-lobed. The fact that each of these super-
numerary lobes had distinctive markings at its base established them as real
lobes and not erratic fragments of normal lobes. Flowers containing more than
6 lobes were not radially symmetrical, the supernumerary lobes being set at an
angle and crowded. Usually there are about three flowers per shoot in bloom
simultaneously and where other than 5-lobing was involved, at least one of the
flowers had the normal 5-lobing. One remarkable plant had flowers with respec-
tively 5, 6 and 7 lobes!

Especially interesting were some “ freaks ”, the so-called hose-in-hose type of
flower, in which one corolla projects out of another. Three plants bearing such
freaks were noted. On the first of these, a corolla having only 3 lobes was in-
serted in a normal 5-lobed one. On the second plant were two freaks: one with a
4-lobed corolla projecting from a 5-lobed; a second having a 4-lobed corolla in-
serted in another of 4 lobes. The third plant was remarkable in having 3 freaks:
two of them showed a 5-lobed corolla stuck in another of 5 lobes, while the third
had a 3-lobed corolla inserted in a 5-lobed one. These freaks were left undis-
turbed, with the thought that anatomical investigation of the same individuals
might be undertaken at a later date.

As possible pollinating agents, three different types of insect visitors were
seen: a large, black butterfly of the swallow-tail group; a small, black flying
beetle; and a large, black ant together with a much smaller brown one.

Bennett Bog Now a Nature Sanctuary

About 3 miles north of Cape May City—the southern tip of New Jersey—
there is a small community known for many years as Bennett, although recently
named Erma. Toward the west side of this settlement there are several depres-
sions, a few acres in extent, in which th plant life is markedly different from that
in the surrounding country; these have come to be termed in botanical literature
the Bennett Bogs.

That rare native plants occur in these areas was first noted on July 24, 1907,
by Bayard Long and the late S. 8. Van Pelt, Philadelphia botanists. On this oc-
casion the two species discovered were the Snowy Orchid, Habenaria nivea, and
the Narrow-leaved Boltonia, Boltonia asteroides variety glastifolia. Subsequent
visits by these and other botanists, both amateur and professional, disclosed the
presence of a dozen or more additional species which seemingly reach the north-
ern limit of their range at this point. The interest of these occurrences was
pointed out by Witmer Stone in his famous volume, the Plants of Southern New
Jersey, and numerous botanists, reading his account, have been led to visit ‘‘ Ben-
nett Bogs ” to see for themselves the remarkable assemblage of plants growing
there.

In a strict sense, these plant communities are not really bogs, but meadows
occupying slight depressions in a clayey substratum, which in seasons of consid-
erable rainfall accumulate water enough to become shallow ponds. Sphagnum
and other bog mosses are only sparsely developed, in a few marginal spots. Most
of the vegetation is composed of grasses and sedges, with forbs scattered among
them.

The two meadow-depressions where most of the notable plants grow seem not
to have been seriously affected by man’s activities. A hundred years ago, when
the records indicate that the water level was relatively high, the larger of the two
was known (after an owner for a time) as Teal Pond, and was a favorite site for
duck shooting, ice skating, and cutting ice for storage on local farms. When in
the course of time the sites became drier, the vegetation was annually cut for
hay. Stone remarked that this, unexpectedly, seemed not to injure the rare plants.

Man can, however, think up ways to damage or destroy spots of scientific in-
terest. Local mosquito-control commissions, visiting the place during periods of
abundant rainfall, got the mistaken idea that obnoxious mosquitoes were breed-
ing there (although actually the high acidity of the water disfavors this, the great
nuisance-producing grounds of the region being the alkaline coastal marshes).
They proceeded to dig ditches to drain away such water as did occasionally col-
lect, and this resulted in increasing the frequency of hay-cutting, and so lessening
the opportunity for seed-production on the part of the rare species.

Moreover, local naturalists reported hearing discussions of a more serious
threat. Modern communities need dumping grounds for trash, and depressions

36

MOLINIA CAERULEA AT HOME IN WAYNE COUNTY 37

situated close to highways, and seemingly producing nothing of economic interest,
are very attractive from this standpoint.

Cape May is much visited by ornithologists and other naturalists, and many
of them stay over night in Mrs. Shaffer’s rooming house at Cape May Point.
During 1948 the idea of setting aside these bog areas as a nature sanctuary was
discussed by groups there, and Mr. J. D’Arcy Northwood, then Secretary-
Treasurer of the New Jersey Audubon Society, started inquiries as to the possi-
bilities of this. During the Fall of 1949 Mr. Northwood and Mr. Robert C.
Alexander, the President of that Society, were having lunch at a restaurant at
the Airport, and were discussing the difficulty of finding who owned the bogs;
and by a fortunate chance their conversation was overheard by a man seated
nearby. He introduced himself as Mr. W. C. Pritchard, and as the owner of the
area in which they seemed to be interested. Negotiations were soon started, and
on July 3, 1950, a deed to 3.2 acres of the bog land was obtained by the Society.
As in order to round out the Sanctuary it seemed desirable to increase the area
held, and in particular to include a strip of woodland between the two major de-
pressions, further arrangements were made and on September 12, 1955, a second
purchase increased the total area to slightly over 6.5 acres.

In October, 1955, the Bennett Bog Sanctuary was formally dedicated in honor
of two eminent Cape May naturalists, Henry Walker Hand (1870-1932) and
Otway Horres Brown (1877-1946). For this achievement in conservation every
local botanist, plant geographer and nature pe enats owes a debt of grati-
tude to the New Jersey Audubon Society —E. T. \

Molinia caerulea at Home in Wayne County

Like the man who came to dinner, the grass Molina caerulea, a European
visitor, whose occurrence in Wayne County was reported in Bartonia, No. 23,
1944-45, seems destined to become a permanent member of the flora of that area.
It still flourishes over the same few acres, and with Deschampsia fleruosa, domi-
nates the vegetation of this field. The soil here has not been cultivated, nor the
land pastured for many years.

A striking characteristic of this grass is its growth in large clumps, with a root
system that defies attempts to excavate it. The root-masses are about a foot in
diameter, and support 12 to 20 culms, 30 to 40 inches high.

The farmer who owns the land says it is not worthwhile to attempt to culti-
vate the field, as the roots can be removed only with great difficulty, and then
would have to be collected into windrows and burned before the ground could be
tilled. The grass also seems too coarse for forage. In Europe the culms are re-
corded as being used in fishing villages for making ropes, and elsewhere in the
manufacture of a poor grade of broom.

This grass has been reported as introduced in the United States in several
northeastern states. This field in Scott Township, Wayne County, is the only area
in Pennsylvania where it is known to have established itself —W. L. Drx, She-
hawken, Pa.

IN MEMORIAM

piney: & TRATION omens ee June 7, 1955
Howarp W EELEINGON 62.54 00) Sue is July 3, 1955
Horace I. THompson 3200608) oc 05 July 19, 1955
CCAMPORLA. 30: WATERS i. ones July 29, 1955.
Howseen Woon, dae ove caas ores. January 18, 1956.
wie DY MERRILL 260. FS. oc. February 26, 1956.
J RUGS DEMLER 265s 6 re eG April 17, 1956.
Pewanp Fo WiLDMAN iy 03s: ek < May 6, 1956
Pieter St TAINS ee yo, June 24, 1956
DD. Watren Stecepnck .. 6. .: 25 2. October 14, 1956

J. Russell Bebler (d. 1956) was an active member of the Philadelphia Botani-
cal Club of long standing, having joined in 1919. For many years he was Horti-
culturist in the service of the Fairmount Park Commission.

Howard W. Elkinton (d. 1955) joined the Club in 1931. He was Executive
Secretary of the Carl Schurz Memorial Foundation, and was active in a number
of organizations under the sponsorship of the Society of Friends. His chief bo-
tanical interest was historical, with special reference to the local region.

Elmer D. Merrill (1876-1956), a corresponding member of the Club since
1945, was one of the world’s leading botanists. Accounts of his life and work
have appeared in many technical journals. He contributed articles to Bartonia
Nos. 23, 24, and 25.

D. Walter Steckbeck (1880-1956) joined the Club in 1925. After studying at
the West Chester State Teachers College and the University of Pennsylvania, he
taught botany in the latter for 43 years, retiring with the rank of Associate Pro-
fessor in 1952.

Robert R. Tatnall (1870-1956) became an active member of the Club in 1928
and served as its Secretary from 1932 to 1939. He took his doctor’s degree in
Physics at Johns Hopkins University, and taught this subject in various institu-
tions, becoming associated with a Philadelphia industrial firm as a consulting
physicist in 1919. At this time he returned to reside in his native city of Wil-
mington, Delaware, and renewed his studies of the local flora, which had been
inspired by his uncle, Edward Tatnall, who published a flora of Neweastle County
in 1860. Taking over the Curatorship of the Herbarium of the Society of Na-
tural History of Delaware, he developed it into an excellent collection. Though

38

IN MEMORIAM 39

suffering from “ hay fever ” due to grass pollen, he carried on extensive field work,
ultimately publishing an excellent Flora of Delaware and the Eastern Shore, in
1946. A delightful field companion, he always could see the lighter side of every
happening; and his Flora, though put through the press at the time of a serious
illness, was most carefully edited.’

Horace E. Thompson (d. 1955) joined the Club in 1920. He served for many
years as Secretary of the Western Saving Fund Society, and as hobbies included
the study of wild flowers and the culture of tropical fish.

Harry S. Tillotson (d. 1955) became an active member in 1951. He was a
specialist in photo-engraving, being employed by the Curtis Publishing Co. and
later the Beck Engraving Co. He wrote articles, mostly for juvenile magazines,
under the pen-name of Stanhope Taylor. He also made charming water color
studies of wild flowers, being especially skilful in bringing out the beauty of the
tiny florets of so-called “ weeds.” Series of these were presented to the Academy
of Natural Sciences and the Free Library of Philadelphia.

Campbell E. Waters (1872-1955) was our Corresponding Member of longest
standing, having been elected in 1904. As a youth he became interested in native
ferns, and in 1911 published an attractively written and illustrated book on these
plants. Although entering the chemical profession, and serving in that capacity
for many years at the U. S. Bureau of Standards in Washington, D. C., he re-
mained an active fern student, field botanist, and wild flower gardener.

Edward E. Wildman (1874-1956) joined the Club in 1931 and was designated
an Honorary Member in 1949. A special tribute to his memory prepared by his
long time friend Dr. William W. Cadbury appears on following pages.

Howard Wood, Jr. (1877-1956) was an active member of the Club since 1944.
For many years he served as President of the Alan Wood Steel Co., studying wild
flowers as a hobby.

re was one amusing mixup: facing page 81 there is a plate of Helonias bullata, and in
the legend reference is made to “sixty foot-high flower-heads.” It happened, however, that
the photograph was taken at such an angle as to look like a group of trees, so that the hasty
reader could readily assume that the plants were sixty feet high! Dr. Tatnall freely admitted
that this height was slightly exaggerated.

40 BARTONIA

Epwarp E. WILDMAN, Our Honorary MEMBER

In the passing of Dr. Edward Embree Wildman the world has lost a scientist
and an educator who used his talents for constructive and spiritual ends; a be-
loved and devoted friend whose gentle, understanding fellowship was always
available to young and old alike.

Edward E. Wildman was born at Salina, Ohio, on October 19th, 1874, and
died suddenly at Moorestown, N. J., on May 6, 1956, thus in his 82nd year. He
was the son of John and Mary T. (Pugh) Wildman, and a birthright member of
the Wilmington, Ohio, Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends.

Edward graduated from Salina High School in 1898, and then attended the
Normal School at Spiceland, Ohio. For two years he was engaged in teaching in
Indiana schools, and from 1899 to 1901 at the Westtown Boarding School, West-
town, Pa. He later entered Earlham College at Richmond, Ind., but after two
years transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, taking the B.S. degree in
1904. He served here as an Assistant Instructor in the Department of Botany
and Zoology.

After spending two years at the Central College of Missouri, he returned to
Philadelphia in 1906, becoming Professor of Biology of this city’s Central High
School. While here he took the M.S. degree and ultimately his Ph.D. in 1912.
He was then made head of the Science Department of the West Philadelphia
High School for Girls, which position he held until 1926. He was next appointed
Director of Science for the Philadelphia School District, holding this post until
1939. In the latter year he became head of the Department of Science in the
newly formed John Bartram High School, in West Philadelphia.

While engaged in these administrative positions, Dr. Wildman found time and
energy to accomplish many other things. During the summers from 1908 to 1911
he served as an Instructor in the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole,
Mass. For three years, 1939 to 1941, he was a consultant for the Committee on
Education and Participation in Science of the American Philosophical Society.
This Society later awarded him a grant for the preparation of a compilation of
the letters of John Bartram. He did not live to see this brought to the stage of
publication, but his manuscript is on file in the Society’s library, and available
for future scholars working on botanical history.

For some twenty summers Dr. Wildman was engaged as leader of a Nature
Study group at Pocono Manor, in Monroe Co., Pa. Here he took groups on short
field trips and conducted classes on the porch of the Manor; one day he might be
found setting up a nature exhibit, another filling little vials with sweetened water,
wrapping them in red paper, hanging them up on a branch, and waiting for the
certain arrival of the humming birds, to the constant delight of a group of spec-
tators seated on the porch. Once a group of us had the privilege of accompany-
ing him on a quest for cardinal flower plants, to be naturalized on the banks of
his beloved Swiftwater Creek.

IN MEMORIAM 41

Frequently he would lead a group of Boy Scouts to the mountain south of the
Manor, which was part of the land wrongfully taken from the Lenape Indians on
the basis of the infamous “ Walking Purchase.” Then he could emphasize to the
boys that moral wrongs have adverse spiritual reactions on the perpetrators as
well as injury to others. In this case, there followed bloody massacres and wars
of revenge.

With the idea of encouraging the study of Nature in the field, Dr. Wildman
wrote a number of articles and pamphlets along this line, covering what could be
seen at different seasons. After a long and patient search for trees still living,
which the evidence showed to have been well grown when William Penn came to
America in 1682, 250 years before, he published in 1933 a most interesting little
book, “ Penns Woods; ”’ this was later reissued in a second edition, including re-
ports which came to him from readers of the first who knew of “ Penn Trees ”’
that had not come to his attention. This book was pleasantly dedicated “ To the
memory of a wise and saintly mother, Mary Taylor Pugh Wildman, who encour-
aged her son’s interest in Natural History from early childhood.”

Upon his retirement from active administrative work in 1942, Dr. Wildman
spent much time going through the herbarium of the Academy of Natural Sci-
ences searching out type specimens, in which this herbarium is very rich, but
which had been largely hidden by being filed among general collections. Each
specimen was duly placed in a separate folder, on which was written the place of
publication of its name, the result of a vast amount of literature search by him
in the Academy’s library. Now housed in a series of special modern cases, this
Type Collection is a fitting monument to his memory.

After having lived for many years at 4331 Osage Ave., in West Philadelphia,
the Wildmans moved a short time ago to Moorestown, New Jersey. It was there
that he had, in 1909, married Bertha J. Otis, who survives him, as do also their
son, Dr. Edward D. Wildman, and daughter, Jessie Webster, of Purdue, Indiana.
—WILLIAM W. CapBuryY.

Program of Meetings

Date Subject Speaker Attendance
1954
Jan. 28: Trials, lines alg and Triumphs in Writing John M. Fogg, Jr. &
Us sutclie! 68 (3) a: elie earn Gp se atari Sear enya Herbert A. Wahl 43
Feb. 25 Glimpses = ag ofrce Species and Forests of
cise? Northwests 20505. Sass eas J. R. Schramm 35
Mar. 25 Botanical Heplorstion in: Coral: Atolls 2, 2... F. R. Fosberg 36
Apr. 22 Exploration in the Marshall Islands ......... Edwin T. Moul 36
May 27 Eastern Asiatic Plants in American Gardens . Hui-Lin Li 38
Sept. 23 Report by Members on Summer Experiences 22
Oct. 28 A Botanist’s Impression of India ............ John M. Fogg, Jr.
Nov. 18 Glimpses of Las Villas, Cuba ............... C. Earle Smith, Jr. 26
Dec. 16 Forty Years of Fern Collecting Sea eMC lod Edgar T. Wherry 40
1955
Jan. 27 Orchid Hunting, er i to Piorias =! .0 Walter Palmer 33
Heb. 24 - Birth of an Arboretumi...6c. cu ee coc ie sores Sp tte ae 35
Mar. 24 How to Camere ae ig See eau ais aie Dr. Ruth P 30
Apr. 28 Seeing Little Spots in a Big Way ............ Richard B. Chis Af 27
May 26 Wild ily of the Eastern United States .. Harry A. Webst 27
Sept. 22 Repo y Members on Summer Experiences 23
Oct. 27 Rolanioal Excursions to Costa Rica and Pan-
PR +SEE yi se i oe ee Theodor P. Haas 58
Nov. 17. A Botanist’s Impressions of Burma and Thai-
AR Soa ON sae ue Pan lt ern ae ee pe ep COC ST) John M. Fogg, Jr. 43
Dec. 15 Favorite Flowers from Far and Near ........ Edgar T. Wherry 35
1956
Jan. 26 The Big Bend Country of Texas ............ Mrs. J. “ib man Henry 42
Feb. 23 New Lilies and Their Development ......... Jan de 20
Mar. 22. AN Pavedinen to: Per os.) Dr. Ruth Patrick 35
Apr. 26 Botanical Gnas in agen Mesieg: 2.0022, Mrs. Ida K. Langman a2
May 24 Some Uncommon Plants of the pouthem
POURIRROROE ore ees ee Oke a ea Ralph M. Sargent 36
Sept. 27 Report by Members on Summer Experiences 11
Oct. 25 pecs oo the Andes in Peru, Bolivia, Miss Josephinede N.Henry 41
Nov. 15 Som 5 oan nora craraes 3.5. John M. Fogg, Jr. 42
Dec. 20 Pavlonine for FOR ier Oa Edgar T. Wherry 35
Officers, 1954-1956
Mrs. J. NoRMAN HEnry, President Harry W. TrupDELL, Treasurer
Huaeu E. Stone, Vice President Bayarp Lone, Curator
WALTER M. BENNER, Secretary Epcar T. WuHerry, Editor

Active Members (as of January 31, 1957)

Elected
Watter AINSworTH, 71 Franklin Boulevard, Pontiac, Mich. ..................0000e0085 1946
Mrs. Sapie ASHENDOrF, 5014 Erringer Place, Philadelphia 44, Dh es eee a ee 1954
Mas. F. E. Arxins, 3422 Queen Lane, Philadelphia 20, Pa. ..........-...ececececeree's 1953

2-06 6 © 6.0 60 0 28 66 68 Bee 8 6 4) 6 oe 8 ob © 8 se ee 6 te oe Ree See ee 8 0 F

Tee eer ere eee + eee eee ee

42

LIST OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS 43

Da: Davi Benkeren, Limekiln; Berks (67 Pas er ee es 1943
Cart E. Briss, Chagrin Road, R.D. 1, Chagrin Falls, 0. .... 0.22.2... ee cece eee ee cess 1924
Miss Erne: Beveaken,.Beech Dale, Bird in Hand, Pa... 22... 00 ieee sci cecteeves 1939
Wiriast © UpauMaate oMetetly: Par oe os oe ee ee ee oe 1943
Miss Maracaret Buter, 4598 Castor Ave., Philadelphia 24, Pa. ............--.-.0eeeeee 1953
Dr. Wit1am W. Capsury, 274 W. Main St., Moorestown, N. J. 20... ccc cece eee e ne 1950
Ricuarp B. Curtras, 233 Winona Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pa. ...........-. 0 cece eee e cence 1942
JoHN W. Cosurn, 120 Nippon St., Piidladslokis 193 P as oe ie eA ee 1951
Miss Canora §. Corzinegs, 1728 Pine St., Philadelphia 3, Pa. 22:2... 50... 0 0ss5e esses 1954
W. L. Drx, 801 Crown St., Morrisville, Pa. 2.2.2.2... cece eee e eee eee e tenn e cence eees 1942
Mrs. Paut Domvitte, 311 Hilldale Road, Villanova, Pa. ... 2.0.0... 0c cece ete eecsesncees 1956
Apert DonaGHy, JR., 203 E. Wellens St., Philadelphia 20, Pa. ............--.0. eee eees 1952
Rosert R. Dreissacu, 301 Helen St., Midland, Mich. ............. se: eeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 1922
Miss Ex:zasetuH C. Earte, 4209 Chester Ave., Philadelphia 4, Pa. ..................005- 1935
Mrs. Neti Erisman, 508 S. 41st St., Philadelphia 4, Pa. ..............-- eee ee eee eens 1945
Mrs. Harorp Evans, Awbury, E. Washington Lane, Philadelphia 38, Pa. ............... 1931
Cart W. Fennincer, 100 W. Moreland Ave., Philadelphia 18, Pa. ...........+---..+05- 1947
Apert J. FerKer, 1101 N. 63rd St., Philedolshia ro eas eg ines eee arr eae csirecs, Sine rely Ghote ta Va cel ie 1948
Miss ExizaBetu H. Fravetr, 245 Sumac St., Philadelphia 28, Pa. ...........-..--. 0.00 1946
Dr. Joun M. Foae, Jr., 6807 Quincy St., Philadelphia 19, Pa. ...............-... eee eeee 1921
Wru1aM L. Freysurcer, 1036 Larchmont Ave., Havertown, Pa. ............-...eeeeees 1956
Farman R. Furness, Media, Pa... 2... ccc cele ees hea ee ees ieee ei eae eee en eens 1935
Miss Exizapetu A. Gest, 733 Waverly Road, Bryn Mawr, Pa. .............0...0-s0e00- 1944
JoHN GitL, 2 Linden Ave., Haddonfield, N. J. ............-.-+0-: (URES. 2S eee 1939
Dr. THomas S. GITHENS, Cambridge Apts., lagoons 44 Pal 2 eee: 1945
Dr. Rosert B. Gorvon, 415 Sharpless St., West Chester, Pa. .......-..-.---.--ssee cess 1942
Dr. THEOpoR P. Haas, P.O. Box 1732, seb T™ Pas a ee a ea 1946
Louis E. Hanp, Natchez Trail, Medford Lakes, Medford, N. J. .........-.-.--5-++0++5- 1936
Miss ANN Harsison, The Barclay, 18th & Rittenhouse . Philadelphia 3, Pac’. : .. : 1944
Mrs. J. Norman Henry, Gladwyne, Pa. ........... 20. - eee ee ce ect erence eee eeeeenes 1932
J. Norman Henry Jr., 410 Mulberry Lane, Haverford, Pa. ...........--+-0--+e+ee seers 1956
Miss JOSEPHINE pE N. Henry, Gladwyne, Pa. .........---- 2-2 e eee e eee eee eect eeeeee 1938
Mr. A. H. Hotcose, Jr., 1330 Youngs Ford Road, Gladwyne, Pa. .......-.--+--+-+0+++ 1949
Mrs. A. H. Hotcompe, Jr., 1330 Youngs Ford Road, Gladwyne, Pa. ......-..-++-+++0+- 1949
Miss Nancy E. JAMes, 4043 Baltimore Ave., Philadelphia 4, Pa. .........-.-.--+-+++5- 1942
Pror. Marion A, Jounson, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N. J. ......------++--- 1946
Rosert L. Kenoic, Street Road, Davinville, Pai o20 ei es i i ee ees 1955
Appison Kern, 222 W. Linton St., Philadelphia 20, Pa. .......-.-------++ seer eer errr ees 1954
Miss Natatie B. Kimper, 538 E. Locust Ave., bag REN BAVA ie ees 1928
Lupwic A. Koetnav, 2038 Race St., Philadelphia 3, Pa. .......----- ++. ++ eee eee erste ees 1952
Mrs. Ina K. LANGMAN, 3509 Baring St., Philadelphia 4, Pa... .<.-.-.. 205-2 -6 6se02 eee 1937
Miss Eurzasetu H. Lewis, 400 S. 45th St., Philadelphia 4, Pa. .........-.--. +++ e+e eeee 1954
Dr. Hvur-Lin Li, Morris Arboretum, Philadelphia 18, Pa. .......-.---+-+++++0eeee seer eee 1944
Dr. Harry A. Lroyp, 200 N. 35th St., Philadelphia 4, Pa. ........----- +++ + essere ee reese 1931
Bayarp Lona, 250 Aabboamne Road, Elkins Park, Philadelphia 17, Pa. .........--------- 1906
James McCuurKen, 1623 E. Berks St., Philadelphia 25, Pa. ...-..-------+-++eesesee eres 1953
Witusm G. McEwring, 1343 8S. Lindenwood St., Philadelphia 43, Pa. ...........-.+.--- 1955
Joun R. McIntosu, 304 Winona Ave., Philadelphia 44, Pa. .........--+-++-+++e+ee00e> 1945
Dr. Epwrx T. Mout, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, Ne se ee 1945

Grorce F. Nicxtas, 82 Evanson Ave., Clementon, N. J. ...--------+-+eee reer r errr 1951

44 BARTONIA

Dr. Freperick M. Oxpacu, 323 Wellesley Road, Philadelphia 19, Pa. ................... 1951
Mrs. Georce B. Orr, Willow Brook Farm, Pa oe Pacers oiiete stipe Grae Ge eae tS 1935
Mice’ Erizanetn G, OstHemmen; Jenkintown Pas 22.5426 bc isd s fe oe hee de. eee 1933
Dr. SaMmuet C. Parmer, 403 N. Chester Road, Ee Rai POH chee canes eae 1929
Ween Pate: Fonte 16 Nedin, Pa. citi es ces ein cc Pies eee oe eee 1952
Wipe: PoANS PARKER. 400-5: 45th St. Philadelphia 4. Paces. 2 area Oe ee 1950
Dr. Rutu Parsick, P.O. Box 4301 Chestnut Hill: Sta; Philadelphia 18, Pa. 2. 2203-2. 1937
‘Pgionn W. Prere. 122 & IAL ot Allentowny Pay. otis oe oc ee ee eS. ei et ee 1909
Miss Heten Rauvcu, 734 Homestead Avy Hav SPLWH Owes pe Or oie bale a bebe 1956
Pa Caprese W. Raimi. 2341. Cedar Lane, Holmes, Palco ee 1953
Dr. Rosert Rosstns, Temple University, Dept. of Radiology, Philadelphia 40, Pa. ...... 1954
Heane Ropison: 871 Preston street: Philadelphia 4, Pai 20.0. AG a ee ee 1957
Mrs. Puiuip Q. Rocue, Harts Lane, Miquon, Conshohocken, R.D. 1, Pa. ............... 1953
Deu R ENE HOWLAND: WICAUOWOLOOK 6 Peg ke wis ee eies on CBE Re ck wibla gd «0 8 ea 1948
Mrs. Kart Rvueart, 612 Bryn Mawr Ave., Penn Ser Narberth, Pals, ouceesii ks 1942
Dr. Ratpy M. Sarcent, 4 College Cinele, Ave Ore Pana ore oe ay eva a ee bre 1948
Dr. Rospert L. ScHAEFFER, JR., 30 N. 8th St., roca ares ese Fe ea eth ee gs hee 1938
Dr. C. Earte Smiru, Jr., Academy of Natural ey Philsdelphiy SPa oe 1953
Dr. Ropert V. SPECK, 737 Cedar Ave. tHacdoneld. Nid. 644 46., oauere-. <2 51k Sor SG 1947
Mrs. Rosert V. Speck, 737 Cedar hides Maan held, NA o 5g a ai kaes 6 hee es 1947
be ©.) erecen 50/7 Welsh Street, Chester: Pau oc oe ce i eicre. has 1945
Puch h Sione.” White tall Apis... Maveriord, Paco oe es er eae Fo 1892
Miss Mary Suttivan, Montgomery Court L23, Narberth, Pa. .....................---- 1954
Me Howarp W. Favror. Monk Road, Gladwyne; Pas 3.204. e082) oie ok eS 1952
Miss ExizapetuH Torr, 403 8: 41st St., Philadelphia 4; Pa. (2.4046 3 oo ssieo. ee cae eee 1953
Rosert J. TITHERINGTON, 6317 N. Horwaed St. 7 piladetphin do Pa eo soo... fee, OB
Harry W. Trupe tt, 1309 Highland Ave., Abington, Pala a ee eo Aooee ss 1915
De Euizanera A. VALenting, PO: Box 186. Furlong: Pa, 2.2.2. 2082 .c 5 3 (iG) lata te ee 1949
Mrs. J. H. Vance, 148 Montgomery BMC, DOA TOW PA ules rua eds ek Oe 1950
CHARLES VAN Hovusen, 5022 Erringer Place. Pinisdelpnie 44 -Pae eo rae ie 1954
Miss Hitpa Virkomerson, c/o Biological Abstracts, 3815 Walnut St., Philadelphia, Pa. .. 1955
Da: Paur Ro Waenre: 789: Main St:; Collegeville; Pa. ..: 036 ee es ie eee 1935

eemor Warken, S11 Lynmere Road, Bron Mawr: Pi. occ 8 a5 io ec. eres eee la ae 1939
Mare. Mi. L: WARN EE, 65 8. Main Sty Manhem, Ps. io30545 5 i i ne ee 1935
Miss Hitpa [.: Wunmr, 1020 Karl St. Philadelphia 26; Pao 23036 oc tees ie eae eo 1950
Miss Everyn Wetia, 2924 Locust St., Philadelphia 4, Pa, oo. .ocs6 vi ees ee. i. eee. 1947
Rosert F. Wetsu, 1 N. 13th St. _ Philadelphia Po ees ee a 1909
De: Bogan T, Witeany, 228 Harvey St., Philadelphia 44; Pa. . -. 2. ini. 5 Ak. oe eek os 1925
Hans Wrirkens, 424 S. 15th St., nite POT, es, tae ee eee 1928
Miss ExizaBetH Wistar, 200 Montgomery Ave., Philadelphia 18, Pa. ...............--- 1952
Witithee Mo Were 203). Bicsclieville Pa cis os es a ws 1898
Miss Mary F. Watorrr, aot winone Ave. Philadelphia 44. 7a. 7. co 4 5 oc es 1928

Corresponding Members

De. Hanoy Sr. Joun, University of Hawai, Honolulu, T. H. ... 2.260.006 se 1927
Dr. Witt1am RANpotPH Tay or, University of Michixan: Ann Arbor, Mich. ...........- 1921

Dr. Heser W. YOUNGKEN, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy, Boston, Mass. ........-- 1918