122 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL HERBARIUM. 
Cynosurus virgatus L. Syst. Nat. ed. 10. 2: 876. 1759. 
The type specimen, from “Br,’’ is Leptochloa virgata (L.) Beauv. After his own 
description Lifnzeus cites Sloane’s plate 70, figure 2, but does not use his diagnosis, 
hence Sloane’s plant, which is also Leptochloa virgata, is not the type. Linnzeus cites 
the same plate of Sloane under Panicum sanguinale.¢ 
Bromus purgans L. Sp. Pl. 76. 1753. 
One sheet is marked ‘3 purgans H U.’’ The specimen has rather sparsely retrorse- 
pubescent, overlapping sheaths and evenly pubescent spikelets. This is B. latiglimis 
(Scribn.) Hitche.2 (Bromus altissimus Pursh, not Gilib.). A second sheet is marked 
“K 4.’’ In this specimen the sheaths are not overlapping, but the spikelets are 
pubescent all over like the first. This is B. purgans as ordinarily understood and as 
described in Shear’s Monograph of Bromus.¢ A third sheet is marked “H U 4°’ and 
is like the first sheet. It will be observed that there is considerable confusion here. 
Bromus no. 3, as described in the Species Plantarum, is called purgans, and no. 4 is 
called cilatus. Both are said to come from Canada, collected by Kalm, the latter 
(ciliatus) being from seed. But none of the specimens is B. ciliatus as we understand 
the species@ nor corresponds to the description given by Linnzeus, which is unusually 
ample. In his description he states ‘‘ petalorum marginibus (non dorso) valde pilosis,” 
while in the specimens the lemmas are pubescent all over, as described for B. purgans. 
We must conclude that there is no type of B. ciliatus in the herbarium and that the 
specimens marked ‘47’ are not types of this species. We can thus retain the name for 
the species as described in our manuals and in Shear’s Monograph. As to B. purgans, 
Linneus’s description does not distinguish between the three specimens; that is, be- 
tween B. purgans and B. latiglumis. Of these three specimens, two are marked ‘‘ H 
U,” indicating that they were cultivated in the garden at Upsala. The third speci- 
men, marked ‘kK 4,’ is the only one collected by Kalm. This plant, which is Bromus 
purgans as commonly understood and as described in Shear’s Monograph of Bromus,¢ 
should be taken as the type, in spite of the 4’? placed upon the sheet by Linneus, 
probably inadvertently. In the Stockholm herbarium are two specimens marked B. 
purgans.€ The second specimen, marked by Solander, is B. latiglumis (Scribn.) 
Hitche. The other, marked by Linnzeus ‘‘H U 4’’ and ‘te semine Canadensi,’’ seems 
to be the same, though it is only a panicle. 
Bromus ciliatus L. Sp. Pl. 76. 1753. 
There is no type specimen of this species. The specimens marked **4,”’ that is, B. 
etliatus, which is the fourth species of Bromus, do not agree with Linnzeus’s descrip- 
tion. The original Linnean description applies to Bromus ciliatus as currently under- 
stood and as described in Shear’s Monograph of Bromus./ For a further discussion of 
this species see notes above under B. purgans. 
Stipa avenacea L. Sp. Pl. 78. 1753. 
The type specimen is from Gronovius, as it bears his diagnosis, ‘‘ Hordeum spice 
tenuiorl,”’? ete. Tt is also marked by Linneeus ‘3 capillata,’’ but does not bear the 
name avenacea. Apparently Linnzeus intended first to name the species capillata, 
but subsequently adopted the name avenacea. This specimen and that of the Grono- 
vian herbarium (Clayton no. 621) are Stipa avenacea as generally understood. 
a@ Sp. PL. 57. 1753; ed. 2. 85. 1762. 
6 Rhodora 8: 211. 1906. 
¢ U.S. Dept. Agr. Div. Agrost. Bull. 28: 39. 1900. . 
@ Shear’s Monograph (loc. cit. 31). 
é Cf. Lindman, Arkiv. Bot. 7: 43. 1907. 
J U.S. Dept. Agr. Div. Agrost. Bull. 23: 31. 1900. 
