AMERICAN GRASSES DESCRIBED BY LINNZEUS. 123 
Avena pensylvanica I. Sp. Pl. 79. 1753. 
The type specimen, marked “3 K pensylvanica,” is Trisetum pennsylvanicum (L.) 
Beauv. 
Avena spicata L. Sp. Pl. 80. 1753. 
The specimen is marked ‘‘ K 10 bromoides.’’ The word bromoides has been scratched 
out with pencil. Since the plant is Danthonia spicata (L.) Beauv. and answers to the 
description of his Avena no. 10, A. spicata, we may assume that this is the type and 
that there was some error in marking the name bromoides on the sheet. Linnzeus 
later describes an Avena bromoides from Europe, a different species. 
Arundo phragmites L. Sp. Pl. 81. 1753. 
This is based on European material, but there is a reference to Gronovius. In the 
first edition of Gronovius the number of Clayton’s specimen is given as 481. In the 
second edition the number is 581. Clayton’s specimen is numbered 581. It is 
Phragmites phragmites (L.) Karst. (P. communis Trin.). 
Aristida americana L. Syst. Nat. ed. 10. 2: 879. 1759. 
The type specimen, from “Br,’’ is Bouteloua americana (L.) Scribn. (B. litugiosa 
Lag.). 
Elymus canadensis I. Sp. Pl. 83. 1753. 
The type specimen is not the form described as E. canadensis in recent manuals, 
but is the allied glaucous form which has been distinguished as E. glaucifolins Muhl. 
For a discussion of this specimen see note below under EF. philadelphieus. 
Elymus philadelphicus L. Amoen. Acad. 4: 266. 1759. 
One sheet is marked by Linnieus ‘‘philadelphicus 3” and ‘HU.’ Under the 
latter appears to be the word ‘‘Canada.’’ The figure 3 appears to be crossed out. 
This is the glaucous form called FE. glaveifolius Muhl. It has a large, pendulous 
spike, with diverging awns, and blades 1.5 to 2 cm. broad. This is apparently the 
specimen Linnaus describes under E. canadensis, which is Elymus no. 3. The 
diagnosis reads ‘‘spica flaccida-pendula.’’ A second sheet has a specimen of the same 
species, but with erect spike and ascending awns. Linnzeus has not written upon 
this, but there is a transcription of the diagnosis of 2. canadensis and also “Elymus 
canadensis, Spec. 3. p. 83,’’ and, “‘ex seminibus canadensis in hortulo meo [then an 
illegible word] 1753” followed by “Leche” in pencil. Leche was professor at Abo. 
At the Stockholm herbarium there are also two sheets, one marked ‘“ Elymus phila- 
delphicus” by Solander and the other “3” by Linneeus and ‘3 canadensis” by the 
younger Linneeus. Both are E. glaucifolius, but the second is less glaucous, the 
spike not quite so stout, the awns more ascending. The two specimens correspond 
very well to the two in the Linnean herbarium at London, except that the one marked 
“philadelphicus” at the former place is erect and at the latter place is nodding. It 
will be noted that in the description of FE. philadelphicus it is distinguished from EF. 
canaderisis by having a nodding spike and more flexuous awns. While jt seems clear 
that at the time of describing E. philadelphicus Linneeus wished to apply this name to 
the nodding form and the name £. canadensis to the erect form, yet we are left in doubt 
as to the types of the two. The figure 3 on the specimen in the Stockholm herbarium 
with erect spike and ascending awns, and marked ‘‘canadensis” by Linnzeus fil., is 
said by Lindman @ to have been written by the elder Linneus. The latter has not 
marked any specimen with the name canadensis. I suspect that the history of the 
specimen is about as follows: Both forms were growing in the Hortus Upsalensis. 
Linneus described E. canadensis from the nodding form, and marked the specimen in 
his herbarium ‘3,’ Later*he distinguished between the two forms in his garden and 
a Arkiv. Bot. 7: 45, 1907. 
2 
35023—voL 12, pr 3—OS8 
