124 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL HERBARIUM. 
decided to call the erect form canadensis. So he crossed out the “3” on his specimen 
and wrote ** philadelphicus,’? but did not mark a specimen ‘‘canadensis.’”’ In this 
case the specimen marked ‘“philadelphicus” is the nomenclatorial type of both. 
Each is described in the second edition of the Species Plantarum, but here he fails to 
distinguish between them. He copies the diagnosis of E. philadelphicus, but not the 
distinction he has made between that and 2. canadensis. He also copies the descrip- 
tion of FE. canadensis and distinguishes that from £. sibiricus without mentioning 
E. philadelphicus. There is no doubt that all the specimens considered above are the 
same species, 4. glaueifolius Muhl., which name must give way to EF. canadensis. 
Heretofore the green form with more slender spikes has been considered typical F. 
canadensis. E. philadelphicus becomes a synonym of E. canadensis. It is interesting 
to note that in an article on ‘ Demonstrationes Plantarum,” @ in which Linneus 
gives a list of plants cultivated in the Upsala garden, he says concerning FE. canadensis, 
“Duplex in Horto occurrit: alter spica incurvata, alter spica pendula ut in E. sibirico, 
sed structura plantae vix admittit differentiam specificam.’’ 
Elymus virginicus L. Sp. Pl. 84. 1753. 
The type specimen is marked ‘4 virginicus.”’ Glumes and lemmas smooth, the 
former about 1.5 em. long, including the awn point of about 5 mm., the latter with 
awns | tol.5cem. long. The Clayton specimen (no, 446), corresponding to the Gronovian 
synonym cited by Linnzeus, is not in the British Museum. 
Elymus hystrix L. Sp. Pl. 560. 1753. 
The type specimen is from Gronovius. Linnzeus has written upon it “6 Hystrix.”’ 
The specimen in the Gronovian herbarium at the British Museum (Clayton no. 570) 
is the same, Hystrix hystrix (L.) Millsp. ( Hystrix patula Moench.). 
Hordeum jubatum L. Sp. Pl. 85. 1753. 
The type specimen is marked ‘6K jubatum.” It belongs to this species as described 
in our manuals. 
53 
Coix dactyloides L. Sp. Pl. 972. 1753. 
The type specimen is marked “2 dactyloides HU.’ Linneeus later includes this 
species in his new genus Tripsacum,? of which it is the type. The specimen is the 
ordinary form of Tripsacium dactyloides (1..) L. with three spikes. 
Tripsacum hermaphroditum L. Syst. Nat. ed. 10. 2: 1261. 1759. 
Based upon Browne, Hist. Jam. 367. 1756. T did not find a specimen of this. The 
species is Anthephora hermaphrodita (1..) Kuntze (A. elegans Schreb.). 
, 
This is based on “ Olyra, Sloan. Jam. t. 64, f. 2.’7 Sloane’s plant, which is the type, 
belongs to the species as usually described. The Linnean specimen from “ Br’? is 
the same. 
Olyra latifolia [.. Syst. Nat. ed. 10. 2: 1261. 1759. 
») ? 
Zizania aquatica [.. Sp. Pl. 991. 1753. 
One specimén marked by Linnweus * Zizania HU’? and another marked “1 aquatica” 
are both the small narrow-leaved form named Z. aquatica angustifolia Hitche.¢ The 
blades are not over 7 or 8 mm. wide. Linnweus gives two synonyms, CGronovius’s 
Clayton no. 574 and Sloane’s plate 67. both of which are the ordinary wide-leaved form, 
Later Linnieus described a second species, Z. palustris. There is no specimen 
in the herbarium marked thus. The description is quite ample. but the only 
character given which would enable us to tell which form he had in mind is 
that the leaves are wider than those of Arundo phragmites. The latter (Phragmites 
phragmites (1..) Karst.) has blades rarely as narrow as | em. and usually 2 or 3 em. 
wide. We may conclude, then, that he is describing the wide-leaved form, or what 
@ Amoen. Acad. 8: 401. 1756. ¢ Rhodora 8: 210. 1906. 
b Syst. Nat. ed. 10. 2: 1261. 1759. d Mant. 2: 295. 1771. 
