ad 
. GRASSES OF MICHAUX’S FLORA BOREALI-AMERICANA, 149 
is also on this sheet a small specimen of P. lindhetmeri Nash. There are two other 
sheets from the same source, but without locality. One is P. verrucosum Muhl. The 
other appears to be P. gravius Hitchc. & Chase, though it may be P. dichotomum. In 
determining which plant shall be taken as the type it is to be noted that the locality 
given in the description is ‘‘Carolina.’’ The only specimen having this locality upon 
the label is the one in the herbarium of Drake de Castillo, which is P. ashet. The 
description, however, mentions that the nodes are barbed, which applies to P. gravius, 
the plant in the Michaux herbarium, and to none of the others concerned. The speci- 
men in the Michaux herbarium (excluding the small plant P. lindheimert) has there- 
fore been taken as the type, although it does not come from Carolina. Michaux evi- 
dently confused several species, but we must surely apply the name to a species with 
barbed nodes. The type is not what has been called P. barbulatum in all recent botan- 
ical works. This latter species has a smaller spikelet (1.5 mm. long), while P. gravius 
has spikelets 2mm. long. The plant commonly called P. barbulatum must take the 
name P. microcarpon Muhl.; Ell. Bot. S.C. & Ga. 1816 (not Mubhl. Gram. 1817, which 
is P. polyanthes Schult.). 
Panicum ramulosum Michx. 
“Tn pratis, cespitosis Carolinae.’’ A poor specimen without spikelets, but certainly 
of the angustifolium group, apparently P. angustifolium Ell. This name antedates 
any of those applied to P. angustifolium and its allies, but on account of the fragmentary 
condition of the specimen it would not be wise to take it up. There is nothing 
in the description which will identify the plant any more certainly. In the herbarium 
of Drake de Castillo are two specimens from Michaux sent by Richard under this name. 
One is P. dichotomum L., the other is P. lindheimert Nash. There is also a specimen 
of the latter species in the Berlin herbarium sent by Richard under the name of 
P, ramulosum. 
Panicum melicarium Michx. 
“Yn Carolina ad ripas rivorum affluviente mari inundatus [sign for perennial ].”’ 
The specimen is not a Panicum at all, but Panicularia elongata (Torr.) Kuntze. The 
species has been much misunderstood and was rendered doubtful by the character 
mentioned in the description of a sterile rudiment of a second flower, a character not 
found in the genus Panicum. The spikelets of the specimen are past maturity and 
consist of empty glumes or with the lowermost florets still attached. This floret 
bears behind it the joint of the rachilla leading to the second floret, thus explaining 
the character mentioned by Michaux. This species becomes Panicularia melicaria 
(Michx.) 
Panicum divaricatum Michx. 
“Tn cespitosis excelsarum montium Carolinae Septentrionalis {sign for perennial ].”’ 
This is Festuca obtusa Spreng. (Ff. nutans Spreng.). Michaux doubted that this 
was referable to Panicum. The spikelets are past maturity and like the preceding 
species consist of empty glumes or with the addition of the lowermost floret, which 
bears, of course, the joint of the rachilla. Michaux describes the spikelet as being 
2-flowered, the second flower being a sterile pedicel. This species is of course quite 
different from Panicum divaricatum L. 
Oryzopsis asperifolia Michx. 
“In praeruptis et saxosis per tractus montium a sinu Hudsonis ad Canadam |sign 
for perennial].’’ The specimen belongs to the species described under this name in 
Gray’s Manual. 
Agrostis indica ‘‘Sw. obs.”’ 
“A Virginia maritima ad Floridam [sign for perennial].’’ The specimen is Spo- 
g1 Pp i 
robolus indicus (L.) R. Br. 
