GRASSES OF MICHAUX’S FLORA BOREALI-AMERICANA, 1538 
except as to the point that it was probably based on a species of Panicum. While 
going through the Panicums of the De Candolle herbarium I found a specimen of 
Panicum virgatum which was sent by Rafinesque and which was labeled Eatonia pur- 
purascens. This is undoubtedly a duplicate type and fixes the identity of the genus 
Eatonia Raf. The original description applies well to the common purple form of 
this species found in brackish marshes along the coast. 
Melica glabra Michx. 
One label reads, ‘a Carolina ad floridam;’ the other reads, “florida f. Matanea No. 
5.” The plants are glabrous and have a simple slender raceme of about ten spikelets. 
Without much doubt M. mutica Walt. is the same. 
Trachynotia cynosuroides Michx. 
There are two labels, ‘I]inoensis” and “hauteurs des terres.’ The specimen 
belongs to the inland species with several somewhat scattered spikes and awned 
glumes, the lower being as long as the spikelet, which in most manuals is described 
under Spartina cynosuroides (L.) Willd. Michaux’s description also applies to this 
species. Michaux, however, takes up Linnieus’s specific name and bases his name 
Trachynotia cynosuroides upon Dactylis cynosuroides L. As has been already pointed 
out,@ the Linnean plant is the large seacoast form usually called Spartina polystachya 
(Michx.) Ell. Thisname must become asynonym of Spartina cynosuroides (L.) Willd., 
while the plant of the inland marshes previously known by this name must receive a 
different name. The name Spartina michauxiana is therefore proposed. for the 
plant described by Michaux under the name of Trachynotia cynosuroides (not Dactylis 
cynosuroides 1,.). It has been proposed to take up the name Spartina pectinata Link, 
Jahrb. Gewiichsk. 1°: 92. 1820, but S. pectinata was collected by Bosc probably in 
South Carolina, where 8. michauriana does not grow. 
Trachynotia polystachya Michx. 
“Basse Caroline.’’ Another label reads, “Trachynotia (a dorso valvarum scabro) 
Dactylis cynosuroides L.”’ Since both this and the preceding species have scabrous- 
keeled glumes, one suspects that the second label has been misplaced, or that Michaux 
was uncertain as to the identity of Dactylis cynosuroides L. As stated under the pre- 
ceding species, the name Spartina cynosuroides (1,.) Willd. should apply to this species, 
since Michaux’s type of Trachynotia polystachya is identical with the type of Dactylis 
cynosuroides 1.. Spartina cynosuroides Willd. is also founded upon Dactylis cynosu- 
roides L. Both Michaux and Willdenow describe, through error of determination, a 
different plant, that is, Spartina michauxiana Hitchc. 
Trachynotia juncea Michx. 
One label has the name only. A second label has “Dactylis sabulata bords des 
Creeks salés Basse Caroline.’’ Spikes one or two; spikelets closely appressed upon 
the rachis. The specimen is Spartina juncea (Michx.) Ell. as described by Merrill. ¢ 
Eleusine indica [(L.) (Gaertn.)]. 
“In cultis a Carolina ad floridam.”? ‘Dans les champs Illinois.’ 
belongs to this species. 
) 
The specimen 
Eleusine mucronata Michx. 
“linois.”” The specimen is Leptochloa mucronata (Michx.) Kunth as described in 
the manuals. 
This is the same as Leptochloa filiformis (Pers.) Roem. & Schult. (Eleusine filiformis 
Pers. 1805.), the type of which is from ‘“‘Americ. meridion.’’ It may be the same as 
Festuca filiformis Lam. 4@ from ‘Amer. merid, Comm, D. Richard.’’ The description 
@ Bot. Gaz. 35: 216. 1903. 
5 Piper, Contr. Nat. Herb. 11: 145. 1906. 
eN, A. Spec. Spartina, U. 8. Dept. Agr. Bur. Pl. Ind. Bull. 9: 12. 1902. 
@Tabl. Encycl. 1: 191. 1791. 
