TWO NEW SPECIES OF HARPERELLA. 



By J. N. Rose. 



In 1902 Dr. Roland M. Harper discovered in Georgia a new genus 

 belonging to the Umbellif erae, which I afterwards named in his honor." 

 In 1905 Doctor Harper collected a similar umbellif er in the moun- 

 tains of Alabama, which we then both considered to be the same 

 plant, Harperella nodosa, although the type had come from a very 

 different region, that of the Coastal Plain. A reexamination of this 

 material shows that it is specifically distinct from that species and it 

 is here described as new. 



In 1907 Dr. Forrest Shreve collected a strange umbellif er near 

 Hancock, Md., which I was unable to name. It appeared clearly new 

 to our flora, but without fruit its generic position could not easily be 

 determined. Doctor Harper suggested that it might be Harperella 

 nodosa, and urged me to have it collected again. In the meantime 

 Doctor Harper found a specimen in the Torrey Herbarium, collected 

 by Doctor Aiken some seventy-five years before, near Harper's Ferry, 

 W. Va., which he considered to be the same as Doctor Shreve's plant. 



On October 5, 1910, I visited Hancock for the purpose of collecting 

 this strange plant. I took with me a detailed description of the 

 region visited by Doctor Shreve, with which I easily located the very 

 spot from which he had obtained his specimens. The station is about 

 2 miles above Hancock and perhaps a half mile below Round Top 

 Mountain, and not very far below the narrows formed by that moun- 

 tain and the hills on the south side of the Potomac River. Doctor 

 Shreve's instruction was to follow up the tow path along the Chesa- 

 peake and Ohio Canal to a point where a small stream with an arroyo- 

 like bed leads from the canal to the river. This little stream ends in a 

 sandy delta and here on the edge of this delta and just above the high- 

 water mark of the Potomac grew this plant. It is in a small springy 

 swamp filled chiefly with Juncus and Cyperus, and unless it were in 

 flower it would almost surely be overlooked, and even then it might 

 easily be passed over. Although it was October, many plants were 



aHarperia Rose, Proc. Nat. Mus. 29: 441. 1905, not Fitzgerald, 1904. 

 Harperella Rose, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 19: 96. 1906. 



289 



