280 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL HERBARIUM. 
NEBRASKA: Niobrara Fort, 7. £. Wilcow in 1888; Johnstown, Bates 1084; Thed- 
ford, Rydberg 1308; Weigand, Clements 2683. 
Kansas: Manhattan, Hitchcock 2505, Pl. Kan. 879; Courtland, Hitchcock in 1892. 
CoLorapo: Without locality, American Plains Flora, Hall 231 in 1863 (Mo. 
Bot. Gard. Herb.). 
169. Panicum malacophyllum Nash. 
Panicum scoparium minor[us] Scribn. Tenn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 7: 48.1894. ‘‘Mid- 
dle Tennessee (Gattinger).’’ The type, in the herbarium of the University of Tennes- 
see, consists of four branching culms with a primary panicle from which the spikelets 
have fallen and numerous secondary panicles with pilose branchlets and spikelets. 
On the accompanying label, which reads ‘‘Panicum scoparium Lam. Cedar Glades, 
Lavergne, Tennessee. Autumnal form 7 VII. ’81. Legit Dr. A. Gattinger,’’ is 
written in Scribner’s hand ‘“‘var. minor,” and this is the only Gattinger and the only 
Tennessee specimen so marked by him. No specimen of P. seribnerianum®@ can be 
found which was referred by Scribner to his P. scoparium var. minor, while a specimen 
collected by Coville, Mountain Park, Arkansas, in 1887, corresponding to the above 
Gattinger specimen (that is P. malacophyllum Nash), is marked by him ‘‘Panicum 
scoparium Lam. var. minor Scribn.’’ The description applies to the species repre- 
sented by the Gattinger specimen except as to the panicle and spikelets: ‘‘ Panicle 
branches and spikelets nearly smooth, or (subvar. pilosum) densely pilese hairy.”’ 
Only the Gattinger specimen is cited and this, marked by Scribner as noted above, 
has pilose spikelets and panicle branches. No specimen can be found marked with 
the subvarietal name. Were it not that Scribner wrote ‘‘var. minor” on two specimens 
of P. malacophyllum Nash and on nothing else, the Gattinger citation might possibly 
be taken to refer to ‘‘subvar. pilosum.’’? It would appear that the author confused 
P. scribnerianum and P. malacophyllum, that his description, drawn up from the 
material in his herbarium, was made to cover both, but more especially the common 
form, but that, having no Tennessee specimens of the common form he cited a specimen 
of the form he did have from Tennessee. ‘The author’s remark that ‘‘this is the most 
widely distributed and best known form of the species” bears out this conclusion. 
Panicum malacophyllum Nash, Bull. Torrey Club 24: 198. 1897. ‘‘Type collected 
by Mr. B. F. Bush on May 19, 1895, 
at Sapulpa, Indian Territory, No. 
1228.’ The type, in Nash’s herba- 
rium, consists of two early autumnal 
culms 28 and 35 em. high, with ma- 
ture primary panicles, 
DESCRIPTION. 
Vernal form velvety or velvety- 
pilose throughout; culms slender, 
few to several in tufts, 25 to 70 em. 
Fig. 315.—P. malacophyllum. From type specimen. high, more or less geniculate at 
base with arched internodes, ascend- 
ing or spreading, papillose-pilose with soft, reflexed hairs, the nodes retrorsely bearded; 
@ See discussion on the type of P. scribnerianum. 
®An examination of the specimens of this group in Scribner’s herbarium shows that 
at that time his idea of true P. scoparium Lam. was P. ravenelii, on a sheet of which he 
had written “Certainly P. scoparium Ell., a form which suggests close relationship 
with P. Walteri Poir. (P. latifolium Mx.).’’ Accepting Elliott’s interpretation of 
Lamarck’s species Scribner names this form var. genuinum; his var. pauciflorum (based 
on P. pauciflorum Ell.) is P. oligosanthes Schult.; his specimens of P. scribnerianum, 
ten in all (none of them from Tennessee), are all marked in Scribner’s writing P. 
scoparium Lam., without particular comment, and none as stated above is marked 
“var. minor.’’ 
