236 Rhodora [DECEMBER 
replacing it by one so vague and obscure, that its original application 
is a matter of mere conjecture. 
Let us see upon just what grounds Mr. Bicknell can maintain the 
identity of Agrimonia Eupatoria hirsuta, Muhl., with the species to 
which he has applied the name A. Airsuta (Muhl.) Bicknell. The 
type of Muhlenberg's plant is, I learn, either not in existence or at 
least in a state of confusion with other material, which makes its cer- 
tain identification impossible. Consequently our sole knowledge of 
4. Eupatoria hirsuta, Muhl., is to be derived from the original 
description. Muhlenberg’s treatment of Agrimonia is as follows : 
Calix. Corolla. DIGYNIA Habitat, etc. 
5 fid. 5 pet. 360 AGRIMONIA. AGRIMONY. Semina 1-2 in calice. 
lut, 1. eupatoria hirsuta 4 rough-haired. Pens. fl. Aug. Car. 
lut. B. glabra ?! smooth Pens. fl. Aug. 
lut. 2. parviflora ?! dotted Pens. fl. Aug. 
lut. 3. pumila Y little Miss. 
A glance at this treatment will show that the description of 
A. Eupatoria hirsuta contains but one distinctive word,“ rough-haired.””! 
It must have required extraordinary powers of intuition to discover 
from this one word just which of seven more or less hairy plants 
Muhlenberg meant by his Agrimonia Eupatoria hirsuta, especially as 
the plant in question, according to Mr. Bicknell’s interpretation, turns 
out to be villous rather than hirsute and is one of the least hairy spe- 
cies of the whole group,— much less so, in fact, than the typical A. 
Eupatoria of Europe. Unfortunately many of us are not endowed 
with this well-nigh necromantic power, and must accordingly stop in 
our retrogressive search after priority at the earliest sufficient and 
intelligible description. To persons of these more modest attain- 
ments A, Eupatoria hirsuta must be a negligible nomen subnudum 
and A. gryposepala, Wallr., be preferred to A. hirsuta (Muhl.) Bicknell. 
It is true the combination 4. Zupatoria B hirsuta was also em- 
ployed by Dr. Torrey and, as Mr. Bicknell informs us, “ independently 
for a more hairy form of the same plant.” I have not succeeded in 
finding the type of this variety in the Torrey herbarium. Concerning 
the variety we learn from Dr. T orrey's description merely that it was 
a smaller and much more hairy plant than what Torrey regarded the 
typical form of 4. Eupatoria, the latter being probably the very plant 
* The range including Carolina cannot be regarded as distinctive, since several 
species are either known to occur in Carolina or from their general distribution 
are to be expected there. 
