94 Rhodora [JUNE 
be rare and local everywhere. Also, it has never as yet been found 
in the indigenous state, but always as a weed; and its home country 
is not yet known. At present it is a veritable “man without a coun- 
try,” and we shall look with interest for the discovery of its native 
haunts. v4 
All of the specimens mentioned were extremely uniform, and 
matched our Ithaca specimen perfectly. The Karlsruhe specimen 
bore the name E. pilosa var. condensata Hackel, and was a portion of 
the material on which this variety was based, it being a part of the 
original material distributed by Kneucker. Our plant is therefore 
the E. pilosa var. condensata of Hackel. However, the study of all 
of the material mentioned has brought to light several other good 
distinguishing characters besides those mentioned by Hackel, so that 
in the judgment of the writer the plant is really a very good species, 
and should be recognized as such. The name condensata is in use, 
however, for another species, and therefore cannot be used. This 
being so, the name peregrina may very appropriately be substituted. 
This plant is not to be included in the question of the status of E. 
Purshii. E. pilosa and E. Purshii are extremely close in relationship, 
and there can be a legitimate doubt as to whether both are good 
species, but our plant differs in several important respects from each. 
Of our plant Hackel says, translated: — “The present plant is to 
be distinguished from the typical form by: solitary branches of the 
panicle without hairs in their axils (which however are sometimes 
lacking in the typical form), the branches of the panicle are spikelet- 
bearing to the base so that the panicle appears much denser. The 
spikelets are short-pedicelled (the next to the last on each branch 
possesses a pedicel about 1 mm. long). In the typical form the 
branches of the panicle are in 2’s or 4’s and branched from the one- 
third or one-half point upward, and loosely provided with spikelets 
whose pedicels are at least 2 mm. long. The plant is closely related 
to the E. Purshii (caroliniana) but is distinguished from it by the 
absence of conspicuous lateral nerves on the flowering glume.” 
The writer finds that the differences noted by Hackel hold fairly 
well for all the other specimens examined. The branches of the 
panicle however are sometimes solitary in smaller forms of E. pilosa 
(including E. Purshii). Also, in smaller plants of the latter species 
the spikelets extend sometimes far toward the base of the branches. 
The spikelets are in the main shorter-pedicelled than in Æ.: pilosa. 
