46 Rhodora [Marcu 
written that this consists of a specimen collectéd in Delaware County 
in 1864 by Mr. C. E. Smith, in the Columbia College Herbarium, and 
a specimen collected by Dr. George Smith in 1867, received through 
Professor Porter. (These-are undoubtedly duplicates of material in 
the C. E. Smith Herbarium and the Porter Herbarium, respectively. ) 
Dr. Britton has kindly examined these New York specimens very criti- 
cally and he is agreéd that upon the basis of this material Scirpus 
mucronatus must be excluded from the American flora. 
In the Gray Herbarium, Prof. Fernald has informed me, upon my 
inquiry, that no material was to be found under the name “ Scirpus 
mucronatus,” but further search in the herbarium finally disclosed a 
single sheet of C. E. Smith’s material representing the record. This 
is labelled “Delaware County, Aug. 1864” (and is no doubt similar 
to the specimens at New York and Philadelphia). Critical examina- 
tion by Prof. Fernald showed absolutely no difference between this 
material and that of authentic S. debilis sent out by Smith in 1865. 
In the search for this material an interesting fact came to light, in 
that — quoting from Prof. Fernald’s letter — “the sheet long ago 
had been transferred to the S. debilis cover by Dr. Gray, who had 
marked on the sheet ‘S. debilis, true.” 
It would seem that the opinions of Gray and of Torrey must have 
been obtained by the Philadelphia collectors not long after the dis- 
covery of the plant in 1864 — possibly even the same or the following 
year. There is no indication when C. E. Smith satisfied himself 
that this plant was S. debilis but A. H. Smith, it will be remembered, 
had dated his like opinion April 20, 1868. It is impossible to say just 
how soon after 1864 Gray reached this same conclusion — and recti- 
fied his former opinion — but there is probably to be seen a real 
connection between the correct identification of the plant and the 
fact that “Scirpus mucronatus” is not recorded in the 1867 edition 
of Gray’s Manual. 
How did the plant come to be included by Watson in 1890 in his 
edition of the Manual? —is the question that at once comes to mind. 
To Prof. Fernald’s interest and investigation I am indebted for the 
information that the copy of the fifth edition which was annotated by 
Watson when revising the manual, before the publication of Edition 6, 
contains the note in his own hand, “S. mucronatus, L. See T. B. 
15. 103’’ — which refers to the record in the Bulletin ‘of the Torrey 
Botanical Club of 1888. This is indicative of Watson having accepted 
