1919] Fernald,— Identity of Angelica Lucida 145 
sessile, unequally serrate. and mostly decurrent or confluent at the 
base. The rays of the umbel are unusually thick; the involucels of 
about 8 lanceolate-spatulate leaflets. Fruit (immature) ovate: 
dorsal ribs slightly winged; the lateral ones dilated into a distinct . 
wing. Vittae very large and filled with a pungent oil. Commissure 
with 2 vittae.”! In his original manuscript note upon which the 
above statement was based Dr. Gray had also said of A. lucida 
“ Differs enough from anything I know, unless it can possibly be A. 
atropurpurea — which, by comparison, it certainly is not!" ? 
Subsequently, in his Bibliographical Index, Watson, although in- 
cluding Angelica lucida as a valid species, said “ A very obscure species; 
from Canada," ? and in 1888 Coulter & Rose, taking their cue from 
Torrey & Gray, wrote: “A. LUCIDA L. is referred to Canada by Cor- 
nuti, upon whose authority alone it stands as a North American spe- 
cies. It has long been cultivated in Europe, but its existence as a 
member of our flora is so very improbable that we do not include it”; * 
and, as for the treatment in their later Monograph of the N orth Ameri- 
can Umbelliferae the Canadian Angelica lucida L. might as well have 
been published as coming from Europe for it is not even casually 
mentioned. 
That indigenous American material of Angelica lucida was not 
recognized by Torrey & Gray in 1840 was natural enough, for they 
had only one poor fragment or, as they described it, “fruit and flowers 
only” from an island near Beverly, Massachusetts, and that specimen, 
so unlike the plate of Cornut, they placed in the newly published 
Archangelica peregrina Nutt. from the coast of Oregon. Under that 
name or Archangelica Gmelini DC. or Coelopleurum Gmelini (DC.) 
Ledeb. the plant of northeastern America was known until in 1900 
Coulter & Rose, distinguishing it from the western species, renamed 
it Coleopleurum actaeifolium (Michx.) Coult. & Rose,® based upon 
Ligusticum actaeifolium Michx. from Canada. 
Subsequently to the publication of the statement by Torrey & 
Gray, however, Dr. Gray had for a time surmised that the seashore 
Angelica of northeastern America, now passing as Coelopleurum 
1 Torr. & Gray, Fl. N. A. i. 621 (1840). 
2 Gray, Mss. on Herb. Mus. Paris. 
-2 Wats. Bibl. Ind. 412 (1878). 
4 Coult. & Rose, Rev. N. A. Umbell. 42 (1888). 
5 Coult. & Rose, Contrib. U. S. Nat. Herb. vii. no. 1 (1900). 
6 Coult. & Rose, l. c. 142 (1900). 
