1919] | Long,— American Occurrence of Crepis biennis 211 
With the passing of Professor Porter's guardianship, his herbarium, 
with its loose plants and labels, in many groups had suffered much 
from careless handling, but fortunately the thin covers of Crepis in 
the Pennsylvania series had been quite undisturbed. In the cover 
labelled “Crepis biennis L.” were two plants: one ticketed in pencil 
“Coll. Grounds, '69," presumably those of Lafayette College and thus 
the basis of the Easton record for Northampton County; the other 
from Wm. M. Canby with the data, “Introduced, Chester Co., Pa. 
1863." The “Coll. Grounds" specimen though named “(Crepis 
biennis" in Porter's hand (the rest of the label, however, doubtfully 
his) is a plant quite different from that species. It is low, scapose, 
with a single, rather large head, superficially somewhat resembling a 
dandelion and apparently referable to Leontodon hispidus. The 
Canby specimen had been named originally “ Apargia autumnalis L.” 
but Porter, in the process of doubtless numerous examinations of this 
strange plant, had crossed through Canby's identification, trans- 
ferred it to Leontodon, affixed a large “?”’, affirmed a * No!", written 
“Crepis” in ink and penciled “biennis?” and then finally inked in 
“biennis L.” The specimen shows a branch of evidently a robust 
plant, rough-pubescent, and with plane stem-leaves. Unfortunately 
it is only in bud and insects had wrought havoc with the immature 
achenes, but from the large size of the buds and the pubescent ¢harac- 
ter of the inner faces of the involucral bracts it seems clear that this 
is indeed authentic Crepis biennis. 
Further search in Philadelphia, at the College of Pharmacy and the 
University of Pennsylvania, produced no. other material — except a 
fine specimen of Sonchus arvensis masking under the name of “ Crepis 
biennis." 
It had become quite evident by this time that Crepis biennis was 
far from being a plant familiar to Philadelphia botanists. "Taylor's 
assertion of its greater frequence in Pennsylvania than elsewhere thus 
naturally led to an inquiry concerning the basis of this statement. 
Mr. Taylor kindly wrote me that his data consisted of apparently 
only the Porter records. With a deficiency of material at the New 
York Botanical Garden and two definite records from Pennsylvania 
his statement was readily verified — but not very happily phrased, 
it was felt, for information on the supposed occurrence of the species. 
With the Pennsylvania records for the range of the species appar- 
ently satisfactorily reviewed, a brief search indicated that the New 
