1920] Wiegand,—Eupatorium purpureum and its Allies 59 
first edition all refer to our No. 1 above. Hermann's plate, and also 
that of Morrison, are plainly this plant; so also is the Hortus Clifforti- 
anus plant in the British Museum as shown by a photograph. More- 
over, the description accompanying the Ray citation represents 
this species, as shown by the number of leaves cited, as well as by a 
reference to the spotted stem and leaves like a nettle. Also, the 
original portion of the description of E. purpureum was drawn, either 
from the @ references, or from the Hortus Cliffortianus plant, or 
both, and therefore refers to No. 1: “folia * * *  lato-lanceolata 
* © ]anceoláto-ovata " * * petidata ^ " " Caytes 
florum incarnati. Flosculi octo." 
In the Amoenitates, where E. maculatum was first proposed, all 
the citations under the original 8 are transferred to that species, 
and they are the only citations given. However, Linnaeus's descrip- 
tion of E. maculatum applies much better to our No. 2: "foliis quinis 
tomentosis lanceolatis. * * * Folia quinque vel sex," since this 
northern plant usually has more lanceolate leaves, which are com- 
monly more hairy underneath, and more frequently borne in 5's or 
6's than is the case in plant No. 1. Plant No. 1 never has the leaves 
in 6's, and very rarely, if ever, in 5's. "The situation is still further 
complicated by Linnaeus in the closing statement of the description 
where he says that E. maculatum is his variety of E. purpureum as 
to both synonomy and description. In the Linnean herbarium is 
a specimen from Kalm which Linnaeus must have had at the time 
the Species Plantarum was written, and which is undoubtedly plant 
No. 2. Moreover, plant No. 2, rather than No. 1, is much more 
likely to have been found by Kalm in the regions visited by him; 
since No. 1 is coastal, and not northern. A photograph of the speci- 
men shows six leaves in the whorls (though unusual even for this 
species), and in every way answers the description of E. maculatum 
given by Linnaeus. There is every reason to suppose, therefore, 
that Linnaeus had this in hand when the description was drawn, 
and it is therefore to be considered the type-specimen. The name 
E. maculatum must, therefore, be applied to our No. 2, notwithstand- 
ing the fact that the synonomy applies to No. 1. 
It remains to determine the application of the name E. purpureum. 
The statement has already been made that the original description 
seems to have been drawn from the @ portion of the species. In 
the second edition of the Species Plantarum, where he first defines 
