164 Rhodora [OCTOBER 
(1) The leaves are said to be “semper ternis”; this phrase well 
applies to specimens of Species No. 4, but it is not applicable to 
Species No. 3 at all. ; 
(2) The leaves are further described as ovate-lanceolate and ser- 
rate, words thoroughly applicable to Species No. 4, and to be con- 
trasted with the description of Clayton’s No. 162 by Gronovius 
"foliis ovato-lanceolatis obtuse serratis, in petiolos desinentibus”’ 
(Gron. Virg. 93). It is of course to be remembered that this plant 
last referred to has been identified both by Prof. Wiegand and my- 
self as Species No. 3. and it is cited by Linnaeus under Eupatorium 
purpureum. I would think it more probable that Clayton and 
Gronovius had two different species in mind rather than that the two 
descriptions referred to the same plant. 
(3) The flowers are described as white. Prof. Wiegand himself 
states that the flowers of No. 4 are lighter in color than the flowers 
of the other species. They are in fact often very light colored in- 
deed as I am acquainted with the plant. 
(4) In the Torrey herbarium there are certain excellent specimens 
from the southern mountains. These are complete specimens of a 
slender plant with all the leaves in 3’s and the floweers very light 
colored. They to my mind exactly answer the description from 
Gronovius, and I think the name Eupatorium trifoliatum should 
apply to them. I am not sure that they are quite the same as Spe- 
cles No. 4, but they are certainly very close to it. 
(5) Clayton's plant grows “in solo pingui and umbrosis locis "— 
words quité applicable to the habitat given by Prof. Wiegand for 
Species No. 4 “a plant of rich upland woods;" but scarcely appli- 
cable to the habitat given by him for Species No 3 “a plant of damp 
woods and pastures. ” 
It seems to me that Prof. Wiegand lays too much stress on the 
photograph of what is said to be a specimen of Clayton's 620 in the 
British Museum. One cannot say that it agrees with the descrip- 
tion given in Gronovius, which seems to have been taken from living 
plants. It is noticeable, however, that the description given by Prof. 
Wiegand of the plant shown in this photograph does agree with the 
description under Clayton's 162 referred to above, and the query 
naturally arises whether the specimen photographed did not get 
mixed up by some one and whether it does not really represent 
Clayton's 162 instead of his 620. In this connection it is to be noted 
