272 
excludes it from the range of that work, and cites its distribution 
as only westward. Haussknect evidently based his statement 
that it occurred eastward on a specimen in Michaux’s Herba- 
rium, from Tadousac, Canada, which is so labelled by him. 
Tillea aquatica, L. Sp. Pl. 128 (1753). 
T. simplex, Nutt. Journ. Acad. Phil. i. 114 (1817). 
Bulliardia aquatica, D.C. Prodr. iii. 382 (1828). 
I have carefully compared anthentic specimens of the East 
American plant with the Linnzean species at London and Paris, 
and am convinced that the suggestion made in Torrey and Gray’s 
Flora N. A. that they are identical is the actuai fact. M. 
Franchet kindly compared them with me at Paris, and had no 
hesitation in pronouncing them identical. He also informed me 
that the European plant occurs on mud, as does the American. 
VLECKIA, Raf. Med. Rep. (II) v. 352 (1808). 
Lophanthus, Benth. Bot. Reg. xv. under t. 1282 (1829), 
not Adanson, nor Forster. 
Rafinesque gives /Hyssopus _nepetioides as the equivalent of 
Vieckia nepetoides, which plant was long subsequently referred 
by Bentham to Lophanthus. But in addition to the fact that a 
genus for these plants had been thus established, the name Lo- 
phanthus had been used by Adanson in Fam. Pl. ii. 194 (1763) 
for a species of Nefetfa, and by Forster (Char. Gen. Pl. Insul. 
Maris Austral. 27, t. 14 (1776), for plants now referred to Wal- 
theria. Hence Lophanthus is, from my point of view, doubly 
inapplicable to the genus of Labiate. 
Rafinesque has named all the American species under bis 
genus in New Flora N. A. and FI. Telluriana. 
Uvuraris, L. Gen. Pl. Ed. i. p. 93, No. 263 (1737). 
Oakesta, S. Wats. Proc. Amer. Acad. xiv. 221 (1879).. 
The characters assigned to the genus proposed by Dr. Wat- 
son appear to me to be insufficient to separate it from Uvu/aria. 
They are all differences of degree rather than kind, and a care- 
ful study of all the known species in the field has afforded me 
no other points of difference on which a genus could be main- 
tained. But whether they be considered as congeneric or dis- 
tinct, the name applied by him is not available for these plants, 
_ because it was previously given by Tuckerman to Corema Con- 
radii, Torr. (Hook. London Journ. Bot. i. 445 (1842). 
