19 
stand close to both A. montanum and A. pinnatifidum. One speci- 
men, nine inches high from the Tucquan, is not easily distinguished 
from a pinnate form of A. pinnatifidum, which is somewhat of a 
novelty and rather scarce. I am sometimes inclined to think that 
it is a good variety, if not a species. If it were not for a little 
frond at the base, which proves beyond a doubt that it is A. Brad- 
leyi, 1 would not know where to place the above-mentioned 
specimen. Besides the large, as well as some of the small forms, 
have the tapering projection, which is a feature of both A. pinna- 
uifidum and A. montanum, and, as with them, is sprinkled with fruit 
dots to the very end. 
One large specimen from McCall’s Ferry resembles A. monta- 
num very much. At both stations A. Lradleyi is associated with 
A. montanum and A. pinnatifidum. Are the three found in com- 
pany at other places ? 
The dissimilarity in character, both as described in the Manual 
and by comparison with material at hand, completely debars A. 
Lradleyi from being a variety of A. viride. Further exploration of 
the river hills will undoubtedly bring more of it to light, and 
there certainly is more of it between this part of Pennsylvania and 
Kentucky. More specimens from different localities will give us 
wider views on the subject. 
In this connection it may be of interest to state that on No- 
vember 30th I discovered Pinus pungens at McCall’s Ferry. It is 
quite plentiful, and seems to be the prevailing pine. 
A. A. HELLER. 
Lancaster, Pa., December 7, 1892. 
Senecio Robbinsii, Oakes. 
By H. H. Russy. 
(PLATE CXXXIX.) ie 
Senecio Robbinsii, Oakes, Ms. in Herb. Columb. Coll. S. aureus, var 
Robbinsii, A. Gray, in Herb. Columb. Coll. S. aureus, var. lan- 
ceolatus, Oakes, Hovey’s Mag. May, 1841, and Thompson’s 
Gazetteer of Vermont; T. & G. FI. N. A., ii. 492, not S. /anceo 
latus, T. & G. S. aureus, var. Balsamite, T. & G. form of, Gray 
Syn. FI. i. part 2, page 391. ae 
From an oblique pane, erect, very slender, 2 or 5, feet high, oe 
