360 
surrounding prickles and usually a little exceeding them; styles 
short, nearly erect, strictly included; commissural scar elliptic, 
occupying most of the face of the mericarp. Seed somewhat cres- 
centic in transverse section, the dorsal surface even, the face con- 
cave, sometimes almost sulcate; oil-tubes of two kinds, one set 
consisting of a pair of large vittae latero-commissural in the peri- 
carp; the other set a series of minute ducts lining the inner face 
of the pericarp, especially along the commissural concavity, where 
they may number as many as twenty. In the dried fruit the 
hardened secretion of the large tubes is nearly colorless, that of 
the minute ducts of areddish-amber color. Root somewhat similar 
to that of S. Caxadensis and likewise, apparently, not perennial. 
(Plate 244.) 
While in its general aspect this plant stands out clearly enough 
from our other species, the crucial test of fruit characters shows it 
to be indeed profoundly different. In fact, its fruit, in the 
numerous minute oil-tubes, supplemented by a large outer pair 
having, apparently, a different secretion, presents characters hith- 
erto unreported in the the genus so far as I have been able to dis- 
cover. 
I find three specimens of this plant in the Columbia College 
Herbarium, and one in the Herbarium of the Torrey Club, now at 
the College of Pharmacy in New York. Of the former, one is €S- 
pecially interesting as having passed through Dr. Torrey’s hands 
and bearing his note: “Intermediate between S. Marylandica and 
S. Canadensis,” it is labeled simply «‘ Ohio.” The other specimens 
are all named S. Canadensis ; one is No. 835 of the Geological and 
Natural History Survey of Canada, and is labeled “ dry, rich woods, 
Ontario, Amherstburg, Macoun, 5, 10, 1892;” another was col- 
lected by Dr. Britton at Indianapolis, Aug. 25, 1890. The speci- 
men in the local Herbarium is of a complete fruiting plant and 
bears witness to Mr. Leggett’s careful methods in botanical 
work; it is labeled “ Canaan, Conn., ’68, W. H. L.” The label, 
however, is not in Mr. Leggett’s handwriting, and, as it was doubt- 
less copied and affixed after his death, is perhaps open to doubt 
as applying to the identical plant which now bears it. The locali- 
ties of Ontario, Ohio and Indiana suggest a more exclusively 
central distribution than limits our other species, though the plant 
may well occur further east. I feel almost certain of having myself 
seen it in Alleghany County, New York, in 1891, in a flora 
strongly characteristic of the northern Alleghenies. 
