Hill : Notes on Plants of the Chicago District 307 



with it before. Perhaps there should be added to this northern 

 list Spiranthcs latifolia Torr., two specimens of which were found 

 by Mrs. Agnes Chase of Chicago, growing on the bogs of springy 

 iiround near Carex Sliortiana. I am not aware of its occurrence else- 

 where in this state except in Menard County, a station farther south. 

 In a pond in the same neighborhood an abundance of Callitriche 

 hctcrophylla Pursh was secured, a plant of a wider range, mostly 

 southward, but new to our region. Another rare plant was found 



"^ 

 X 



Oph 



Mill 



\\\ the boggy border of Wolf Lake at Roby, Ind. I have seen it 

 once before during the time of my botanical work, nearly forty 

 years ago In western New York, where I also knew the Adder- 

 tongue Fern In boyhood as a curious plant of the wet meadows. 

 To meet ^vith it twice after so long a time was a rare treat. It had 

 been seen in Illinois so rarely that when Patterson published his 

 ^'Catalo^-ue of Illinois Plants" in 1876, but a single specimen was 

 reported, obtained by Dr. Schneck in Wabash County. 



Some plants have been recently added to our flora which are 

 readily confounded with others that are similar and thus are easily 

 overlooked. Cypcnis Hoiightoiiii Torr. does not greatly differ 

 from some forms of C. Sc/nt'cinitzii Torr., but is generally a lower 



I 



plant with a more compact inflorescence, and may also, when the 

 two are neighbors, grow higher up on the sand hills ; it is also 

 earlier by nearly a month. It has been in my herbarium since 

 1881 on the same sheet with its congener, collected in the dune 

 region, but had failed to be separated, perhaps not without cause. 

 In 1878, while studying the flora of Michigan at Petoskey and 

 vicinity, a Cyptrus vyas found on the sand hills at Indian River 

 which I identified as C. Houghtonii from the description given in 

 Torrey's Cyperaceae, as it was not in the Manual. To be better 

 satisfied some were sent, together with C. Scfnveinitdi, to a well 

 known botanist for verification. They were both pronounced C. 



II 



Jilicuhnis Vahl. This plant has been a familiar one for some time 

 as well as C. Schivcinitdi. I rested somewhat uneasily under the 



■ 



r 



weight of authority, but finally concluded that fiUadmis and 

 SchiveinitrM were different and Houghtonii might be a form of the 

 latter, since it was not recognized in our handbooks. The Mich- 



