261 
CoRALLORHIZA WISTERIANA Conrad, Journ. Acad. Phila: 6: 145 
(1829). 
Stem slender, light brown, 20-35 cm. high, bearing several 
sheathing, scale-like leaves; raceme 6-1 5-flowered; flowers 15 
mm. long, slender-pedicelled, erect; lip white with conspicuous 
crimson spots, 8-10 mm. long, 4-5 mm. broad below the middle, 
abruptly clawed, ovate, narrowed towards the more or less notched 
apex, truncate at base, crenulate; lamellae two short, prominent 
ridges ; spur a more or less conspicuous protuberance adnate to 
the summit of the ovary; column strongly two-winged towards 
the base ; Capsule elliptic-oblong to oblong-obovoid, about I cm. 
long, drooping when mature. 
New England: Robbins; Pennsylvania: near Philadelphia, 
Wister, ‘Carsons ; Mercersburg, Porter; Delaware: Wilmington, 
Canby ; Georgia: Chapman; Florida: Chapman; Merritt’s Island, 
Aas Hi. Curtiss (No. 2816, distributed as C. odontorhiza); Alabama: 
Tuscaloosa, Johnson; Texas: Wright; Tennessee: Dandridge, 
Rugel; Knoxville, Kearney ; Ohio: Cincinnati, Lea. 
 Corallorhiza Wisteriana has been referred by most recent 
botanists to C odontorhiza, but is beautifully distinct. It may be 
recognized by its usually taller and more robust stem, flowers two 
or three times larger, lip less rounded, notched at apex, truncate 
and more abruptly clawed at base, with the lamella much more 
Prominent, the distinct protuberance of the spur, and the promi- 
nent wings at the base of the column. There is also a marked 
difference in its period of flowering,—from February to May, 
While C. odontorhiza flowers from July to October. It appears to 
be more common than C. edontorhiza, especially southward. 
CAStANEA NANA Muhl. Cat, 86 (1813). 
Fagus pumila var. precox Walt. Fl. Car. 233 (1788), fide 
Elliott (name only). 
Castanea alnifolia Nutt. Gen. 2: 217 (1818). 
This species has been reduced to Castanea pumila by those 
later-day botanists who have made a practice of “lumping” 
Plants with which they are not familiar into some well-known 
‘Pecies. But the best botanists of the early part of the cen-— 
‘ury—Muhlenberg, Nuttall, Elliott—agreed as to its validity. It 
's difficult to conceive how any one with Elliott’s excellent descrip- 
"on before him could have slighted its claim to such rank. 
