138 
STANSBURY, HOWARD. 
Exploration and Survey of the Valley of the Great Salt Lake 
of Utah, including a reconnoissance of a new route through - 
the Rocky Mountains. Philadelphia; Lippincott, Grambo 
& Co. 1852. : 
Appendix D of this Report, by John Torrey, is entitled: 
«“ Botany. Catalogue of Plants collected by the Expedition.” It 
occupies pages 383 to 397 and is accompanied by nine lithograph 
plates. 
A second edition of the report, with the same title, was printed 
by order of the House of Representatives, the publisher being 
Robert Armstrong, of the City of Washington, in the year 1853, 
though all the copies of it I have seen bear at the top of the title 
page the same document legend as the first edition. In the sec- 
ond edition the type was entirely reset, but no new matter was 
added in the body of the report and the pagination is maintained 
almost precisely throughout. In the botanical appendix, however, 
which occupies the same pages as in the first edition and is ac- 
companied by the same plates, there are a few important changes 
in the text. The principal one of these occurs on page 389, on 
which in the first edition the new genus Monothrix is described, 
and on the following page the species Monothrix Stansburiana. 
In the second edition the genus Monothrix is discarded, the name 
given for this plant being Laphamia Stansburii (Gray, Plant, 
Wright. 101. 1852), with the following footnote: 
“The Laphamia of Dr. Gray, although published subsequently to Monothrix, 
must take precedence of that genus, as it now embraces one species with a pappus 
of many bristles, another with a bisetose pappus, and two other species that are quite 
destitute of a pappus; so that the latter name is no longer appropriate.” 
From this footnote it would appear that the generic name 
Monotirix has precedence over Laphamia, but an examination of 
the date of publication of the first part of Dr. Gray’s Plantae 
Wrightianae and of the first edition of the Stansbury report shows 
that the former was issued in March, 1852, while the manuscript 
of the latter was not submitted to Congress until April 19, of the — 
same year. It is evident, therefore, that by the word “ published ” 
in his footnote, Dr. Torrey could not have meant what we now . 
mean technically by that word. In both editions had the Stans-_ 
