38 
1-nerved, the fourth narrower, acuminate, 2-toothed, conspicuously 
1-nerved, the nerve excurrent as a straight or slightly twisted (not 
spiral) awn, 1.5—2 cm. long. 
Type collected at Starkville, Miss., on October 1, 1896, by Prof. 
S. M. Tracy, in whose honor I take pleasure in naming it. C. L. 
Pollard’s no. 1,341, collected at the same locality, in August of the 
past year, is the same. Mr. Pollard informs me that it grows on 
moist open slopes. 
The larger and denser panicle, the longer hairs both on the 
outer scales and at the base of the spikelet,and the longer awn, 
which is straight or nearly so (not coiled), readily separate it from 
E. alopecuroides L. The base of the awnin £. 7racyz, that portion 
included in the outer scales, is loosely twisted, while the same por- 
tion in £. alopecuroides is closely coiled. 
At the present time I only have specimens from Mississippi, 
and would be exceedingly glad to receive more material from other 
localities. 
PaspaLuM BLopGetit Chapman. 
It would seem best to maintain the above name, although per- 
haps not the oldest, for the plants that have been referred to | 
P. caespitosum Fluegge. Chapman’s type is preserved in the Her- 
barium of Columbia University, so that the positive identification 
of that species is possible. One of the forms which has been 
placed here is very different and surely worthy of specific rank. 
I have taken it out and described it below as new. Its differences 
» from the plants here under consideration are there pointed out. 
The reason which seems to make it desirable to maintain 
Chapman’s name instead of Fluegge’s is the inability to make the 
plants in my possession, which have been referred to P. caespitosum, 
agree with the description of Fluegge. He says, among his dif- 
ferentiating characters, that the scales are 5-nerved and the rachis 
as broad as the spikelets. In all the specimens at my disposal 
the scales are only 3-nerved and the rachis but one-half to two- 
thirds as wide as the spikelets. If this should be found to be © 
true in all the specimens that have been referred to this species 
it would throw considerable doubt upon the validity of past deter- 
minations. As no certainty is possible in the matter of Fluegge’s _ 
name until his type can be seen, it would seem preferable to _ 
