530 
A. Canadense 8 obtusum Muhl. Cat. 1813. 
A. acuminatum Muhl. Cat. ed. 2. Nomen nudum, 1818. 
A, parviflorum Raf. New Fl. 2: 20. 1836. 
A. furcatum Raf. |. c. 
A. medium Raf. 1. c. 
“4. willosum Muhl. Cat.’ vide Duchartre in DC. Prodr. 15: 
424. 1864. 
It is quite possible that one or more of these names had at 
least partial reference to the neglected species here discussed, but 
there is nothing in the definition of any one of them to justify its 
present revival. : 
The three names of Rafinesque are together passed into the 
synonomy of A. Canadense L. by this remark of Rafinesque him- 
self in connection with his descriptions: “The A. Canadense dif- 
fers from all these by smooth reniform leaves, calyx reflected, 
etc.” These words evidently refer to our new species, and show 
that Rafinesque really knew both of our plants but made the mis- 
take of renaming true Canadense, assuming that to be the one 
which was undescribed. 
It appears probable that Muhlenberg earlier fell into the same 
error. His nomen nudum, Asarum acuminatum, may well have 
referred to true Canadense, allowing the inference that his further 
catalogue names, A. Canadense and its variety odtusum, really 
stood for the undescribed plant. This, however, is only conjec- 
ture, and as the leaves of true Canadense are either acute or ob- 
tuse no warrant it found for now taking up Muhlenberg’s varietal 
name. ‘There is little doubt that Salisbury’s name, Asarum lati- 
folium, is asynomym. The description of this plant as quoted by 
Willdenow (I have not seen the original publication) correlates 1 it 
sufficiently with the Linnean species. 
Walter’s plant was doubtless based on a malformed example of 
one or the other of our species, both of which sometimes occur 
with “‘folius * * emarginatus,” apparently the result of accident to 
the growing bud; nothing in Walter’s description is distinctive of 
: either plant. It would thus appear that there is no sufficient evi- 
_ dence that the new plant has ever had a name. It may now there- _ E 
