582 
Lake City, Columbia Co., July 11-19, 1895, George V. Nash— 
Plants of Florida, no. 2244; Eustis, Lake Co., Hammock Land, 
June, 1894, George V. Nash—Plants of Central Peninsular Florida, 
no. 988. 
Alabama: Auburn, Lee Co., July 8, 1896, F. S. Earle and L. 
M. Underwood. 
Mississippi: Ocean Springs, June, 1896, L. M. Underwood. 
This plant at once approves itself to the eye as different 
from S. Canadensis, notwithstanding a seeming absence of such 
crucial characters as subsist between other eastern species. Its 
distinctive appearance comes mainly from the leaves, the segments 
showing a marginal pattern which greatly accentuates the style of 
cutting characteristic of the more northern plant. 
In giving to this plant the formal designation of a species, I 
do not wish to be understood as holding that it is totally discon- 
nected organically from Canadensis. Whether it is or is not I do 
not know, nor is the question one which need affect the right of 
this positively individualized plant to bear its distinctive name. 
Undoubtedly, its species quality is of lower grade than that of S. 
Small or any other one of our explicit eastern species ; neverthe- 
less the quality in marked degree is there. It is doubtless a geo- 
graphical derivative of Canadensis, and is so nearly related to it 
that interrelation may be expected where the ranges of the two 
adjoin. Certain specimens of Canadenszs from South Carolina and 
Georgia appear to show an approach towards it, although typical 
Canadensis extends into Florida, as attested by several specimens, 
and as far south as Southern Texas as shown by Mr. A. A. Hel- 
ler’s “ No. 1713, Plants of Southern Texas, San Antonio, May 5, 
1895,” which closely matches many northern specimens. 
Affinities of Caulinites Ad. Brong. 
By ARTHUR HOLLICK. 
(PLATE 320, ) 
In Science 1: 725, 726 (June 28, 1895) may be found an 2 
abstract of the proceedings of the Biological Society of Washing- _ 
ton for June Ist of that year, in which Dr. Lester F. Ward calls 
