Hill: Celtis Pumila Pursh 505 



As Schweinitz was a Pennsylvanian (born 1780) and became a 

 correspondent of the elder Muhlenberg toward the close of his life, 

 somewhere after 18 13, when Muhlenbe 



g first heard of him,* it 



seems that he would have known Muhlenberg's variety pumila at 

 first hand and that it was the pumila of Pursh. Since one seen by 

 Rafinesque was in the herbarium of Collins, who was a resident of 

 Philadelphia, and a familiar friend of Muhlenberg, it is also evident 

 that Collins knew the C. occidentalis var. pumila of Muhlenberg di- 

 rectly. This goes far to prove the identity of the two forms as well 

 as the reasonable priority of Muhlenberg's name in this case, un- 

 less we entirely rule out the " Catalogue M as an authority for 

 nomenclature. In my opinion the name should be written Celtis 

 pumila (Muhl.) Pursh. 



Plate il shows flowering and fruiting branches and winter 

 buds, natural size, the perfect and sterile flowers and nutlet en- 

 larged 5 diameters. 



Chicago, Aug. 1, 1900. 



*In a letter dated Lancaster, Dec. 13, 1813, Dr. Muhlenberg writes: "It is 

 only today that I hear of an excellent Mycologist in North Carolina, who is a teacher 

 among the Moravians at Salem, and has written upon the Fungi in Germany. His ad- 

 dress is Rev. L. David de Schweinitz at Salem, North Carolina.' ' (Darlington's 

 Reliquiae Baldwinianae, 119, 1843.) They subsequently corresponded. 





