104 • Bicknell: The Nomenclature of 



true distinction. If Dr. Robinson objects to the plant being con- 

 sidered hairy it is nevertheless always obviously and characteris- 



i 



tically rough-haired. 



Nor is this all. In connection with his Agrimonia Eiipatoria 



liirsnta Muhlenberg characterizes a variety glabra. This is clearly 

 no other than the plant which, following Dr. Gray, I have taken 

 up as the A. striata of Michaux. The fact that this plant was by 

 Muhlenberg considered a variety of his liirsnta points with perfect 

 directness to just what his liirsnta was. This A. striata in its leafy 

 parts approaches so close to A. liirsnta that its varietal relationship 

 might well be predicated until disproved by critical study. In first 

 attempting the segregation of the two plants it needed the closest 

 and most persistent observation in order to satisfy myself that they 

 were actually distinct. 



It may be added that if by his liirsnta Muhlenberg did not-mean 

 the plant here discussed then he had no knowledge of our com- 

 monest, most conspicuous and most wide-ranging species, doubt- 

 less also the species commonest and most conspicuous in the 

 region where his observations were more especially carried on. 



The " well-nigh necromantic power " which Dr. Robinson in- 

 vokes to explain my interpretation of Muhlenberg's meaning may 

 thus be identified after all with the most ordinary kind of common 

 sense. It follows that the name liirsnta for our common species is 

 scientifically because logically secure. 



As for Wallroth's name A. gryposepala, which Dr. Robinson 

 would adopt for the species, I am charged with the motive of " dis- 

 placing " it. As a matter of fact the name had never appeared 

 in American botany until resurrected by me and assigned a place 

 •a clearly rightful place — as a synonym. 



Agrimonia Brittoniana Bicknell 

 Dr. Robinson's indictment of this name rests upon two counts : 



losa Ledeb. of central 



/ 



A 



Michaux 



If the European and American plants are really the same it is 

 a matter of great interest, but I think it can scarcely be held that 

 sufficient studv has vet been piven to tht* nn^h'nn tn warrant any 



