Bicknell: Further Notes on the Agrimonies 517 



somewhat ambiguous and took first place in the list of specimens 

 examined only for the purpose of showing continuity in the range 



indicated. 



2. It is, of course, quite possible that Dr. Robinson may be 

 right in his contention that my A. Brittoniana is identical with the 

 A. pilosa Ledeb. of Continental Europe, but his later reference to 

 the matter seems to imply some recession from his earlier confi- 

 dence in his position, and to my own mind the balance of proba- 

 bilities is quite against this view. It is clear that the question must 

 remain an open one subject to final settlement only by further 



critical study. 



3. I have already given in detail the reasons which establish 

 conclusively the identity of Muhlenberg's A. Eupatoria hirsute. 

 These reasons are made to appear all the more cogent from Dr. 

 Robinson's later support of his dissenting view which finally rests 

 alone on the purely fanciful supposition that the plant may have 

 been a more hairy form of his A. Eupatoria glabra. The latter 

 species does indeed, in rare cases, become somewhat hairy, but to 

 suppose that this unusual state of the plant was regarded by 

 Muhlenberg as its primary type is wholly untenable. Moreover 

 A. glabra never approaches in hairiness the true A. Eupatoria of 

 which Muhlenberg's hirsuta is made a variety. It is absurdly 

 beyond reason to contend that so astute a botanist as Muhlenberg 

 would make a variety hirsuta of a plant far less hairy than its parent 

 type. 



The essential thing in regard to Muhlenberg's A. Eupatoria 

 hirsuta is that it recognizes the capital fact that the common 

 American plant, by Muhlenberg so considered, was distinct from 

 the European. For the purpose of the present use of Muhlen- 

 berg's name it matters not at all whether its original use was for 

 a particular one of several species, as we have since learned to 

 understand them, or was more general in its application. The 

 name was given to confer a merited distinction on a common 

 American plant, whether exclusively or only in part to the par- 

 ticular species to which I have restricted it, is not of the least 



present consequence. 



The position that a distinctive name for a new species, because 

 first used as a varietal designation, should be denied any future 



I 



