NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 135 



position of the metamorphic rocks which make up the azoic rocks of unde- 

 termined geological age, overlying the southeastern angle oi Pennsylvania. 



And that by stream and current actions, perhaps in part by glacial, th 

 brought into the shape of boulders at a time anterior to the deposition of the 

 sedimentary' mica schists. 



And it is a fact of interest in this connection that the highly garnetiferons 

 mica schists of this district, are charged with dodecahedral garnets, which 

 probably have belonged to pre-existcnt rocks, inasmuch as their angles and 

 edges are rounded off', and the crystals reduced to an almost globular form. 

 This is true of the garnets while still firmly imbedded in the mica schists, and 

 applies to the garnetiferous mica schists extending over a wide area. 



On favorable report of the Committees, the following papers were 

 ordered to be printed. 



Remarks on Dr. Asa Gray's notes on Buckley's new Plants of Texas. 

 BY PROF. S. B. BUCKLEY. 



In the spring of 1862 Dr. Asa Gray had two papers in the Proceedings of 

 the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, both of which were reviews 

 of some new plants described by me in the same publication a few months 

 previous. I left Philadelphia prior to the appearance of Dr. Gray's papers, 

 being employed by the Sanitary Commission at Washington to make scientific 

 examinations and measurements of Soldiers for anthropological purposes. 

 See Anthropological Investigations of American Soldiers, by Dr. Gould, lately pub- 

 lished by the Sanitary Commission. At the end of the war I returned to 

 Texas, where I have been ever since. I did not see Dr. Gray's notes till Au- 

 gust, 1867. I have few Botanical works here, and no Herbarium, and have 

 delayed to notice some points in which I think Dr. Gray has not done me jus- 

 tice, in hopes to be able to have a better chance than I have here, but as 

 time is passing I will offer what facts I have now, leaving others for another 

 opportunity. 



During 1859, '60 and '61, I made a large collection of rare plants, in Geor- 

 gia, Alabama. Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, which I had boxed and started 

 with for the North prior to the war. These were stopped and destroyed at 

 Lavaca, Texas. They were intended for, and directed to, the Academy of Na- 

 tural Sciences of Philadelphia. 



The few I saved I brought with me, but I found the Herbarium of the 

 Academy not as complete as I supposed. I expected to find all the plants 

 which Nuttall had described, as well as full collections of Wright and other 

 botanists who had explored Texas and other southwestern parts of our coun- 

 try. But these were not as full as I imagined, and the Library was deficient 

 in some works which would have aided me in my investigations. I appreci- 

 ate these facts more fully now, than I did then, and can understand how very 

 likely it is that I have made some mistakes. There are very few botanists 

 who have not had to regret similar errors under similar circumstances. In- 

 deed the object of this paper is to show that Dr. Gray himself has fallen into 

 error in many particulars in the papers in which he criticises mine. For in- 

 stance, Clematis Texensis, Buckley, Dr. Gray says is his " C. viorna var. cocci- 

 nea, PI. Wr. 2 p. 7, C. coccinea, Engelman." It is referred to C. viorna with 

 the' remark that its "leaves are more glaucous, and the thick sepals of a pure 

 carmine red, very rarely purplish." I do not know that Engelman has ever 

 published his name of C. coccinea. I believe all that has been published is in 

 the extract quoted. If, therefore, it is, as I have no doubt the majority oi 

 botanists will agree with me that it is, a distinct species from C. viorna, my 

 name has the right by priority of publication. It grows in the vicinity ot 

 Austin. 



1870.] 



