E. L. EKMAN, WEST INDIAN VERNONIiE. 17 



this is the true V. Wrightii Sch.-Bip., as shown by the descrip- 

 tion and the handwriting of Schultz-Bipontinus. Gri- 

 sebach, iii his Cat. Plant. Cub., p. 144, applies the name 

 of V. Wrightii to the plant generally numbered 1309, which 

 is V. leptoclada Sch.-Bip. Not accepting this plant as a 

 species, he cites it as a form of V. arbor escens Sw., though 

 maintaining the binomial writing (F. Wrightii Sch., forma 

 foliis angustioribus subtus tomentosis, capitulis folio florali 

 multo brevioribus). He does not mention anything about 

 V. leptoclada Sch.-Bip. Gleason, who has read the descrip- 

 tions of Schultz-Bipontinus, but not discovered the mys- 

 tery of the interchanged labels, in the Revision assigns cor- 

 rectly V. Wrightii Sch.-Bip. to his Fruticosce (i. e. his Sagrce- 

 ance), though as a synonym of V. Sagrwana DC. He applies, 

 further, the name of V. leptoclada to the plant which in fact corre- 

 sponds to V. Wrightii. The true V. leptoclada Sch.-Bip. he refers 

 to V. gnaphalifolia A. Rich., and consequently describes the 

 genuine V. ghaphalifolia, which thus had no name at its dis- 

 posal, as a new species, V. sublanata Gleason. His remarks 

 on V. gnaphalifolia A. Rich, read as follows: Vernonia Wrightii 

 Griseb. 1. c. ; Not V. Wrightii Sch.-Bip. , and further: 

 Wright's collection, 1309, included two species, one a form 

 with broad smooth leaves, V. Sagrceana DC, and the other 

 with tomentose leaves. The first was taken by Schultz 

 as the type of his V. Wrightii. Grisebach, apparently consid- 

 ering that the number included but one species, published 

 the name for the second form, thus introducing the syno- 

 nyms cited above . Evidently, this is an attempt of Glea- 

 son to explain the lack of harmony found between the 

 descriptions of Schultz-Bipontinus and the plants cor- 

 responding to them according to their numbers. In work- 

 ing out his Studies he had learnt that his V. sublanata 

 is identical with V. gnaphalifolia A. Rich. Thus his V. gna- 

 phalifolia had no name, and consequently he names it V. 

 neglecta Gleason, creating in this manner one synonym more 

 for the true V. leptoclada Sch.-Bip. Still believing that this 

 species belongs to the Sagrceanm, he identifies with it Shafer 

 n. 8145, a genuine V. Wrigthii Sch.-Bip. Another plant, 

 Shafer n. 7738, he refers to V. Wrightii, though with some 

 reservation. However, it differs from the genuine V. Wrightii 



Arkiv for botanik. Band 13. N:o 15. 2 



