334 PROCEEDINGS OP THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



publication, however, as it is not accompanied by any description or 

 synonymy whatever. The specimen cited is E. micranthum, Less. 

 (B. Ugustrinum, DC). 



Dr. Gray evidently got his idea of Schultz's E. glauciim from a plant now 

 in herb. Gray collected by SchafFner on Popocatapetl and labelled in 

 Schultz's own band ^' E. glaucum, Sch. Bip. iu Ehrenb. pi. Mex. no. 397." 

 This plant is a species evidently near E. micranthum, Less., but differing 

 in its impunctate leaves, &c. 



In 1884 Dr. Klatt published, 1. c., the first description of E. glaucum, 

 but it is quite evident from the characters given as well as from a good 

 drawing and some fragments iu his herbarium that Dr. Klatt had quite a 

 different plant before him from either E. glaucum, Gray (nomeu 

 nudum) or E. glaucum, Sch. Bip. in herb. (coll. Schaffner). Identical 

 with Dr. Klatt's E. glaucum (which, being the first species described 

 under that name, must stand) is E. Orizabae, Sch. Bip., described on 

 the subsequent page (Leopoldina, xx. 90) by Klatt himself. This species 

 is clearly shown by the excellent specimens distributed by Liebmann, 

 no. 80, and Nelson, no. 1737 (from near Reyes, Oaxaca). The leaves 

 are small, thickish, and subsessile and the branches numerous and 

 ascending. 



The original E. glaucum, Sch. Bip. in herb., which is quite different 

 was also distributed by Schultz under a name approaching " E. popoca- 

 tapetlense," but with some differences in the spelling. Mr. Ilemsley 

 refers E. popocatapetlense (noraen nudum) to Schlechtendahl and cites 

 under it Ghiesbreght's no. 529 (which with its glandular-punctate leaves 

 i-evolute at the base is E. micranthum, Less.). Schultz's name in Dr. 

 Gray's hp,nd appears on the label of Ghiesbreght's specimen in herb. 

 Gray, and the substitution of Schlechtendahl as authority is certainly a 

 clerical error in the Biologia Cent. -Am. and Index Kewensis. While 

 Schultz's species seems to be a good one, it would seem unwise to 

 launch it under a different spelling of a name already used in another 

 significance. It has therefore seemed best to describe it as above under 

 a new name E. capnoreshium. 



The synonymy of the related species here mentioned may be stated 

 thus : — 



E. MICRANTHUM, Less. Linnaea, v. 138 (1830), not of Lag. (which 

 was an Ageratum). 



E. Ugustrinum, DC. Prodr. v. 181 (1836). 



E. semialatum, Benth. PI. Hartw. 76 (1841). 



E. popocatapetlense, Hemsl. Biol. Ceut.-Am. Bot. ii. 99 (1881). 



