PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



publication, however, a* it is not accompanied l>y any description or 

 synonymy whatever. The specimen cited is /'. micranthum, L 

 | /■'. ligustrinum, DC. ■ 



Dr. ( rray e\ idently got his idea of Schultz's E. glaucum from a plant now 

 in herb. Gray collected by Schaffner on Popocatapet] and labelled in 

 Schultz's own hand " E. glaucum, Sch. Bip. in Ehrenb. pL Mex. no. 897." 

 This plant is a Bpecies evidently near /'. micranthum, Less., but differing 

 in its impunctate h-.-n es, &c. 



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

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

 drawing and some fragments in his herbarium thai Dr. Klatt had quite a 

 different plant before him from either /.'. glaucum, Gray (nomen 

 milium) or E. glaucum, Sch. Bip. in herb. (coll. Schaffner). [dentical 

 with Dr. Klatt's K. glaucum (which, being the first Bpecies described 

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

 the subsequent pagei Leopoldina, xx. 90) by Klatt himself. Thisspt 

 is clearly shown 1>_\ the excellent specimens distributed by Liebmann, 

 no. 80, and Nelson, no. 17;i7 (from near Reyes, Oaxaca). The leaves 

 are Bmall, 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. Eiemsley 

 refers E. />>>/><>cittapetlense (nomen nudum) to Schlechtendahl and cites 

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

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

 Gray's hand 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 diffen al spelling of a name already used in another 

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

 a new name E. capnoresbium. 



The Bynonymy of the related species here mentioned may be stated 

 thus : — 



E. Mi' i: wiin \i. Less. Linnaea, v. 138 (1830), not of Lag. (which 

 was an Ageratum). 



/:. Ugustrtnum, DC. Prodr. v. 181 (1836). 



/:. semialatum, Benth. PI. Hartw. 7G (1841). 



/.'. popocatapetlense, llemsl. Biol. Cent. -Am. Bot. ii. 99 (1881). 



