28 Chimaphila umbellata. 
Pursh* has mistaken, ina medical point of view, the other species of Chi- 
maphila, viz. C, maculata, for that which is the subject of the foregoing 
remarks; and he has quoted the Indian name incorrectly, calling it \Si- 
psissewa ; SO far as I know, this appellation is never given. That in 
relation to the medicinal virtues he has confounded these two plants 
with each other, is evident, from his attributing active properties to 
Chimaphila maculata, which is not at this time known to possess any. 
He says he has himself been a. witness of a successful cure made by 
a - decoction of she plant, i in a very severe case of. hysteria; and re- 
| that it, (the C. maculata,) is a plant eminently deserving the 
attention of physieians.” {am inclined to think Mr. Pursh has been 
misled i in this instance by the name of Pippsissewa, which is applied 
in ‘common to both species ; for the experiments of Dr. Mitchell go 
tO pr prove, that the species so highly commended by him is wholly in- 
ert, though it is worthy of remark, that the Indians are said to call 
this species poison Pippsissewa, in contradistinction to the C. umbel- 
lata, which they call simply, Pippsissewa. Besides this, Shoepf says 
of C. "Beh which he enumerates ay his medicinal plants : 
se nomine Pippsisseva, fre- 
en ntes, Fostibaitip 4 in —— 4 
e;” and he informed the doctor it was a popular remedy for scrofula. The fact is 
only mentioned hese; with a view to give all the information on the subject I am possessed of. Certainly we 
are warranted, from our knowledge of the real virtues of the plant, to believe that its exhibition in this com- 
plaint, is strict 
empirical. 
