BOTANICAL GAZETTE. 



Vol. IV. MARCH, 1879. No. 3. 



Notes on Baptisia, by Wm. M. Canby. — Under the generic names 

 of Crotalaria or Sophora-, Linnaeus described four genuine species of 

 Baptisia^ viz : B. perfoliata, B. alba, B. tindoria and B. australis. In 

 1788, Walter added two more, B. lanceolafa and B. villosa, placing 

 them doubtfully under Sophora. Michaux (1803) placed all under 

 Podalyria, and gave the same number (six) if we exclude his P. 

 mollis which is now well known as a Thermopsi's. Pursh merely 

 copied Michaux's account of the species. Nuttall in his -'Genera'" 

 published in 1818 added 5. ?ewcoj:>/ic'efi, properly placing all under 

 Baptisia. He continued Michaux's sjiecies as B. mollis, as did also 

 DeCandolle in 1825 and Torrey and Gray, doubtfully, in 1838-40. 

 DeCandolle added no new species, Muhlenberg's B. bracteata being 

 the same as 5 /e?/eop//a;a, Nuttall; but between his account of the 

 species and that of Torrey and Gray, Nuttall had added his B. mi- 

 crophylla and B. spliserocarpa and Groom his B. simplicifoUa, thus brin.fr- 

 ing the number up to ten. Torrey and Gray elaborated the genus 

 well, clearing up some doubtful cases and adding two species of their 

 own, B. leucantha and B. Lecontii, and one of Chapman's, B. megacarpa. 

 The number was increased to fourteen by the B. Serenw of Curtis, 

 although this may yet prove to be a hybrid between B. alba and B. 

 tindoria; and as it is evident from a comparison of original speci- 

 mens, that Mr, Watson is right in considering Ravenel's B. stipulacea 

 as identical with B. microphylla, this number continued to represent 

 the species, until, in the Gazktte for August last, B. sulphurea was 

 added by Dr. Engelmann and B. calycosa by myself, completing the list 

 as given below. 



The earliest arrangement of the species was by dividing them into 

 the obvious groups of simple leaved and trifoliate leaved species. 

 As the number of the latter increased the color of the flowers was 

 brought into service to form sub-divisions. This did pretty well when 

 the known species were fewer and the legumes of several had not 

 been collected; but now that new species have increased and old 

 ones have become better known it seems best to try if they cannot 

 be more naturally grouped. The synopsis given below is the result 

 of some study of the largel* collections in this country supplemented 



