OP KUIINIA. 75 



Ventenat united to this Genus the Eupatori- 

 urn canescens of Ortega, a plant of Cuha, and 

 called it K, rosmarini folia ; he was followed 

 by Persoon in this. 



Michaux perhaps never saw this plant since 

 he does not mention their locality nor distinction 

 and has only one Critonia Kuhnia which no 

 one can prove to be Gaertner's. Muhlenberg 

 never saw these plants alive and ascribes to 

 both white flowers. Pursh meantime gives yel- 

 low flowers to K. critonia^ but quotes no local- 

 ity. Wildenow's account appears to be made 

 up of Linneus and Michaux account, making 2 

 Sp. of them. Lamark copied Linneus and his 

 fig. tab. 26 is K. eiipatorioidcs. Poiret has 

 copied Michaux and Ventenat. 



W, P. C. Barton in his flora philadelphica 

 1817, states to have found the linnean plant on 

 the rocks of the Schuylkill R. above Lemonhill; 

 but Nuttal in 1819 ascribes that very same lo- 

 colity for the sp. K. critonia : and it is there 

 also that in 1836 has been found by Mr. Du- 

 rand and myself the Linnean plant, which I 

 suspect to be identic with that of Gaertner. 



It is said that the Eupatorium alternifoliutn 

 of Sibiria, figured by Arduin, is also the same 

 plant, and Sir James Smith could find no dif- 

 ference in the specimen sent by Arduin to Lin- 

 neus. Yet is very strange that the same plant 

 should grow near Philadelphia and on the Al- 

 taic mts. of Asia, and hardly any where else : 

 since it is not in the Flora of Hooker and there- 

 fore does not extend to Canada, nor the central 

 and western parts of North America. Nor is 

 it found in the floras of Louisiana and Missouri. 

 Therefore the Sibirian plant must again be 



