272 



excludes it from the range of that work, and cites its distribution 

 as only westward. Haussknect evidently based his statement 

 that it occurred eastward on a specimen in Michaux's Herba- 

 rium, from Tadousac, Canada, which is so labelled by him. 



Tillcea aqnatica, L. Sp. PI. 128 (1753). 



T. simplex, Nutt. Journ. Acad. Phil. i. 114 (1817). 

 Bnlliardia aqnatica, D.C. Prodr. iii. 382 (1828). 



I have carefully compared authentic specimens of the East 

 American plant with the Linnasan species at London and Paris, 

 and am convinced that the suggestion made in Torrey and Gray's 

 Flora N. A. that they are identical is the actual fact. M. 

 Franchet kindly compared them with me at Paris, and had no 

 hesitation in pronouncing them identical. He also informed me 

 that the European plant occurs on mud, as does the American. 



Vleckia, Raf. Med. Rep. (H) v. 352 (1808). 



LopJiantJius, Benth. Bot. Reg. xv. under t. 1282 (1829), 

 not Adanson, nor Forster. 



Rafinesque gives Hyssopus ncpetioidcs as the equivalent of 

 Vleckia ncpctoides, which plant was long subsequently referred 

 by Bentham to Loplianthns. But in addition to the fact that a 

 eenus for these plants had been thus established, the name Lo- 

 phantJuis had been used by Adanson in Fam. PI. ii. 194 (1763) 

 for a species of Ncpcta, and by Forster (Char. Gen. PL Insul. 

 Maris Austral. 27, t. 14 (1776), for plants now referred to Wal- 

 thcria. Hence LophantJuis is, from my point of view, doubly 

 inapplicable to the genus of Labiatae. 



Rafinesque has named all the American species under his 

 genus in New Flora N. A. and Fl. Telluriana. 



UVULARIA, L. Gen. PI. Ed. i. p. 93, No. 263 (i737)- 



Oakesia, S. Wats. Proc. Amer. Acad. xiv. 221 (1879). 



The characters assigned to the genus proposed by Dr. Wat- 

 son appear to me to be insufficient to separate it from Uvnlaria. 

 They are all differences of degree rather than kind, and a care- 

 ful study of all the known species in the field has afforded me 

 no other points of difference on which a genus could be main- 

 tained. But whether they be considered as congeneric or dis- 

 tinct, the name applied by him is not available for these plants, 

 because it was previously given by Tuckerman to Conuia Con- 

 radii, Torr. (Hook. London Journ. Bot. i. 445 (1842). 



