502 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [juke 



chrysanthemoides DC. Prodr. 5:607. 1836; Bidcns Kunthii Schz. 

 Bip. Seem. Bot. Voy. Herald 308. 1852-1857; Bidcns parvidifolia 

 E. E. SherfT, Bot. Gaz. 56:490. 1913. 



This species was stated definitely by DeCandolle (loc. cit.) to 

 come from Mexico, but Kunth (H.B.K. loc. cit.) himself was uncer- 

 tain as to its native country. DeCandolle, moreover, commented 

 upon the closer affinity of the achenes with those of Bidens than 

 with those of Cosmos. Whether he altered the specific name, how- 

 ever, through intent or through error, I am unable to say. But 

 later, Schultz Bipontinus (Seem. loc. cit.), who frankly declared 

 his belief that Cosmos was not a valid genus, used this altered name 

 in citing it as a basis for his Bidcns Kunthii, a name that, according 

 to the Vienna Code, cannot stand. 



Asa Gray (Proc. Amer. Acad. 19:16. 1884) strongly suspected 

 that this plant was merely Bidens humilis H.B.K. and suggested a 

 reexamination of the type material. Kunth (H.B.K. loc. cit.) had 

 described the color of the rays as "violacea, basim versus sulphurea." 

 This description is borne out, not only by the coloring in the plate 

 cited (that is, in copies of Kunth's work having the plates colored, 

 as in John Crerar Library, Chicago), but by the type specimen in 

 Paris (Herb. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris), clearly the one from which the 

 plate was made. This specimen, though discolored as to its rays, 

 shows at least that the proximal ends of the rays were colored 

 differently from the remaining portions, which latter seem surely 

 to have been some shade of red. 



More recently, fine material has been collected in Guatemala 

 (Heyde and Lux 6173, alt. 900 m., Fraijanes, Dept. Amatitlan, 

 September 1893, in Herb. Univ. of Chicago and in Herb. Kew), 

 which belongs here. Singularly enough, it had been determined by 

 John Donnell Smith as Bidcns humilis (cf. Gray loc. cit.), but the 

 roseate rays and more or less Cosmos-like aspect are very distinct. 

 The color of the rays in the dry condition varies from a pronounced 

 roseate to a faded yellowish color, rather than showing a distinct 

 sulphureous color definitely located toward the base as described 

 by Kunth. Still further material from the same small district in 

 Guatemala (W. A . Kettertnan 61 1 2, alt. about 2500 m., Vol. Pacaya, 

 Dept. Amatitlan, January 6, 1907, in Herb. Field Mus.) has been 

 collected and fortunately is in a more mature condition. The 



