2 Cincinnati Society of Natural History. 



since, as far as known, found it here, and it sliould be dropped from the list 

 as not now occurring. 



12. Ranunculus aquatilis, L. — Common White water-crowfoot. This 

 was credited to Mr. Clark, but its late finding by Mr. Groiug places it 

 again certainly on the list. It was found in great abundance near Glen- 

 dale, 0. 



12 a. Ranunculus multiftdus, Pursh.— Yellow water-crowfoot. This, an 

 entirely new addition to the flora, has been lately found in a small swamp 

 near Glendale, 0., close to the other species. 



17. Ranunculus repens, L., is a most variable species, closely allied to 

 R. bulbosus and R. acris. Muller says (Fertl. of Flowers, p. 7G) that bees 

 visit the three species one after another indiscriminately. The species 

 might be crossed in this way and the variability be thus accounted for. 



BERBERIDACE^. 



31. Caulophyllum thalictroides, Michx. — This is not a common 

 species, only a few stations being known in this vicinity. It is to be 

 sought for on wooded hillsides with a southern exposure, and is easily 

 recognized by the large, glossy green leaves, and rather small yellowish 

 green flowers. It is in bloom about May 1. 



NYMPHAEACE^. 



34. Nelumbium luteum, Willd. — The large Yellow Nelumbo, or 

 Water Chinquepin, has been, in all likelihood, exterminated in this vicin- 

 ity. Lea gives it in his list and Clark in his, though in the latter one, 

 published in 1852, it was considered as extinct. In early days it doubt- 

 less grew in Mill Creek and in the Licking River, but the progress of civ- 

 ilization has driven it away. In the summer of 1877 I found it quite 

 abundant in a pond back of Jeffersonville, Ind. It should be omitted 

 from our list. 



PAPAVERACEiE. 



37a. Chelidonium majus, L., Celandine. — Found in May, 1881, on 

 Mount Auburn, probably escaped from some garden. 



CRUCIFER.E. 



48a. Cardamine heterophylla, Wood. — An addition to our flora 

 found in the spring of 1882 near Loveland, 0., by the writer. Only a sin- 

 gle specimen was to be had, but there is no question as to the identification. 

 It diS"ers from C. laciniata in having the leaves alternate, and from G. 



