180 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 



S. GiGANTEA. The S. serotinci of Torn, and Gray, Fl.,*&c., namely, 

 the form with some sparse hairiness on the midrib and often the Lit- 

 eral ribs or veins underneath ; also " pedunculis liirtis " rather more 

 manifestly than in the preceding. The two are to be taken as of one 

 species, for which the name serotina is preferable. The glabrous form 

 is seldom gigantesque ; the jiresent one often is so, and may be dis- 

 tinguished as var, gigantea. 



S. KEFLEXA. The specimen, as of the preceding species, is of 

 Hort. Kew. 1778, but all three are in the work said to have been 

 cultivated in 1758 by Philip Miller. This is a badly grown form of 

 S. Canadensis. Indeed Solander in his manuscript notes, " Planta 

 primo intuitu videtur monstrosa varietas S. Canadensis." 



S. LATERIFLORA. Two shccts from " Hort. Kew. 1778," not the 

 Linna?an plant, nor of certain determination, probably a form of S. 

 ulmifolia, Muhl. Solander, in his manuscript, notes a resemblance to 

 S. ccesia, to which, however, the Linna?an plant (which is Aster 

 diffusus) has more likeness. 



S. ASPERA. Name taken from Dilh Elth. 411, t. 305, on which 

 the species is founded; specimen from Hort. Kew., 1778, a form of 

 the next species with rather broad and short rugose-veiny leaves, the 

 upper face quite scabrous. 



S. ALTissiMA. Not the Linnfean plant (vide supra, p. 177), but that 

 which from this date has passed for it, and for which we must now fall 

 back to the oldest and in the main most appropriate name, S. rugosa, 

 Mill. Diet. All the indicated varieties of this polymorphous but 

 well-marked species belong to it, including that which Pursh pub- 

 lished as »S'. villosa. 



S. NEMORALis. The spccics which has always gone by this name. 

 An indigenous specimen from " Virginia Dr. Mitchell," and a culti- 

 vated one of Hort. Kew. 1778. 



S. ARGUTA. Two sheets; one of Hort. Fothergill, 1778; the 

 other of unknown source, j^robably an indigenous specimen. Both 

 are the S. arguta of Muhlenberg and of most authors anterior to Torr. 

 and Gray's Flora, in which this species was taken up as S. Miihlcn- 

 bergii, Torr. and Gray. I was misled by a wrong identification 

 made by Dr. Boott, to which in 1839 I mistakenly acceded. A third 

 specimen, ticketed by Solander " S. argutce affinis, Hort.," is mani- 

 festly of the same species. This restoration brings back the specific 

 name to a plant for which it is appropriate, as it was not for the 

 following species. 



