278 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



been so kind as to lend for examination a bit of the original plant of 

 Haenke from the Prodromus Herbarium at Geneva, calling attention to 

 the fact that Schultz Bipontinus had once seen the specimen, and recorded 

 on the sheet his opinion that it was not Mexican, but was the Chilean 

 Pleocarphus revolutus, Don. It appears that this supposition has never 

 been put on record in print. It is, however, fully confirmed by an exami- 

 nation of the fragment sent by Mr. De Candolle. The plant is certainly 

 not a Carphepkorus, nor does it belong to the Eupatorieae. The corollas 

 are distinctly bilabiate, and the achenes are not at all angled. It agrees 

 very closely with Don's description of Pleocarphus revolutus and with Gay's 

 admirable colored plate of the Chilean plant (Fl. Chil. t. 43). In the 

 Gray Herbarium there is furthermore a specimen of: Pleocarphus revolutus 

 collected by Gay, and with this also the plant of Haenke is in close agree- 

 ment, the only differences noted being a slightly greater pubescence 

 on the pedicels and a tendency for the bracts of the involucre to be 

 a little narrower, differences of degree only, and so slight that they 

 may be confidently attributed to individual variation. The genus Pleo- 

 carpkus has no floral distincions from Jungia, with which it has been 

 united by nearly all writers, who have had occasion to mention it in 

 recent years. In accordance with this view, the plant in question should 

 be called : 



Jungia revoluta, n. comb. Pleocarphus revolutus, D. Don. Trans. 

 Linn. Soc. xvi. 228 (1830); Remy in Gay, Fl. Chil. iii. 427, t. 43. 

 Carphepkorus revolutifolius, DC. Prod. v. 133 (1836). Of the same 

 habitally divergent section of Jungia is also 



J. dentata, n. comb., Pleocarphus dentatus, Phil. Linnaea, xxxiii. 51 

 (1864). 



It is well known that confusion has existed in the collections of Haenke 

 and Nee, whose plants came partly from western South America and 

 partly from Mexico. It is, therefore, a matter of no surprise that the 

 problematic Carphepkorus revolutifolius, which many acute and diligent 

 collectors in Mexico have never succeeded in rediscovering, should be 

 found identical with a plant from Chili, whence without doubt the plant 

 of Haenke originally came. The species should, therefore, be eliminated 

 both from the Mexican flora and from the genus Carphepkorus, 



