El'PATOHir.MS OF K( lADOU. 367 



in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. \k\x. 15 (1900), its characters, very fully described 

 by its author, coincide in all significant features with those of E. 

 iwmorosum. The diU'erences are almost entirely in the greater size, 

 of the leaves and the more numerous florets. Neither of these matters 

 seems likely to be of specific value. Klatt's sketch of his type, a rather 

 careful drawing now in the Gray Herbarium, shows the lower leaves 

 more than 25 cm. in length (including tiie winged petiole, which is 

 7 cm. long and 1 cm. wide). The Ijlade is about 8 cm. in breadth. It 

 will be seen on comparison that the differences between these dimen- 

 sions and those given for thie lower leaves of E. yicropoduvi by Hiero- 

 nymus are in no way greater than are usual in individuals of the same 

 species. As to the number of fiorets, it is true that Klatt, apparently 

 without actual count, roughly estimated it at 100 in his E. ncmorosum; 

 but a head from Colombian material, collected by Rusby & Pennell 

 and closely matching the type-fragments in Matt's herbarium, had by 

 careful count no less than 221 florets. The difference between 221- 

 flowered in the case of E. nemorosum and 250-300-flowered as stated 

 by Hieronymus for bis E. pteropodum has no great significance, since 

 variations of much greater latitude have often been observed in indi- 

 viduals of the same species or even in heads of the same individual. 

 It seems strange that Hieronymus, in describing E. pteropodum makes 

 no comparison of it with E. nemorosum so closely resembling it in all 

 described respects but states that his new plant was not nearly 

 related to any previously described species. The fact, however, that 

 he elsewhere in the same paper lists E. nemorosum Klatt and states ■ 

 that it should be placed in Sect. Hebeclinium next " E. macrocephalum 

 L." — a clerical slip, by which he certainly meant E. macrophyllum 

 L., a species with which, however, it has no close affinity, strongly 

 suggests that in some manner Hieronymus has been misled as to the 

 r^al identity of E. nemorosum, and that having referred to it some 

 quite different plant siinilar to E. macrophyllum he therefore failed to 

 notice the identity of his E. pterophyllum with the true E. nemoro- 

 swn. — Prov. (Chimborazo?) not indicated: in tropical and sub- 

 tropical region near El Puente de Chimbo, Sodiro, no. 6/30, ace. to 

 Hieron. 1. c, as E. pteropodum. 



