213 



ing down rootlets into the ground) covering an irregular area of 

 I to 2 feet in diameter. Sometimes it is inclined to grow mostly 

 in one direction, when it may measure nearly two feet from root 

 to tip; but always matted and flat/' 



This perfectly well characterized species was first named and 

 described by Pursh ; subsequently, for reasons to be discussed 

 hereafter, Tuckerman rejected the original name, substituting for 

 It his own S, Ctttleri ; Carey retained the old name, but Anders- 

 son adopted that of Tuckerman, and Dr. Gray, unfortunately, 

 without due consideration followed him. On the page of the 

 'Irodromus" where S, Oii/en 3,ppe3.rs there is a foot-note as 

 follows; "It seems that the older name Uva Ursi ought to be 

 preserved, A. DC." You may search in vain through the contri- 

 butions to the same volume by such botanists as Kegel, Parlatore, 

 J. Muller and others, for any similar editorial criticism. In fact 

 the very exceptional character of this protest by Alphonso De 

 Landolle must be taken into account as a measure of the convic- 

 tion which prompted it. After the appearance of the fifth edition 

 of the Manual, I wrote to Dr. Gray expressing my regret at see- 

 ing Uva Ursi displaced and caUing his attention to the trivial and 

 invalid character of all the objections which had ever been raised 

 against its retention. Doubtless the whole matter was a bore to 

 m, but with that indulgence and helpfulness so characteristic of 

 the man, he now took pains to acquaint himself with all that had 

 been written on the subject and then replied : '*I think \\\^ facts 

 ^re Clear that you must restore Uva Ursi. Andersson was too 



^ in respect to priority of names, and is not to be followed 

 bli7idlj:' 



The reasons given by Andersson for rejecting the name Uva 



Ursi are as follows: i, because the description given by Pursh is 



very uncertain *' and drawn from " cultivated specimens;" 2, 



hi 



ioos 



" because if we respect this defective description there are many 

 other very different species, from the White Mountains of New 

 Hampshire and Labrador, that by the same rule must be granted 

 also." Practically the whole question turns upon whether Pursh's 

 description is, in reality, very uncertain and defective. My first 

 impulse would be to arrange in parallel columns the original de- 

 scription and that given by Andersson, leaving the reader to make 



