HARPER: COASTAL PLAIN OF THE CAROLINAS 369 
found it in the pine-barrens near Wrightsville, N.C. It was be- 
having suspiciously like a weed, as it and some of its congeners 
usually do in Georgia, and it may possibly be a comparatively 
recent (say within 200 years) mutation * from its nearest relative, 
L. virgata Michx. 
SASSAFRAS VARIIFOLIUM (Sal.) Kuntze, Rev. §74. 1891.7 
Seen in Florence County, S. C., New Hanover and Wayne 
counties, N. C., and Prince George County, Va., but always as a 
weed ; and it is altogether probable that it is not native anywhere 
in the Carolina coastal plain, for its normal habitat seems to be on 
_: bluffs, which are very scarce in this region, as noted above. 
GorpontaA LasIANTHUs L. 
Pinchot & Ashe mention no particular localities in North Caro- 
lina for this tree, but I saw some small specimens, in flower, a little 
north and south of Magnolia ¢ in Duplin County, and perhaps also 
in New Hanover and Brunswick counties. On March 1, 1794, 
Michaux noted it near (old) Washington, 38 miles north of Wil- 
mington, which must have been within ten miles of where I saw it. 
It was also reported from the vicinity of Newbern by Croom, and 
from near the present city of Washington, in Beaufort County, by 
McCarthy. § 
HIBIscus MILITARIS Cav. 
Seen only in the muddy swamps of two of the rivers of the 
first class mentioned above, the Santee and Peedee, in Berkeley, 
Williamsburg and Florence counties, S. C. In Georgia likewise 
I have seen it only along two rivers of the same class, the Savan- 
nah and the Ocmulgee; and in Alabama Dr. Mohr knew it only 
from the Alabama River and its connections in the coastal plain. || 
ACER SACCHARINUM L., (A. dasycarpum Ehrh.) 
If I am not mistaken I saw some specimens of this tree on the 
bank of the Roanoke River in Bertie County, N. C. It does not 
. in thi i _N. Y. Acad. Sci. 17: 116. 1906. 
See in this connection Ann eb & Dex 
Agr. Bur. Pl. Ind. Bull. 89: 62. 1906. Robinson, Rhodora B: 199. 1906. 
} Could the name of the place perhaps gee ec: connection with this tree? 
2 Bot. Gaz. 10: 385. 1885; 12: 78. 1887. oe 
ll Tennessee’? in his remarks about this species (Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 6: 
617) is of course a typographical error for ‘* Tensas.’’ 
