168 
Chimaphila maculata Pursh. is reported from Putnam county (McD.), Frank- 
lin county (M.), Jefferson and Monroe counties. ‘‘Counties about Lake Michi- 
gan.” 
Pyrola chlorantha Swartz is reported from Lake county by E. J. Hill. 
Pyrola rotundifolia L. Found in Noble county by Van G.; also reported 
from Lake county. 
Monotropa uniflora L is reported from the following counties: Franklin (M.), 
Clark (B. and T.), Jay, Delaware, Randolph and Wayne (P.), Putnam (McD.), 
Monroe (W. S. B.), Jefferson (J. M. C.), Cass (R. H.), Noble (Van G.), Gibson 
and Posey (S.), Tippecanoe (A. M. C.). 
Monotropa “hypopitys L. is reported from the following counties: Clark (B. 
and T.), Noble (Van G.), Vigo and Monroe (W.S. B.), Cass (R. H.), Franklin 
(M.), Jefferson and Monroe. 
In the distribution of the Ericacex throughout the State we find the following 
species confined entirely to the northern part, i. e.: Vaccinium corymbosum L., Vac- 
cinum Oxycoceus L., Arctostaphylos Uva-ursi, Spreng., Andromeda polifera L., Cas- 
sandra calyculata Don., and Pyrola chlorantha Swartz. 
Gaylussacia frondosa Torr. and Gray is found only in Clark county (B. and T.). 
The remaining species, with the exception of Kalmia latifolia L., are of general 
distribution. 
InNDIANA’S GENTIANACES. By AxtiIpA MABEL CUNNINGHAM. 
/ 
Gray’s Manual includes ten genera of Gentianacez, seven of which come 
within the range of Indiana; therefore, we might reasonably expect to find one 
or more species in nearly every county in the State. Unfortunately a compara- 
tively small portion of the State has, as yet, been thoroughly botanized, and we 
find reports from only nineteen of the ninety-two counties. As reported the 
range by counties is from Lake on the north to Clark and Jefterson on the south, 
and from Jay on the east to Vigo on the west. 
The reports show that six genera and fourteen species have been found in 
Indiana. Of these the genus Gentiana is represented by eight species, leaving 
the remaining six species to represent five genera. 
Of the different species named in the list below but four have come under 
my own personal observation, and in the reports of some of the others I find 
wanting much that is required to make them of any great value. For instance, 
those reported from Marion, Harrison and Washington counties fail to show when 
or by whom collected. Other counties, however, report the same plants with 
