4 Wilson—Observations on 
had been added to our knowledge of the plant, except what 
was implied in Wallroth’s separation of it from the genus 
Orobanche, where it had been placed by Linneus, and its erec- 
tion into a separate genus Conopholis, in 1825. Of this genus 
it was the solitary species until Sereno Watson described a 
second, Conopholis mexicana. 
In 1892, it is true, Dr. Chatin published his work on Para- 
sites, in which three pages of text and one of illustrations 
lithographed from free-hand drawings, are devoted to the 
histology of C. americana. The material with which he 
worked, however, must have been quite scanty and young, for 
a careful study of the fine anatomy of the plant shows that in 
most instances his statements and drawings do not conform to 
conditions in the adult plant. The details of the many points 
of difference will be given later on. Material for the present 
study was collected by Professor Macfarlane in the Allegheny 
Mountains, near Gallitzen, during June of 1896, and my 
investigations have been made under his direction. 
I]. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. 
Conopholis americana, as its specific name indicates, is a dis- 
tinctly American plant. It is not very commonly found, but 
has rather a wide distribution. Gray says in the last edition 
of the “ Manual,” ‘New England and Michigan, south to 
Florida and Tennessee, May and June.” 
The following more exact information is due to the kind- 
ness of several botanists to whom I desire here to make 
acknowledgment. 
New York.—Staten Island, Garretson’s. A. A. Tyler 
(Herbarium of Lafayette College, Dr. Thomas C. Porter). 
New Jersey.—Sussex County, near Newton. A. P. Garber 
(Herbarium of Lafayette College, Dr. Thomas C. Porte). 
Pennsylvania.—Chester County, R. Kipington. Lancaster 
County, Mouth of Tuequanhe, N. A. Heller. Franklin 
County, Mercersburgh. Allegheny County, Wall’s R. R., S. 
W. Knipe. Mercer County, Middlesex, A. P. Garber. 
