456 TRANS. OF THE ACAD. OF SCIENCE. 
quadruplo) longioribus; stigmatibus exsertis; capsula ‘ tri- 
quetra acuminato-rostrata 1-loculari exserta; seminibus obo- 
vatis breviter apiculatis reticulatis, areis lineolatis.—/. Muh- 
lenbergii, Spreng. Syst. 2, 106 (1825); J. viviparus, Conrad 
in Journ. Ac. Phil. 6, old ser. part 1, p. 105; J. Conradi, 
Tuckerm. in Torr, Fl. N. Y. 2, 328 (1843); Gray Man. ed. 2, 
482; Chapm. Fl. 495; J. dichotomus in herb. plur. 
Var. 8. crassicaudex, e rhizomate crasso caulibus foliisque 
robustioribus.—/. abortivus, Chapm. FI. 1. ¢. 
Var. y? subtilis, caule reptante vel fluitante radicante foli- 
oso; foliis brevibus setaceis ex axillis proliferis ; floribus sub- 
binis 3-andris.—J. fluitans, Michx, Fl. 1, 1915; J. subtilis, E. 
Mey. Syn. Luz, 31; La Harpe Mon. 135. 
From Newfoundland (ex La Harpe) and Canada, Macrae, 
westward to Lake Superior, obdins, and southward, chiefly 
along the coast, to South Carolina, Curtis; var. 3. in Florida, 
Chapman; var. y. in Canada, Herb. Michaur.—A very pe- 
culiar and, morphologically, very important plant, the synon- 
ymy of which has been quite obscure. Meyer's original 
diagnosis is too short, so that it permits strong doubts about 
the identity of the plant he had in view, and his unfortunate 
comparison of his species with J. lampocarpus and J. para- 
doxus, “cujus habitum refert,” necessarily throws botanists 
on the wrong track. But La Harpe,* who wrote oniy two 
years after Meyer’s publication, and who seems to have been 
well acquainted with Meyer and with his species, gives a full 
description which can leave no doubt, even if Meyer’s herba- 
rium did not settle the difficulty. Though originally the 
species was described from specimens in C. Sprengel’s collec- 
tion, which seem also to have been the originals of his /. 
Muhlenbergii (most probably received from Muhlenberg him- 
self), several specimens, obtained later from different sources 
(e. g. E. Tuckerman and A. Gray) are preserved in Meyer's 
herbarium with the name of “J. pelocarpus” in his own hand- 
writing; and others, named by him, are found in the royal 
herbarium at Berlin. Now, this plant is so peculiar that no 
one who has ever examined it can confound it with any other; 
* Jean de La Harpe’s ‘“‘ Monographie des vraies Joncees” seems to be 
little accessible to botanists ; it was published, 1825, in the third volume 
of Mémoires de la Société d’ Histoire Naturelle de Paris, p. 89-181, and is 
a work of careful research, in which I believe I can trace the conscientious 
investigation and the critical spirit of my old and highly esteemed, now 
departed, friend, Jacques Gay, of Paris. La Harpe was the first to give full 
and careful descriptions of these plants and of all their organs, and only 
after the date of his publication we find in Meyer’s p>pers similar extended 
accounts in place of the former short diagnoses, e. g. in the Junci of the 
Reliquie Henkeane, published 1827. Not having been able to compare 
Michaux’s original plants, I have with confidence relied on the critical 
references of La Harpe, especially in regard to species about which doubts 
had existed, such as J. fluitans, acuminatus, and polycephalus. 
