ma PITTONIA. 
first authority for a species of this group, have not taken 
the trouble to read his descriptions except in the most casual 
manner, is evinced by the fact that not one of them has men- 
tioned his Aster nervosus. Both in Steudel and in the Kew 
Index this species is presented as a valid one, but for the 
simple reason that no one has attempted either to reduce it 
to synonymy, or to deny its validity. It is simply ignored. 
And yet I say the description reads as if that were the plant 
which we have all been taking for umbellatus. In view of | 
all these intricacies in the bibliography, it seems impraeti- 
cable to make any alteration of Nees’ nomenclature of the | 
earlier species of DasLLINGERIA. 
1. D. UMBELLATA, Nees, Ast. 178 (1832).1 Aster umbellatus, — 
Mill. Dict. (1768)? Ait. Kew, iii. 199 (1789)? A. nervosus, - 
Mill., 1. c.?—Both Miller's plants, whatever they may have | 
been, were from Pennsylvania. Nees, whose diagnosis of - 
says that the muricate-roughened angles of the stem are the 
most essential specific character. | 
2. D. AMYGDALINA, Nees, l. c. 179. Aster amygdalinus, 1 
Bertol. Misc. vi. t. 5. f. 1 (1842), probably also of Lam. Eneycl. — 
(1783). Aster umbellatus, var. latifolius, Gray, Syn. Fl.197 | 
(1884).—A ccording to Nees this has its stem-angles perfectly | 
smooth, and its involucral bracts loose, that is, not appressed. 
numerous and more imbricated than in the preceding. 
3. D. INFIRMA. Aster caule infirmo, ete., Gronov. Fl. Virg. 
99 (1739). Aster infirmus, Michx. Fl. ii. 109 (1808) A - 
"Although this book has constantly been cited, according to its title 
page, as of the year 1833, it is evident that it was in the hands of botan- 
ists as early as the middle of 1832. Lindley, under plate 1527 of the 
Botanical Register, praises the work; and under plate 1500, issued in June 
of that year, he quotes it. 
