I 



^Miscellanies. 35 7 



A 



I also sent a specimen to Professor De Candolle, at Geneva : who, 

 in the second volume of his Systcma JVaiurale, has unequivocally re- 

 cognised it, as being identical with Michaux's Cardaminc. I should 

 observe, that I forwarded specimens of Persoon's Arabis, along with 

 it, at the same time expressing my views, and soliciting a comparison. 

 That learned and indefatigable Professor could scarcely be mistaken 

 in the matter : because he had carefully examined Michaux's Her- 

 barium, and had there seen the very plant in question. 



In 1825, I was fortunate enough to come across a locality, (a cold, 

 shaded, muddy spring,) where this Cardamlne was quite abundant. 

 Being under the impression that there were still doubts entertained by 

 some of our Botanists, concerning the plant, I presented a few speci- 

 mens to the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, accompa- 

 nied by a note, stating that its character, as a distinct species, seem- 

 ed to have been questioned by respectable authority : particularly 

 by Muhlenberg, Nuttall, and Elliott ; but that I believed we now had 

 the means of removing all doubt and uncertainty. A committee was 

 appointed on the subject, — who, in a report dated Aug. 20, 1825, 

 (but not published,) say, they " find on due examination, that they 

 (the specimens) do accord with Michaux's description and appear 

 distinct from the Arabis bulbosa of Muhlenberg, the last Identical 

 with A. rhomboldea, Pursh." 



After citing Michaux's description, they add, ^' The committee 

 are not aware that the existence of the Cardamlne rotundifolia of 

 Michaux was ever denied. His description coming so near bulbosa, 

 or rhomboldea, led Muhlenberg to his usual word confer (compare,) 

 and Pursh to use the synonym with a question.* But Dr. Bigelow 

 in the second edition of the Florula Bostoniensis has introduced 

 Cardamlne rotundifolia as found on the mountains of New Hamp- 

 shire ; and his description accords well with Michaux's. Still he of- 

 fers It with a question ; because without comparison with Michuax's 

 specimens, which are In possession of M. des Fontaines at Pans, 

 absolute certainty cannot be counted on." 



On the foregoing extract I would remark, that I am not aware, my- 

 self, that ihe existence of C. rotundifolia was ever denied ; but it 

 is very palpable, I think, from the notes of doubt, and mterrogation, 



I do not find, by my copy of Pursh, that he does - use the synonym witli a 

 tion." On the contrary, the two plants arc given by him a= being entirely dis- 



question." 



*^nct, and withoxit any reference from one to the other. 



