T6 MONOGRAPH 



compared with ours, and will be found different, 

 in fact Lamark lias noticed some difference in it* 

 Torrey in 1826, and Beck in 1833, in their 

 floras of the Northern States have both the Ian- 

 nean and Gaertnerian species, but have never 

 found them growing wild, since they quote no 

 locality, but merely copy the characters of oth- 

 er authors^ stating Pennsylv. and Virginia, as 

 the native place of both. Beck besides ascribes 

 pale yellow flowers to K. critonia^ as Pursh 

 (but Torrey says white) and Torrey a pubes- 

 cent stem. But all the species with whitish 

 flowers, turn yellow in dryings and a pubescent 

 or glandular Stem belongs to many: while Smith 

 describes his as smooth ; but this varies on the 

 same plant. 



In 1818 I discovered in Kentucky a narrow 

 leaved sp. which I mistook for the K. critonia; 

 but Iiave since found very different from the K* 

 critonia of Elliot 1824, who is the only one that 

 has described it properly ; but his plant is even 

 probably different from Gaertner's : while my 

 plant is perfectly distmct by the fulvous pappus, 

 stated to be white in all the others ; I called it 

 K. media in 1833 but K. fulva would be a bet- 

 ter name. I found it in 3 localities of Ken- 

 tucky and even on the banks of the Ohio. 



In September 1823 in my visit to the falls of 

 the R. Cumberland, in the Wasioto hills of 

 East Kentucky, a beautiful botanical spot visited 

 by iKi Botanist but myself, I again detected 

 another sp. of Kuhnia, quite distinct by oppo- 

 site elliptic short leaves. I named it K. ellip- 

 tica, and it is described in 1833 in my Herb, 

 Rafinesquianum. . ^ 



Elliot has 3 Species of Southern Kuhma m 

 the 2d volume of his flora of Southern States 



