478 Some Account of the Hog Artichoke. 



scattered flowers at the summit, on long peduncles. The Hog 

 Artichoke rises to the height of ten to twelve feet ; stem much 

 branched, few flowered. I would suggest with some hesita- 

 tion, however, that it may be the plant described by Michaux, 

 Pursh, Nuttall, and Elliott, and perhaps Walter, as H. divar- 

 icdtiis, and perhaps the variety ferugmeus of Elliott, which, 

 after all, may be but an accidental variety of H. giganteiis. 

 I subjoin Mr. Elliott's minute description of H. divaricatus : 



" Root, perennial : Stem, five to six feet high, glabrous di- 

 and tri- chotomously divided ; the branches much more nu- 

 merous than usual in this genus : Leaves, ovate lanceolate, 

 serrulate, with a long, tapering, somewhat acuminate point, 

 scabrous on the upper surface, pubescent, and sprinkled with 

 glandular dots underneath, the loAver ones opposite, the upper 

 generally alternate, on petioles three to six inches long : Floio- 

 ers, very small, numerous, in terminal panicles : Involucrum, 

 imbricate, the leaves ovate lanceolate, very acute, fringed : 

 Florets of the ray five to ten, (?) yellow, slightly three-tooth- 

 ed ; of the disk, yellowish, tubular, not very numerous : Ari- 

 thers, larger than the florets : Seed, compressed : Pajjpus, 

 two very slender awns, hairy : Chaff of the receptacle, con- 

 cave; as long as the florets of the disk, hairy, and slightly 

 angled at the summit." 



Considering the Hog and Jerusalem Artichoke as the same 

 plant, I have never cultivated the first, the other growing too 

 abundantly in the garden. But when the Hog Artichoke was 

 referred to y^olanecB, I felt some curiosity to examine it. I 

 am not aware that its roots, cultivated in this vicinity, pre- 

 serve their tuberous character : although the tubes, as they 

 were called, were planted, the products were mere strings, no 

 tubes being found among them, as far as examined : their val- 

 ue as food, in this particular, is thus rendered somewhat prob- 

 lematical. Indeed, the roots, as I remember, which were 

 ofiered for sale, were rather fusiform than tuberous. 



Milledgeville, Ga., November, 1846. 



[In justice to Dr. Ward, we should state that the paragraph 

 we inserted, in relation to the artichoke, was written in haste, 

 and not intended for publication. — Ed.] 



