548 The Botanical Gazette. [December, 
Naturally it would not occur to them as it would to a mycologist that, 
in this case, the spots represented a case of mimicry carried, one would 
suppose, to the highest degree of perfection; for, not only is the whole 
insect remarkably like a leaf, but, to complete the deception, it is 
spotted with parasites irregularly distributed precisely like those on 
real leaves. In the specimens I saw it required no exercise of the 
imagination to interpret the meaning of the spots, but any person ac- 
customed to examine tropical foliicolous parasites would have been 
struck immediately with the resemblance.—W. G. FaRLow, Cambridge, 
Mass. 
Notes on the sumacs.—Rhus Caroliniana, sp. nov. Low but erect, 
ten to eighteen inches high, with somewhat glaucous branches: petioles 
terete and smooth; leaflets thirteen to seventeen, oval to oblong- 
lanceolate, coarsely and irregularly serrate, green above, pale be- 
neath but not glaucous, two to three inches long: flowers polyga- 
mous in a close terminal thyrsoid panicle which is broadly ovate in 
outline, four to six inches long, the lower branches soft villous, other- 
wise smooth: drupe discoid, clothed with short red hairs, with a 
smooth stone.—Flowers in the latter part of May and the acid berries 
ripen in September.—Plare XXX V/J. 
This species was found in the early part of the present summer in 
middle North Carolina, growing in old fields and low woods. It 
seems to be decidedly rare and local and in this state has a very lim- 
ited distribution. It is most closely allied to 2. g/abra, from which it 
is at once distinguished by the larger leaflets, fewer in number, and 
the absence of the glaucous-like whitening beneath. The panicle is 
broad and spreading while that of 2. glabra is more narrow. &. Car- 
oliniana occurs with R. glabra and R. copallina but attains only a low 
growth. 
It may be of interest to know that Rhus pumila Michx. was collected 
during the past summer in western North Carolina. Chapman’s Flora 
of the Southern States gives the habitat of this species as “pine-bar- 
rens, from North Carolina to Georgia.” I can find no record, how- 
ever, of its having been collected in this section and, as I have failed 
to find it there after a careful examination, have concluded it was an 
error. The description as given by Dr. Chapman is very good, though 
the lower limit of the number of leaflets is probably nine instead of 
eleven. Pursh in his Flora of North America, correctly gives the 
plant as occurring in “apper Carolina.” It was from this section that 
John Lyon collected the plants which grew in his garden and from 
which Pursh made his description. This description is similar to that 
in Chapman’s Flora except that the number of the leaflets is not defin- 
