1895.] Bricfer Articles. 549 
itely limited, merely stated to be “foliis pinnatis multijugis.” Lyon 
avers that he was severely poisoned by handling the plant but it must 
have been by another plant or he was hypersensitive to rhus poisons. 
Negro children where &. pumila grows eat its berries with the same 
avidity as those of R. glabra or R. copaliina and experience no symp- 
toms of poisoning.—WILLIaAM WILLaRD AsHE, /Vorth Carolina Geolog- 
ical Survey. 
Note on Aster.—In the region round about Oberlin, Ohio, the 
descriptions of Aster coryméosus and Aster macrophyllus, as given by 
Dr. Gray, do not hold. They run into each other so decidedly as to 
make the separation of the two into’ species of no account. Speci- 
mens gathered here in abundance show all grades of combinations be- 
tween the two, making no end ‘of hybrids. 
For instance, the distinction of “leaves thin,” and “leaves thickish 
and rough” does not hold at all. We have specimens with the leaves 
thin and smooth which can be placed only as macrophyllus. Nor will 
the differences as to serration hold at all. And this is true of speci- 
mens from other regions than northern Ohio. Taper-pointed and 
abruptly pointed would seem to be good distinctions, but will not 
hold good. Moreover the times of blooming are such that the two 
can be seen together side by side, part fulfilling the descriptions of 
corymbosus and part answering to macrophyllus. No wonder Dr. 
Gray’s diaries show that he was nearly distracted with his Asters.— 
F. D. Ketsey, Oberlin, Ohio. 
