/. Carey on Chenopodiacece about the City of Nero York. 1G9 



nor do I remark the u deeply urceolate" perigonium. If the above 

 three species of Ambrina, with few axillary flowers, and of which 

 Moquin-Tandon had not sufficient knowledge, should prove rather 

 to belong to Roubieva by having a completely annular embryo, the 

 germs Ambrina may perhaps be considered as confirmed ; but, oth- 

 erwise, though with due deference to the great authority of Mo- 

 quin-Tandon who has adopted it, I cannot regard it as other than a 

 (not very marked) section of Roubieva — since the admitted species 

 of Ambrina differ in the degree in which the embryo surrounds 

 the albumem and the generic character is drawn accordingly. 

 Elliott remarks of A. anthelmintiea, that M it is probably our 



the speci- 



spec 



u 



mens of this plant which I have received from the Eastern States 

 differ from ours by leaves less rugose, dentate not sinuate, and 

 flowers in detached clusters (glomerules), not in paniculate spikes 

 as with us." This form I also find here; and have thought that 

 it might possibly be a hybrid, as it grows intermingled with the 

 Southern (typical) state of A. anthelmintica i 7 and A. a?nbrosioides, 

 and has, in fact, a very intermediate appearance, between them. 



ombifoliiim 



bifolium) 



but, though what 1 suppose to be the plant of Muhlenberg, and of 

 Darlington, Fl. Cest., grows very abundantly in the upper part of 

 the city of New York, and elsewhere in the United States. I 

 never saw a specimen actually agreeing with the European type 

 °f C. urbicum, from which I believe our plant to be distinct.* 



This species attracted the particular notice of that accomplished naturalist, 

 Ur. VVm. A Brnmfield, of the Isle of Wight, who kindly directed my attention 

 to an immature specimen which he gathered in the suburbs of Philadelphia. This 

 intelligent traveller also informed me that he had observed Chcnopotlium giavcvm, a 

 species which has not passed under my notice, growing in the same city. In his very 

 Interesting " Notes and Observations on the Botany, Weather, Ac, of the United 

 plates of America," Dr. Bromfield has the following remarks on these and other 

 nonopodiaecous plants which he saw in the neighborhood of this city, and Phil- 

 3 ? V a * **' found Chenopodium glaucum growing in the dockyard (at Pliila- 

 ^Iphia) on moist spots near the water, and on a large piece of waste ground at 



(C n Wtme genus, C. album, ambroswides, antnciviintimm, ana ooiryoiau 



J^- Botrys, L.? C. boirvodes, So*., being a var. (0. crassifolium) of Blilurn poly- 

 ?orph UlI , t C. A. Mey. fide Moq.-Tand.) are fimnd in waste places in and around 

 tue city, hesidea a fifth, allied to our C. urbicum, hut certainly distinct i'mm that 

 and C - ruhrum, for whirl) last, I believe, it passes here, and to which I am desi- 

 ro "s of drawing ,}, e attention of American botanists, as being probably a non- 



de- 

 J^npt. 'fin- plum | ing milc . n resemblance to C. anthelminticmn in its inflorescence, 

 D,a ij quite destitute of the strong smell of that species, and it resembles C. urbi- 

 **>* in the slender, erect, somewhat branched, nearly naked racemes, that bear 

 * few small leaves amongst the lower chisivr^ only. It is more branched and 

 spreading th an either of the two, or, indeed, than in any of the upright forms of 



°® E «ropean C. rubrvm that have come under my notice, which it was pronntin- 

 c <jd to be (I am sure erroneously) by some botanists of the town, to whom I sliow- 

 ed »* at a meeting of the Horticultural Society of Philadelphia. The only speci- 



RtoM* Series, Vol. VII, No. 20.— March, 1849. 22 



