298 AMERICAN MIDLAND NATURALIST 
Gray reports this plant as growing in Saskatchewan to Fort 
Franklin and Behring Strait (at that time Assiniboia was a separate 
province, not as now incorporated with the first named). It was 
therefore quite unexpected to meet such an extremely northern 
plant in North Dakota. It is described as 2 feet high, with ro 
or 12 rays. Our plant, reaching a length of 1 m., has only 5-7 
rays, and if there are more differences, they can only be ascer- 
tained by a confrontation with Hooker’s type or some of the 
northern plants. Until then, and if some additional differential 
characters should warrant the change of name, my inclination of 
naming this species A. chelonica must continue to be suppressed. 
Leeds, North Dakota. 
TITHYMALOPSIS AND DICHROPHYLLUM, SYNONYMS. 
BY J. A. NIEUWLAND. 
The most logical treatment of our Euphorbiaceae is that of 
Dr. J. K. Small in his Flora of the South Eastern United States.* 
The heterogeneous group of plants commonly aggregated under 
the name Euphorbia he has separated into a number of natural 
genera, some like Tithymalus and Chamaesyce recognized by 
Theophrastus or Dioscorides, and all pre-Linnaean botanists. 
This impossible aggregate, Euphorbia Linn. was accepted ~ 
almost without question or objection by manual writers in our 
country in spite of the fact that no real Euphorbia is to be found 
native in our country. The typical Euphorbias are succulent 
spiny plants of the old world like FE. officinarum Linn. or E. ant- 
quorum Linn., and the name should disappear from all our American 
manuals as it has from the Flora of the South Eastern United States. 
Besides Tithymalus and Chamaesyce among others, the genera 
Poinsettia R. Graham, (1836), Tithymalopsis Kl. and Garcke 
(1859), and Dichrophyllum K\. & Garcke (1859), are also recognized 
by Dr. Small. Several or all of these have been published as 
genera under older names by Rafinesque, and I have been unable 
to guess why this author’s perfectly valid names in two of the 
three instances have not been accepted in the Flora of the South 
Eastern United States, unless the author has entirely overlooked 
them, and this, strange to say, though every one of Rafinisque’s 
