396 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [May 
This was sent to Dr. Sereno Watson, who regarded it as a new species, 
and published it under the name of Phacelia Coville’ in the sixth 
edition of Gray’s manual. It was not found again on the Potomac 
until April 1895, when it was taken at several points on the Potomac 
river Opposite its original station. 
On May 8, 1888, in company with Dr. W. Trelease, I found this 
plant growing in low, rich, bottom lands along the border of a cypress 
swamp, in Knox county, Ind., two miles east of Mt. Carmel, Ill. I had 
found it before, in several localities, near Mt. Carmel, and always in 
low lands that are subject to overflo + during times of high water, but 
had regarded it as Macrocalyx Nyctelea (L.) Kuntze (£/zsta Nyctelea 
L.), until I finally found the real Macrocalyx. I was then unable to 
locate the first plant until after I had received the sixth edition of 
Gray’s Manual, by means of which I found it to be Phacelia Covellei 
Watson. This diagnosis has been confirmed by Dr. N. L. Britton and 
others. Its general appearance is much like that of Macrocalyx Nyctelea, 
while the large globose, one-celled capsule places it with the Phacelias. 
These peculiarities have led some of the botanists at Washington to 
Suspect it as being a hybrid between Phacelia dudia and Macrocalyx 
Wyctelea ; but as the former species is not found in the vicinity of Mt. 
Carmel this can hardly! be true. 
Mt. Carmel, Ill., and Washington, D. C., are nearly in the same 
latitude, and a comparison of the published local floras? of these 
two localities shows that they have many species in common. rhe 
flora at Washington receives intrusions from the maritime and 
Alleghanian regions, while the flora at Mt. Carmel has been modified 
by many additions of southern and western immigrants, so that It Is 
not surprising to find this riparian plant growing on the banks of the 
Wabash as well as‘on those of the Potomac. It is reasonable to suppose 
that it occurs at intermediate stations, and perhaps to the westward, 
but that it has been considered to be the Macrocalyx and has been so 
labeled when collected.—J. Scuneckx, Mé. Carmel, Il. ; 
*Warp, Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. 22: 104. 1881; Schneck, Geolog. Surv. Ind. 
1875 : 504. 
