156 The Botanical Gazette. (March, 
of the generic description given by Steudel should have availed 
to show that his Cryptostachys vaginata is Vilfa vaginaefors 
Torr., forhe says: ‘glume 2 . . . acuminate; val- 
vulz 2 membranacee pilose acuminate.” These characters, 
especially the reference to the pubescence of the flowering 
scale (valvula), are found in Vilfa vaginaeflora of Torrey, and 
well distinguish it from my Sporobolus neglectus, in whichthe 
empty and flowering scales are never more than acute and 
perfectly glabrous. Besides the longer and relatively nat- 
rower spikelets in V. vaginaeflora Torr., another character 
serves well to distinguish these two related species. In Spor- 
obolus vaginaeflorus the flowering scale in age is dull and 
usually mottled, while in Sporobolus neglectus it become 
white and shining. 
The other of your correspondents seems to question the 
‘‘validity” of some changes I have proposed, but he too dis 
regards the facts. In reference to A ndropogon alopecursiles 
| 
form with a twisted awn, for he uses the expression ‘arisli | 
what form did Linnaeus give the name ‘‘alopecuroides. 
has made himself clear on this point, as stated above. ™ 
also makes the following citation: ‘Andropogon culmo pair 
culato. Gron. virg. 133.” On page 133 of Gronovius' Flos 
Virginica the above quoted words are found and appended § 
“Clayt. n. 601.” I have been thus explicit, as a referettt 
made by your correspondent to ‘Gronovius’ number 13 
¢ 
specimen. Had he looked into the subject, he would not hat 
made this error, ; 
In order to ascertain just what Clayton’s no. 601 }5 si 
ee of three distinct forms were sent to Mr. E. G. a 
the British Museum, where Clayton’s plants are (ae 
€ replied as follows: “Your no. 2 matches the Clay fo 
type and as I thought perhaps you would like to se¢ i . 
yoursel I send a scrap of the type with Mr. Carruthers P 
mission.” This settled the matter conclusively. Bush r 
160, collected in Missouri in 1893, and Kearney'’s 
