RECORDS OF SALVINIA NATANS 51 
is one of several very dubious records which Pursh, by 
no means the most accurate of botanists, admitted 
into his flora and which are now generally believed to 
be without foundation of fact. 
A second New York locality is on Staten Island. In 
regard to this, Mr. William T. Davis of New Brighton, 
in response to a request for information, very kindly 
writes as follows: 
“The so-called Salvinia natans . 
first reported by Mr. Thomas Craig font) a Nage near 
the Moravian cemetery where he and I collected speci- 
mens, and where it was evidently planted along with a 
number of other aquatic plants. Mr. Craig also found 
it in Silver Lake, which has since become a reservoir. 
Under the heading ‘Salvinia natans on Staten Island,’ 
Mr. Craig gave an account of his discovery of the plant 
in the Proceedings of the Natural Science Association 
of Staten Island for October 14, 1893 . 
At a later date I find that I made the ioiowing: ae 
in my journal: ‘Sunday, April 3, 1899. I planted 
Salvinia natans in Ketchem’s Mill Pond, as I did last 
spring. I have not been able to find that any planted 
last year lived over winter.’ ‘September 23, 1899 
(Saturday). In the spring I planted some Salvinia 
natans in Ketchum’s Mill Pond and now there are count- 
less numbers of fine plants.’ 
“This Salvinia did not survive the winter, and the 
specimens reported by Mr. Craig were doubtless, like 
mine, planted shortly before he collected them.” : 
It is not surprising that the Staten Island Salvinia, 
though growing vigorously for a short time, could not 
be made to live through a winter, for specimens of it, 
which I have had the privilege of examining at the New 
York Botanical Garden and at the Gray Herbarium, 
prove to be, like the Minnesota material, S. auriculata, 
var. Olfersiana. 
