—_— 
HISTORY OF THE DESCRIPTIONS OF ASTER 
DIVARICATUS L. 
First description, LINNAEUS, Sp. pl. ed. 1, 2: 873. 
1753. 
** Aster ramis divaricatis, foliis ovatis serratis, floralibus integerrimis." 
This brief and indecisive character may have been drawn from 
a plant coming to Linnaeus directly or indirectly from some one of 
his American correspondents, as Cadwallader Colden in N. Y., John 
Clayton in Va., John Bartram in Pa., all of whom sent plants to 
Collinson at London, which found their way to Linnaeus. If this 
supposed specimen was that which became incorporated with the 
Linnaean herbarium and which still remains there as type of A. 
divaricatus, it was, fide Gray, 1882, ‘the upper part of a speci- 
men of A. corymbosus Aiton, wanting the cordate petioled leaves, 
and with open inflorescence unusually foliolose." But however 
unlike his specimen may have been, Linnaeus (** who did not well 
know his Asters,” said Gray), confused this plant of Aster divari- 
catus with our Doellingeria infirma, specimens of which had been 
sent by Clayton as his No. 143 to Gronovius. Linnaeus himself 
was at Leyden in 1738 assisting Gronovius on Clayton’s plants, 
and doubtless handled the izfirma specimens. At all events, 
Linnaeus in his Sp. p/. of 1753 adopted the Virginian zzfirma 
plants of Clayton and their description by Gronovius of 1739 (as 
Aster caule infirmo, etc.) as equivalent of his own Aster divaricatus, 
and also adopted Gronovius’ synonym from Plukenet’s Alma- 
gestum. 
Linnaeus’ originai presentation of his A. divaricatus in 1753 
consisted therefore of the brief description I have cited, followed 
by citation as synonyms, of Gronovius’ and Plukenet’s descriptions 
of Deellingeria infitma. Because of its composite character Gray 
decided, 1882, that the Linnaean name divaricatus ** should sub- 
side.” Its reinstatement was not till 1894, in the Botanical Club’s 
Check List, in deference to the Linnaean specimen. 
Linnaeus’ original description was retained by him in his Systema 
Naturae, ioth edn., 1759. In 1763, in his Species plantarum, ed. 
107 
