326 DESCRIPTION OF AsTERS ; MACROPHYLLI 
glands; many petioles transiently villous, but the hair already 
passing. Strong short radical-bearing branches of the rootstock 
opposite, both now with 4 leaves, and a sth rolled in bud, the Ist 
leaf or primordial quadrate-orbicular with slight sinus, the others 
all rather large, cordate-orbicular with broad deep recurvate sinus 
and distinct short acumination. 
Conn., ** ^ ew Haven, 1858, A. macrophyllus foliis laevibus," D. C. Eaton 
in hb, — 
729 e Ton St. Ronan’s Well, July, °86, Bisky in hb. Cole 
K Ys , Yonkers, Troublesome Brook, thicket, out of flower, p 28, '96 ; 
Bryn Mawr pk s wood d. '97, 798, '99, 1900; Stony Lonesome, middle hol- 
low, 97; Sunny oo 97. 
N. dian R., Au. 6,°79, L. F. Ward in hb. U. SS. Nat. Mus. 
W. N. Buffalo, in hb. = Niagara R., brink of eg ree woods, 
Se. t '96, '97, a Devil's Hole, Au. 25, '96 Duces Flat (Canada), Au. 29, '96, 
Se, oncom ii d Siver Cx., gen 33, "ð, Au., '97-1903 (and “ene plants 
at ln Hil , 98-1903); Bear L., Au. 10, ‘96; Herrick's Cr., Au. I2, 
'96; Little sae + Au. 20, ’96, Au. 13, '98; Pt. Gratiot, Au, 29, '96 ; Maybee 
road, Au. 9, '97 ; Wintergreen Gulf, je ,796: Bu. Jtha:a, late sprout, Oc. 7, 84, 
FK. F. i no. 296234 in U. S. Nat. Hb. 
Reading, at "rape Hill, in hb. Univ. of Penn., ex. hb. 7. Burk. 
Wis. š wig TF ale. e. in hb. Mo. Bot, Gar. 
Minn., St. Paul, Se., '68, in hb. Canby. 
History. The flabbiness of leaf common in Aster gei A inn 
L., seems to indicate a latent capability of developing the succ 
lent petiole and unctuous leaf-surface of this subspecies pinguifolius 
It may well be that cultivation will bring out this quality in cer- 
tain plants still more than in nature. Richness of soil, in either 
native or cultivated plants seems to increase the leaves in breadth 
and in general size, and this coinciding with the development of 
succulence, brings into combination the characters which consti- 
ute this variety pinguifolius. When typically developed, they 
make the plant seem a wholly different species from A. macro- 
phyllus ; but probably it is quite unstable. This is indicated by 
the difficulty of finding the plant in successive years in the same 
place, and were it permanent it is probable that its history in Eu- 
ropean botanical gardens would not be so uncertain. My conclu- 
sion is that the form cannot be given more than subspecific rank, 
and that it will easily pass back again into the type. 
The first recorded observation of this subspecies may have been 
that of Lamarck, 1783, when he said of some of the plants at 
Paris accredited to A: macro iyllus, that, unlike the type, it was 
sometimes *'*tres lisse 
The first clear record of its pinguid tendency seems to be that 
