30 



SOME INACCURACIES— I. 



In our various botanical works there are occasional errors 

 which are copied and passed on through successive publications. 

 It is the intention to record them in these pages as they are 

 brought to my notice from time to time. 



Amorpha Texaxa Buckley, Proc. Acad. Phila. 1861: 452. 



1861. 

 • Afnorpha siibglabra Heller, Cont. Herb. F. & M. Coll. 1: 



48.^ 1895. 

 In publishing upon his Texan collection of 1894, the writer 

 inexcusably makes Asa Gray the author of a variety subglabra 

 of Amorpha fruticosa^ listed in Bost. Journ. Nat. Hist. 6: 174. 

 1850 (PI. Lindheimerianae). The " var. subglabra" is there 

 used merely as a descriptive term, for in that work all plant 

 names are printed in small capitals. Whether the following in 

 PI. Wright. 1: 50, refers to it as a varietal name, I do not know, 

 but it can hardly be considered as published there: " To this 

 species \_A. laevigata^ must belong the ' fA. fruticosa, var. sub- 

 glabra,' from Fredericksburg, PL Lindh. 2. p. 174." 



In Watson's Bibliographical Index, page 213, we have the 



following under Dalea nana: 



"Var. elatior. Gray, PI. Wright, i. 46. Porter, Fl. Col. 



22." 



The following is in Plantae Wrightianae at the place cited: 

 " 124. D. NANA, var elatior (pedalis), foliolis sublinearibus." 

 The word " elatior " is plainly used here as a descriptive 



term, for here too all plant names, both specific and varietal, are 



printed in small capitals. 



In the second citation, " Porter, [Synopsis] Fl. Col. 22," 



we have "Dalea nana, Torr., var. elatior Torr. PL Wright. 



I, p. 46," followed b}' a description of ten lines. The name 



elatior is certainly published here' by Porter, and credited to 



Torrey. 



