lOI 



Bridge," or "on Winooski River," which all i)rac(i(:ally mean 

 the type locality or very near to it, and probably were included 

 in the flooded area. The collections contained specimens gathered 

 by the following botanists: Robbins, in 1829; Oakes and Cary in 

 1841; Pringle in 1875, 1877, and 1878; Brainerd in 1878; Grout 

 in 1891, and Jones & Ei>^gleston in 1893. I have seen no speci- 

 mens collected after 1894. 



As stated before, the original record of specimens collected 

 on Willoughby Mountain by Blake was erroneous, for the 

 specimens do not belong to A . Robbinsii. Gray noticed the error 

 but made another error in referring it to ^. alpinus. P^ggleston 

 in 1895 described a new species A . Blakei, including among others 

 Blake's specimens and naming it after that collector. Even 

 since this species was described, many have mistaken the two. 

 While visiting the Gray Herbarium last year the visitor forgot 

 to consult the collection of the New England Botanical Club, 

 and therefore sent in an inquiry. Miss Sanderson, librarian of 

 the Gray Herbarium, kindly informed me that there were two 

 sheets in the New England Botanical Club herbarium, labelled 

 A. Robbinsii, collected by Churchill in 1897. She also sent these 

 to the writer. They turned out to be, as was suspected, A. 

 Blakei. The latter has been collected by quite a number of 

 persons at different stations in the Willoughby Mountain 

 region, and also on St. John's River in Maine by Miss Furbish 

 and in Labrador by S. R. Butler. 



As to the Hartland, Vt., and Hanover, N. H., stations, men- 

 tioned in Perkins' Catalogue, they refer to Jesup's specimens, 

 which, together with Eggleston's own, became the basis for A. 

 Jesupi (Eggleston & Sheldon) Britton. The latter is a closely 

 related and very local species. To the two localities mentioned 

 above should be added. Summers Falls, Plalnfield, N. H., all 

 three in the Connecticut River Valley. 



From the preceding may be concluded that as far as we know 

 Astragalus Robbinsii has become extinct and by the action of 

 man. If any botanist should find the plant or has any record 

 of having found it outside of the destroyed area, or since 1894, 

 it would be of general interest if made known. 



P. A. Rydberg 



