fc 





9 



Plants around Wilmington ^ N. C. 131 



specimens, and cannot tell the color of the flower. 

 Plant becomes black by drying. 



\ 



This is Elliott's plant, but I do not know that it is 

 described by any other author. It will doubtless be 

 removed from this genus. In Leconie's Monograph of 

 this genus in the Annals of the New York Lyceum, this 

 plant is said to be the Herpestis cuneifolia, but without 

 offering any evidence. See next note. 



(30) Herpestis cuneifolia. This is also Mr. Elliott's 

 plaut, and is referred by Leconte to H. Brownei. This 



r 



author has some evidence of error in Elliott's references, 

 unknown to myself, or he must have overlooked some 

 important facts in the case. The plant appears to coin- 

 cide minutely with Michaux' description, while the Gra- 

 tiola acuminata does not, and has a different habitat. 

 The H. Brownei, too, is not found in the eastern district, 

 but was discovered by Nuttall at New Orleans, and does 

 not correspond with the present plant. 



Eaton quotes Pursh for H. Brownei, but I do not find 

 the plant in his Flora. Nuttall has a mark of discovery 

 with it, in his Catalogue, though he gives no description. 



(31) Machridea pidchra. Stem hairy and slightly 

 scabrous ; Leaves denticulate, not serrate, the upper ones 

 entire, nerves hairy, both sides covered with glandular 

 dots; Whorls 5-10 flowered; Bracteas obtuse; Laro-e 

 segment of the calyx deeply emarginate; Style equallintr 

 the longer stamens. This differs somewhat from Elliott's 

 description, but the plants are not distinct. 



» 



McRee 



who collected them on the causeway leadirig from Pot- 

 ter's rice field. 



(32) Mentha rotundifolia. Hoary, spikes oblong, 

 mterrupted, somewhat, hairy. Leaves roundish, rugose, 



