268 APPENDIX G. — rBOTANY. 



H. B. K., but differs in the nearly equal glumes, &c. No. 2092 Wright's 

 Coll. N. Mex. 1851-52, is exactly our plant. 



Aristida easciculata, Torr., in Ann. Lye. N. York, 2, p. 154; 

 Kunth, Enurn. 2, p. 196. A. purpurea, Nutt. in Trans. Arner. Phil. 

 Soc. (n. ser.) 5, p. 145. Middle Fork of Red River; May — June. 



Ageostis (Sporobolus) airoides, Torr., in Ann. Lye. N. York, 2, p. 

 151. With the preceding. The axils of the panicle are nearly glabrous 

 in Captain Marcy's specimens. 



Calamagrostis gigantea, Nutt. 1. c, p. 143. Middle Fork of Red 

 River ; June 23. 



Chloris verticillata, Nutt. 1. c. With the preceding; June 25. 

 An elegant grass, near C. alba, Presl. and Torr. in Emory's Rep., p. 153. 



Bouteloua racemosa, Lag. Var. Cienc. (1805) p. 141 ; Torr. in 

 Emory's Rep., p. 154 ; not of Torr. Fl. N. York. Dinebra curtipendula, 

 DC? Kunth, Syn. PI. Eq. 1, p. 281; excl. syn. Michx. Eutriana 

 curtipendula, Trin. Fund. p. 161 (in part) ; Kunth, Enum. 1, p. 280, 

 and Suppl. p. 233 ; excl. syn. Michx. and Willd. Main Fork of Red 

 River ; July. The detailed description of this species by Kunth, 1. c, 

 (drawn from a Mexican specimen collected by Humboldt) shows that 

 the Chloris curtipendula of Michaux (Bouteloua curtipendula, Torr.) 

 is a distinct species, as indicated in Emory's Report, 1. c. 



Chondrosium oligostachyum. Atheropogon oligostachyum, Nut. 

 Gen. 1, p. 18; Torr. in Sill. Jour. 4, p. 58. Eutriana? oligostachya, 

 Kunth, Gram. 1, p. 96, ex. Enum. 2, p. 282. Main Fork of Red River; 

 July 2. 



C. papillosum. Atheropogon papillosum, Engelm. in Sill. Jour. 46, 

 p. 104. With the preceding, of which it is perhaps only a variety. 

 The species of Chondrosium and Bouteloua are known by the name of 

 Grama Grasses in New Mexico and Texas. 



Pleuraphis Jamesii, Torr. in Ann. Lye. N. York, 1, p. 148, t. 10; 

 Kunth, Enum. 1, p. 285. Main Fork of Red River ; July. Kunth (1. c.) 

 asks whether this is not Hymenothecium quinquesetum of Lagasca ; 

 but the brief description of that author (in Gen. et. Sp. PI. Nov. 1816) 

 does not agree with our plant. 



