« Pt 
. Cnr $F tom. 
nh 
“ edtoge 
; ope 
S J 
pF. of Leow 
: Virgini 
160 Scientific Intelligence. 
also that, when a genus is reduced to a section of some other, 
should not write after it the name of an author who established 
it as a genus, etc. Consisten if and exact correctness require that 
he 
But we do not agree in the retjuinition that the name of the author 
who first used a former generic name as that of a section, should 
always be appended. Sometimes it is not easy to ascertain this, 
or to know whether or not it has been yet so employed. And 
when known, we may in many cases, in priat as well as in writing, 
innocently and safely omit the authority of a sub-genus or a 
as we 
ecies. 
2. Athamantha CUhinensis 1.—This is a puzzle, of ake a 
probable solution by Muhlenberg has recently turned up. The 
ve is the character, etc., in the Species Plantarum, ed. 1, 
7 - hone Chinensis, seminibus membranaceo-striatis, foliis 
sur re levibus multifidis, 
. cates . Chinensem dixit Barthram qui semina misit ex 
* Caulis ang —— levis, — parum fiexuosus. Folia 
Cheerophylli, lavia. Umbella minus expansa, alba. Semina sin- 
gula 5-alis longitudinal paris ; involucrum duplex. 
n the second edition of the popedion Plantarum it is added: 
“ Statura Selini Monier’ 
In reading the SS eksed correspondence of — Collins, 
which (as is already noted in this Journal) is prese the 
library of the Academy of Natural Sciences, philadelphia, I found 
the following in a letter from Muhlenberg, dated Oct. 12, 1813. 
“ Among the specimens from Genessee, sent by Mr. Srnesioe 
there is an umbellate agreeing with Athana nthas Chi ’ 
which Linnus had from Mr. Bartram, who had visited the Lakes 
Can we find out whether in Bartram’s time the name of Genessee 
was known, and how Bartram spelled it: perhaps Ohineees and 
whether such a word might have been misunderstood? I have 
never seen Bartram’s journa 
The journal referred to must be John Bartram’s “ he 
made in his Travels from Pennsylvania to Canada.” o. London 
1751. The name of Genessee is certainly older pisen “Bartram 
6 
me. 
If Muhlenberg’s suggestion is the right one, as is probable, the 
plant is probably Conioselinum | Canadense. Yet that hardly 
posseses an “involucrum duplex.” There is, ‘perhaps, ad 7 
in bg Linnean herbarium, which Secs settle this point. 
epertorium Annum Literature Botanice periodicw cura: 
sae G. O. W. Brouninstne, Custos biblioth, Soe. Te meleng 
W. Burcx, Math. Mag. et Phil. Nat. Doct. Harlemi, Erven Loos- 
jes, 8vo.—We have before us tomm. II, 1876, and tomm. Til, 1877, 
