74 



pestre , has been to determine what species are really 

 present In the vioinity of IthaSa. PI. Men. Co. reports 

 L. ruderale as rare, hut that L. apetalum Willd. (= inter - 

 medimn of 6. M. ed. 6) is as common as L. ▼irginioum (as 

 C. F. does for L. ruderale ); PI. Buf. Vic. reports only 

 apetaliim > and that as "rare" (one station only). Further, 

 the Log. Herh. gives L. ruderale, and not apetalum , while 

 the C. U. Oen. Herb, shows a Western distribution for 



apetalum and «n Eastern distribution for ruderale , and 



<5f irke foTTne?' 

 G. M. says, "Perhaps nattve in the Vest, recently intro- 

 A 



duced eastward". 



There seem to be absolutely no strictly diagnostic 

 characters in the descriptions, as between the two spec- 

 ies, except that of oddr .' This last character has not 

 been sufficiently observed by the writer; some of the 

 specimens in question, however, have not been "nearly 

 scentl^:^'** tho the writer would hardly call them "very 

 fetid" . In view of all the evidence, all the specimens 

 in question (aside from those too young for differenti- 

 ation from L. virginigwa ) have been classed provisionally 

 as L. ruderale. Personally, the writer considers it prob- 

 able, that, if these two species are really distinct, 

 the L. apetalum of PI. Men. Co. Is the same as the L. 



