12 LEAFLETS. 



K. PARVIFOLIA. In habit near the last, but abundantly 

 leafy with mostly deltoid ovate entire leaves only i to i inch 

 long, not coriaceous, smooth and glandular-punctate beneath ; 

 cymes sessile, surpassed by slender leafy-bracted branchlets : 

 bracts of involucre biserial, oblong-lanceolate, acute, pubescent: 

 flowers pinkish : achenes scaberulous and glandular. 



Also from near Saltillo, Palmer (n. 389 in U. S. Herb.), also 

 called £. calaminthcefoUum, though most distinct, and with 

 copious small leaves recalling those of Mitchella repens. 



The history of what has lately begun to be called Eupatorium 

 capillifolium is uncommonly replete with interest. In aspect it 

 is so exceedingly unlike the rest of the Eupatoriaceae, and so 

 completely imitates Artemisia, that when early in the eighteenth 

 century it became known in Europe the botanists all called it a 

 new Artemisia, Dillenius leading the way in 1733, Lamarck in 

 1784 being perhaps the last author to continue it under that 

 genus ; Walter in 1785 being the first to pronounce it an Eupa- 

 torium ; this disposal of it being adopted by Willdenow in 1803, 

 the celebrated author of Michaux's Flora in the same year trans- 

 ferring the type to the Asteraceous genus Chrysocoma. 



When conservative authorities are at such extremes of disa- 

 greement as to the generic status of a type, the end of contro- 

 versy about it is apt to be reached by conceding to it the rank 

 of a genus ; and this, for the type in question appears to have 

 been proposed by Wallroth in 1833. His paper I have not seen, 

 but only very authentic citations of it. He named the plant 

 Teasanthes tbnuifolia ; and yet, within some five or six years 

 thereafter, Cassini, the most accomplished and at the same time 

 the least conservative of nineteenth century synantherologists, 

 for some reason declines Wallroth's very rational proposition, 

 and proceeds to assign it a place under Mikania, calling it M. 

 artemisioides ; acknowledging that it fits the place not at all well, 

 and failing to give any good reason for overruling the judg- 

 ment of Wallroth. 



The group is a small one, but so strongly marked in habit, 

 that I have no doubt of its ultimately being accepted as a genus, 

 under the name Teaganthes, the species over and above the 



