116 LSAFLMe, 



I must not be understood as reasserting the statements of 

 early authors that in T. vulgare the leaflets are always entire. 

 In the herbaria they are shown to be prevailingly so, but with 

 occasionally entire and somewhat toothed leaflets on the same 

 branch, or on the same leaf. 



T. vulgare seems to be the common species in Canada, New 

 York and New England, extending also both southward in the 

 mountains, and westward toward the valley of the Mississippi. 



T. GLABRUM, Mill. 1. C. 



Toxicodendron rectum, foliis minoribus glabris, Dill. Elth. 

 389, t. 291. Ehus radicans var. r- Linn- Sp. 266. 



According to both Uillenius and Miller this is a shrub with 

 strictly upright stems, never rooting or attaching themselves to 

 any support, and with a foliage smaller and leaflets narrower 

 than in T. vulgare. It is not always low. With Miller it grew 

 to the height of 6 or 7 feet. It should be distinguished from 

 T. vulgare by these marks and by its small fruits more nearly 

 globose, not at all depressed-globose, and by being cuspidate- 

 mncronate. 



The habitat of T. glabrum is probably northeastern, and that of 

 T. vulgare approximately or altogether the same. Prom the name 

 glabrum alone, the authors of the Kew Index seem to have 

 inferred — but very erroneously — that this must be a synonym of 

 Rhus glabra, Linn. They might have escaped this error either 

 by reading Miller's description of T. glabrum, or by consulting 

 his account of Rhus in the same volume; for the real R. glab- 

 rum is found in its place and with that name. 



T. PUBBSCEKS, Mill. Diet. (1768), excluding the synonym 

 "T. triphyllum glabrum, Tourn.," also Moench, Meth. 73. 



Rhus Toxicodendron, Linn. Sp. 266, hardly of Small, Fl. 727. 



A common shrub of the northern and middle Atlantic states, 

 distinguished from both the foregoing by its more constantly 

 sinuate-lobed leaflets, perhaps, but by the hirsute pubescence of 

 the growing parts, especially of the leaves along the veins 

 beneath. It is plain that Miller inadvertently cited the wrong 

 Tournefortian species under his T. pubescens. It should have 

 been — and I doubt not he meant it to be — not the first but the 



