278 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY, 
been so kind as to lend for examination a bit of the original plant of 
Haenke from the Prodromus Herbarium at Geneva, calling attention to 
the fact that Schultz Bipontinus had once seen the specimen, and recorded 
on the sheet his opinion that it was not Mexican, but was the Chilean 
Pleocarphus revolutus, Don. It appears that this supposition has never 
been put on record in print. It is, however, fully confirmed by an exami- 
nation of the fragment sent by Mr. De Candolle. The plant is certainly 
not a Carphephorus, nor does it belong to the Hupatorieae. The corollas 
are distinctly bilabiate, and the achenes are not at all angled: It agrees 
very closely with Don’s description of Pleocarphus revolutus and with Gay’s 
admirable colored plate of the Chilean plant (FI. Chil. t. 43), In the 
Gray Herbarium there is furthermore a specimen of Pleocarphus revolutus 
collected by Gay, and with this also the plant of Haenke is in close agree- 
ment, the only differences noted being a slightly greater pubescence 
on the pedicels and a tendency for the bracts of the involucre to be 
a little narrower, differences of degree only, and so slight that they 
may be confidently attributed to individual variation. The genus Pleo- 
carphus has no floral distincions from /ungta, with which it has been 
united by nearly all writers, who have had occasion to mention it in 
recent years. In accordance with this view, the plant in question should 
be called : 
Jungia revoluta, n. comb. Pleocarphus revolutus, D. Don. Trans. 
Linn. Soc. xvi. 228 (1830); Remy in Gay, FI. Chil. iii. 427, t. 43. 
Carphephorus revolutifolius, DC. Prod. v. 133 (1836). Of the same 
habitally divergent section of Jungia is also 
J. dentata, n. comb., Pleocarphus dentatus, Phil. Linnaea, xxxiil. 51 
(1864). - , 
It is well known that confusion has existed in the collections of Haenke oe: 
and Née, whose plants came partly from western South America and 
partly from Mexico. It is, therefore, a matter of no surprise that i 
problematic Carphephorus revolutifolius, which many acute and diligent — 
collectors in Mexico have never succeeded in rediscovering, should be eC 
found identical with a plant from Chili, whence without doubt the plant . 
of Haenke originally came. The species should, therefore, be eliminated 2 
both from the Mexican flora and from the genus Carphephorus. 
ee eR 
PY od Caae ee See 
