EUPATORIUMS OF PERU, 87 
habitat of EF. glutinosum makes it more than probable that it was 
there that he obtained the species. Certainly under these circum- 
stances the fact that Lamarck’s label mentions Peru as the place of 
origin can in no sense be taken as evidence that the plant came from 
what is now Peru. While it is by no means impossible, nor even very 
unlikely, that FE. glutinosum may ultimately be found in Peru as now 
delimited, there is as yet no good basis for its inclusion in the Peruvian 
flora. 
E. Kunizei Hieron. in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. xxii. 766 (1897). This 
species, carefully studied from a portion of the material originally 
collected near Cochabamba by Kuntze (U. S.) and in better speci- 
mens subsequently secured in Southern Bolivia by Fiebrig (no. 3150, 
Gr.), proves to have the anthers destitute of apical appendages and 
the style-tips rather abruptly thickened, bluntish, and dark. It is 
unquestionably of the Subtribe Piquerinae and belongs to Ophryos- 
porus § Ophryochaeta. When placed in its proper affinity, it has been 
found to match in all significant details OPHRYOSPORUS MACRODON 
Griseb. Abh. Goett. xxiv. 173 (1879), a species heretofore known only 
from the Nevado del Castillo, Prov. of Salta, in northern Argentina, 
a locality within about 300 km. of Fiebrig’s Bolivian station. To 
the writer the species appears to have no close resemblance to the 
well known and widely distributed Eupatorium inulaefolium HBK. to 
which Hieronymus regarded it most nearly related. 
E. piquerioides DC. Prod. v. 175 (1836), from the mountains of Peru, 
is OPHRYOsPoRUS PIQUERIOIDES (DC.) Benth. ex Bak. in Mart. Fi. 
Bras. vi. pt. 2, 188 (1876); Robinson, Proc. Am. Acad. xlii. 23 (1906). 
E. saticinum Lam. Encye. ii. 409 (1786); Robinson, Proc. Am. 
Acad. liv. 286, 348 (1918). Although credited to Peru originally 
by Lamarck and by various subsequent authors (including the writer) 
following his lead, the type of this species presumably came from 
northern-central Ecuador, through which Joseph de Jussieu, its col- 
lector, passed, a region where the plant has since been collected on 
several occasions so that its presence in some abundance there seems 
likely. Ecuador had not then been set off as a separate country. To 
date the writer has found no satisfying record of E. salicinum from 
Within the present limits of Peru. 
E. straminewm DC. Prod. v. 150 (1836). This species, supposed to 
have been originally collected in Peru by Haenke, has hitherto been 
Tepresented, so far as known, by a single branch in the Prodromus 
tharium at Geneva. However, there is a photograph of this type 
in the Gray Herbarium, and this on careful microscopic study proves 
