80 ROBINSON 
scales linear and acute. While Buchtien’s plant seems best placed 
in E. Lobbii it shows on the part of that species a suspicious approach 
to E. Lundianum DC. of southeastern Brazil. 
E. sordescens Rusby, Bull. N. Y. Bot. eer iv. 378 (1907), not 
DC. = E. LONGIPETIOLATUM Sch.-Bip. (see p. 65). 
E. sordescens, var. bolivianum Rusby, Mem. Torr. Bot. Club, vi. 
56 (1896) = E. enpytum Robinson (see p. 55). 
E. trichotomum Sch.-Bip. Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr. xii. 81 (1865), & 
Linnaea, xxxiv. 535 (1865-66), without description = E. GLOEO 
CLADUM Robinson (see p. 63). 
E. urticaefolium L. £. Suppl. 354 (1781). R. E. Fries, Ark. for Bot. 
v. no. 13, 9 (1906), reports this species as occurring on grassy banks 
of a brook at Tatarenda in the Chaco region of southeastern Bolivia, 
on the basis of his own no. 1476. As pointed out more than once 
by the writer (Proc. Am. Acad. xlii. 46; liv. 321), E. urticaefolium 
L. f. is a name quite mistakenly applied by many recent writers 
including Baker, Hieronymus, and others, and is in any event quite 
untenable on account of the earlier and now valid homonym of. 
Reichard. As no specimen of Fries’s no. 1476 has been available 
for examination it is impossible here to place it beyond the inference 
that it may well be E. clematidewm Griseb. or possibly E. pauci- 
florum HBK., plants closely related and both at times confused with 
E. urticaefolium by authors. 
E. Vauthierianum Britton, Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, xviii. 333 (1891), 
not DC. This Bolivian record of the Atlantic Brazilian E. Vauthier- 
vanum DC. rested on Rusby’s no. 2126, which proves to be ScHIsTO- 
CARPHA HorrmMannul Ktze. Bang’s no. 2184, also distributed as 
E. Vauthierianum, is the same. 
SO aL Le ee ae oe et wees Og 
{ 
3 PERS Bh 
ae : eed 2 Suge 7 
Rely sa ier ee 
Mo ee ee ee Bee ee eR, Seer 2” Om 
Di Se eee A 
Se a Oe ee Dea ee 
= ‘ 
PANS, Ma ac shea ght icy SF Got tie hg OS Oe 

ee 
ciao 
38. at he en 
