NATURAL HISTORY MISCELLANY, 389 
red or purple was wholly absent.” On the 17th of May this year, 1867, 
I found the same variety again, near the same place where I found 
it last year. Is it probable that it is a well-marked variety, or per- 
haps a new species? I shall try to raise it from the seed, and the 
readers of the Naruraist shall in due time be notified of the result. 
a). 
n the 8th of June, 1867, several 
of Poughkeepsie, N. Y., two of which XN 
were kindly sent to At first I 
thought that the plant could be noth- 
freak of nature; and when, on the 10th T 
inst., I went in search of more speci- 
mens, I half expected to find the new 
form and the common one growin 
upon it. Nor do the two forms in any observed case—and I have 
observed many—come from the same root, although the roots of 
this and the common form grow promiscuously together, and often 
50 near as to touch each other. ' 
The two prominent characters which distinguish this daisy from Z. 
vulgare, are the following, namely: its ray flowers are all tubular, un- 
equally 4~—5-lobed, in some cases only 3-lobed, and the receptacle—so 
na 
mum. 
Yesterday, June 13th, I revisited the locality of this flower, and 
brought home specimens enough for all of my class in botany, —over 
a hundred in number. I would only add, that I have received a letter 
from Professor Gray, to whom I sent specimens of the daisy, in which 
he informs me that while he does not regard it as a new species, he 
Will introduce it into his Manual of Botany as a variety, adopting the 
name I have given it.— SANBORN TENNEY. 
