OV KUHNIA. 
75 
Ventenat united to this Genus the Eupatori - 
um canescens of Ortega, a plant of Cuba, and 
called it K. rosmar ini folia ; he was followed 
by Persoon in this. 
Michaux perhaps never saw this plant since 
he does not mention their locality nor distinction 
and has only one Critonia Kuknia which no 
one can prove to be Gaertner’s. Muhlenberg 
never saw these plants alive and ascribes to 
both white flowers. Pursh meantime gives yel- 
low flowers to K. critonia , but quotes no local- 
ity, Wildenow’s account appears to be made 
up of Linneus and Michaux account, making 2 
Sp. of them, Lamark copied Linneus and his 
fig. tab, 26 is K. cupalorioides. Poiret has 
copied Michaux and Ventenat. 
W, P. C. Barton in his flora philadelphica 
1817, states to have found the linnean plant on 
the rocks of the Schuylkill R. above Lemonhilfi 
but Nuttal in 1819 ascribes that very same lo- 
colity for the sp. K. critonia : and it is there 
also that in 1836 has been found by Mr. Du- 
rand and myself the Linnean plant, which I 
suspect to be identic with that of Gaertner. 
It is said that the Eupatorium alter nifolium 
of Sibiria, figured by Arduin, is also the same 
plant, and Sir James Smith could find no dif- 
ference in the specimen sent by Arduin to Lin- 
neus. Yet is very strange that the same plant 
should grow near Philadelphia and on the Al- 
taic mts. of Asia, and hardly any where else : 
since it is not in the Flora of Hooker and there- 
fore does not extend to Canada, nor the central 
and western parts of North America. Nor is 
it found in the floras of Louisiana and Missouri. 
Therefore the Sibirian plant must again be 
