76 
MONOGRAPH 
compared with ours, and will be found different? 
in fact Lamark has noticed some difference in it. 
Torrey in 1826, and Beck in 1833, in their 
floras of the Northern States have both the Lin- 
nean and Gaertnerian species, but have never 
found them growing wild, since they quote no 
locality, but merely copy the characters of oth- 
er authors, stating Pennsylv. and Virginia, as 
the native place of both. Beck besides ascribes 
pale yellow flowers to K. critonia , as Pursh 
(but Torrey says white) and Torrey a pubes- 
cent stem. But all the species with whitish 
flowers, turn yellow in drying, and a pubescent 
or glandular Stem belongs to many: while Smith 
describes his as smooth ; but this varies on the 
same plant. 
In 1818 I discovered in Kentucky a narrow 
leaved sp. which I mistook for the K. critonia ? 
but have since found very different from the K. 
critonia of Elliot 1824, who is the only one that 
has described it properly ; but his plant is even 
probably different from Gaertner’s : while my 
plant is perfectly distinct by the fulvous pappus, 
stated to be white in all the others ; I called it 
K. media in 1833 but K. fulva would be a bet- 
ter name. I found it in 3 localities of Ken- 
tucky and even on the banks of the Ohio. 
In September 1823 in my visit to the falls of 
the R. Cumberland, in the Wasioto hills of 
East Kentucky, a beautiful botanical spot visited 
by no Botanist but myself, I again detected 
another sp. of K uhnia, quite distinct by oppo- 
site elliptic short leaves. I named it K. ellip - 
tica , and it is described in 1833 in my Herb* 
Rafinesquianum . 
Elliot has 3 Species of Southern K uhnia in 
the 2d volume of his flora of Southern States 
