f 
338 Monography of the North American Cuscutinece. 
fleshy, not membranaceous, and finely crenulate ; the lobes al- I 
ways erect and somewhat incurved. The scales of the filaments J 
are smaller than in any other of our Cuscutae, and consist of one 
or two teeth on each side of the filament, (where it adheres to 
the tube,) thereby indicating the true nature of these singular j 
“nectaria.” It appears to be rarer than the other species, and j 
grows more on dry ground. 
3. Cuscuta vulgiv^a, n. sp. 
Stem branched j flowers pedunculate, somewhat glomerate or I 
more lax, generally 5-parted; tube of the corolla deeply cam- | 
panulate, longer than the pellucid-punctate open (finally reflexed) | 
lobes, and the roundish, carinate, obtuse and slightly crenulate | 
segments of the calyx; scales convergent, fimbriate, united at Jj 
the base ; styles about as long as the ovary (with the stylopodi- j; 
■g^umjj; the remains of the corolla persistent at the base of the j 
globose capsule. 
% y ar< laxiflora : flowers in loose cymes. 
* p. glomerata : flowers conglomerate. 
y. tetramera : flowers in umbeliiform cymes, 3-4-parted. 
. | This species has apparently not only the widest range of air J 
the American Cuscutae, but is less restricted to the same genus J 
or family of plants. Indeed I have scarcely met with it twice | 
upon the same species. Yar. is the southern and western \ 
form : Western New York on Decodon, Dr. A. Gray ; Missouri | 
on.Cephalanthus and Amphicarpsea, and Georgia, on -? J. \ 
CW&y; Alabama, on Salix and Aster, & B. Buckley. Yar. p. I 
is the northern form : my specimens are from Yermont, on Leer- I 
sja, and New/{Hampshire, on Solidago, both from Mr. J. Carey. j 
Yar. -/. Connecticut, on Urtica, J. Carey . 
The Cuscuta vulgivaga , is perhaps in part the Cuscuta Amer- j 
icana of Lihnseus, and of many later botanists. But their diag- I 
gfloses are too incomplete to decide the point, and different species j 
undoubtedly have beenN confounded under this name. Even I 
Linnaeus himself (Spec: Plant, ed. 1, p. 124) referring to Gronov. J 
Yirg. and to Sloane, Hist. I, p. 201, t. 128, f. 4* confounds two | 
distinct species. Which of them is to be the C. Americana ? 1 
Linnaeus has only the following words : “ Cuscuta floribus pe- 1 
dunculatis.” Michaux, (I, 175): “ Cuscuta, floribus pedicellatis, 3 
pentandris.” Pursh, (I, 116): “ C. fl. pedunculatis umbellatis 1 
I 
