Am.  Jour.  Pharm.  \ 
Novembei*,  1910.  j 
Rhus  Michauxii. 
501 
Michaux  was  an  accurate  observer  and  was  familiar  with  the  Indian 
traditions  and  local  beliefs  of  the  settlers  concerning  the  floras  of 
the  regions  which  he  visited. 
The  first  report  of  the  poisonous  properties  of  Rhus  Michauxii 
was  made  by  Pursh,8  who  says  (of  R.  pumilum)  : 
"  Not  above  a  foot  high ;  it  is  the  most  poisonous  of  the  genus, 
according  to  information  from  Mr.  J.  Lyon,  who,  by  collecting  the 
seed  of  this  species,  got  poisoned  all  over  his  body,  and  was  lamed 
for  a  considerable  time." 
Apparently  no  other  evidence  concerning  the  toxicity  of  this 
species  was  available  to  Pursh.  Thus  the  unsavory  reputation  under 
which  R.  Michauxii  has  labored  for  more  than  ninety-five  years  was 
acquired  from  the  testimony  of  a  single  observer — an  individual 
who,  apparently,  was  neither  a  physician  nor  a  botanist. 
For  many  years  the  statement  of  Pursh  remained  unchallenged. 
There  were  but  few  works  on  systematic  botany  or  catalogues  of 
American  plants  at  that  day  and  still  fewer  existed  which  were  of 
sufficient  scope  to  include  such  rare  and  little  known  plants  as  Rhus 
pumilum.9 
An  examination  of  the  botanical  works  produced  between  1815 
and  1870  reveals  little  concerning  R.  pumilum  except  the  copying  of 
Pursh's  assertions,  although  a  few  writers  deny  that  the  plant  is 
poisonous.  The  following  abstracts  and  excerpts  from  the  literature 
of  that  period  illustrate  the  uncertainty  concerning  the  properties 
of  the  plant: 
"  Reported  on  the  authority  of  Mr.  Lyon  to  be  very  poisonous."  10 
Rafinesque  classes  R.  pumilum  with  the  poisonous  species  but  gives 
no  individual  description  of  it.11  It  is  quite  probable  that  he  had  no 
personal  knowledge  of  the  species  for,  although  he  had  traveled 
extensively  through  the  eastern  portion  of  the  United  States,  it  does 
8  Pursh,  F. :  Flor.  Am.  Sep.,  1,  204  (1814). 
9  In  the  Journal  of  Michaux's  travels,  edited  by  Prof.  C.  S.  Sargent 
(Am.  Phil.  Soc.  Proc,  26,  132,  1889),  this  species  is  mentioned  as  "Rhus 
pumila."  A  specimen  was  collected  or  noted  by  Michaux  on  April  5,  1796, 
near  Waxsaw  Creek  in  South  Carolina.  In  the  "  Flora  Boreali  Americana," 
the  species  is  called  "Rhus  pumilum."  The  latter  name  was  most  generally 
accepted  by  botanists  until  Sargent  renamed  the  species  in  1895  (Gard.  & 
For.,  8,  404,  1895). 
10  Elliott,  S.:  Sk.  Bot.  S.  Car.  &  Ga.,  1,  365  (1821). 
11  Rafinesque,  C.  S. :  Med.  Flor.,  2,  257  (1830). 
