1. Spilanthes^5cwc?o-ac?«e//a. L in n .?
Of this there is only one, and that a very imperfect specimen, in the Collectiou.
1. Achillea Millefolium. L in n .
Chamisso appears only to have found A . magm, (Avith which Lessing unites A . lanata, Spr.) but
specimens, gathered by Messrs. Lay and Collie, appear in no respect distinct from A . Millefolium, and certainly
do not accord Avith Avhat Ave possess in our Herbaria as A . magna.
1. Coinogyne carnosa. L e ssing in Linnæa, v. Q. p . 521.
As this genus is peculiar to California, and only lately constituted, Ave extract the folloAving character
C o in o g y n e ; Involucrum cyliudraceum pauciseriale, foHoIis obtusissimis margine scariosis, inferioribus
brevioribus. Receptaculum conicura nudum. Flores disci tubulosi herraaphroditi; radii lingulati foeminei.
Antheræ ecaudate. Achenia calva. Stylus ramis cono superatis.—All the plant is fleshy. The leaves are
decussated, lingulate, very entire, united at the base into a sheath about a line long. The genus approaches
most in character to Chrysanthemum, but the branches of the style in this last are truncate. Lessing con-
pai-es Its appearance Avith Kleinia suffruticosa. There is but one specimen iu the collection.
1. Artemisia Californica; fruticosa, ramosa, foliis gemmuliferis approximatis pubescenti-
incanis pinnatisectis segmentis angustissime linearibus obtusis, superioribus sensbn integris,
racemo subsecundo, capitulis cernuis brevissime pedicellatis, involucro subgloboso, foliolis
obtusis margine late scariosis glabriusculis, receptáculo nudo, corollis glabris.—Z,e5sm(7 in
Lin næa , v. 6. p . 523.
Allied both to A . Santanica and A . hcrbacea : the above character Avill readily distinguish it from both.
2. Artemisia inodora; herbácea, foliis glabris radicalibus subtrifidis, caulinis lanceolatis
utrinque attenuatis margme incrassatis integerrimis, floribus pedunculatis erectis, involucri
foliolis margine scariosis. Spr.— Willd. E n .
Our s p e c im e n s , th o u g h im p e r f e c t, s e em to a c c o rd Avith th e a b o v e c h a r a c t e r ; b u t th e sp e c ie s is p e rh a p s
too n e a r ly a llie d to A . Dracunculus.
3. Artemisia integrifolia; berbacea, foliis inferioribus trificbs superioribus integris lanceolatis
acuminatis subtus tomentosis, racemis axillaribus erectis, capitulis subsecundis
pedicellatis, involucro campanulato, receptáculo Jmdo.— L in n .— Willd. Sp. P I v 8
p . 1846.
This species seems scarcely to differ from some states of A . vulgaris.
appears to be distinct.
The A . longifolia of Nuttall
1. Antennaria margaritacea. Brown.— Gnaphalium margaritaceum. E inn.
1. Gnaphalium Sprengelii; herbaceum, foliis utrinque albido-lanatis, inferioribus spathii-
latis superioribus linearibus ramialibus basi subdecurrentibus, corymbis axillaribus terminalibusque
glomeratis pedunculatis paucifloris, involucri fuscescenti-argentei foliolis oblongis
acutiusculis nitidis.—G. Chilense. Spreng. Syst. v. 3. p . 480.— Lessing in Linnæa, v. 6
p . 525.
When describing the Chilian species in this work, (p. 31,) we were led to suppose that what we then called
G. Chilense might, notwithstanding the great difference in the characters, be the plant of Sprengel. In the
sixth volume of the Linnæa, however, a t p. 227, Lessing describes Chamisso’s plant, and from his°description
it is obvious that what we have caUed G. Chilense, is G. falcatum, Lam. : while be unites Sprengel’s G.
; r,
. t
a d íem e to G. Pirmira, Mol., which is the samo as our G. cilriraim, a uame that of course must yield to
that of Molmo’s, .although wo are yet ignorant where it is puhlished. When Lessing referred hither the G.
adíense, he must have trusted a little to Sprengel’s character, as we did, for no other plant of Chamisso,
from whom Sprengel had it, approached more closely. At p. 260, Lessing informs ns that he had overloohed
a packet, tho description of which would form a supplement. Among these he adopts the G. Chilense, Spr.,
from California, and although, perhaps inadvertently, ho refers to the former part, where he united it to G.
Piravira, yet he now adopts the name from Sprengel; contrasting which with the character given by that
author, we have now no doubt of tho present being what ho intended ; and as it is not a Chilian, but a
Californian plant, wo have considered it necessary to change tho specific name. To G. larmginosum, Kunth,
it is very closely allied ; but although Sprengel unites them, we consider the leaflets of the involucre “ argute
acuta fuscescenti-virescentia” of the latter, may keep it distinct. Sprengel places this plant erroneously
among the “ Filagines,” hut it is much more nearly allied to G. pelgeeplmlum, and particularly to G.
decurrens. We may here remark, in addition to the two Chilian species already noticed, and described nt p. 31,
that onr G. ulophyllum coincides with Lessing’s G. Indicum, and G. coarctatum with his G. stachydifolium.
2. Gnaphalium decurrens; caule herbaceo lanato, foliis lineari-lanceolatis acuminatis
decurrentibus supra scabriusculo-piiberulis subtus albo-lanatis, corymbis paniculatis glomcr-
atis paucifloris, involucri foliolis oblongis acutis argentéis nitidis.—Joes, in Sillim. Amer.
Journ.— Spreng. Syst. v. 3. p . 478. Lessing in Linnæa, v. 6. p . 525.
in the specimens before us, the leaves are narrower than in those we possess from the United States,
and the panicle more destitute of foliage, but we can see scarcely any other difference. The woolly coat on
the underside ot the leaves is subject to he rubbed off. The Californian state approaches very nearly to G.
Sprengelii, above described, from wliich it principally differs by the leaves not being cottony on both sides.
3. Gnaphalimn luteo-album. Lin n .
This was also found a t California by hL. Menzies, and it extends as far north as Nootka Sound.
O e d . X X V I I . C O X V O L V U L A C EÆ . Juss.
1. Ipomoeu sagittifolia; glaberrima, caule volubili, foliis sagittato-hastatis sinu profundo
auriculis acutis, pedunculis sub flore mcras.satis supra medium bracteolas duas lineares p r -
entibus, calycibus obtusis, limbo corollæ in teg e rrim o .-PK re/i, F l .A m .v . 1. p . 144.— Convolvulus
sa¿ittifolius. M id i. Am. v. 1. p . 138.— C. speciosus. Walt.
The style is bifid; stigmas two, globose and white; so that this is not a Coscoiiia&s, as defined by Brown,
but an Ipomoea.
1. Calystegia sepimn. Brown.— Pursh, v. 1. p . 142.— Convolvulus sepium. L in n .— C.
repens. L in n .—Mich.
O r d . X X V I I I . P O L EM O N ID EÆ . Juss.
I. Gilia squarrosa; pubescenti-glandulosa, foliis bracteisque pinnatifidis laciniis incisis
subulatis pungentibus, floribus glomeratis. Hook.—G. pungens. Douglas, M S S . in Bot.
Mag. t. 2977, (anno 1830.)—Hoitzia squarrosa. Eschcholtz, in Mem. Acad. Imp. St.
Petersb. v. 10, (anno 1826.) p . 283, et in Linnæa, 1828. Litter, p . 147.
At the time Dr. Hooker published this species iu the Botanical Magazine, he Avas not aAvare of a specific
name being already given to it by Eschcholtz, Avhich, however, has the claim of priority. Messrs. Lay and
Collie appear to have found it about Monterey, Mr. Douglas near the source of the Multnomack River, one
| u