242
Rhodora
|( )ctohkr
approximately 100 miles in an air-line distance from Hast
Lansing, the prevailing southwesterly winds might have ac¬
counted for its establishment here, by transporting the light
seeds. What other factors are involved in the ecesis of the
orchid here, it is not possible at present to state completely.
However, as Dr. 11 oust* has pointed out in his paper (1. c.) an
alkaline soil was found correlated with tin* occurrence of the
plants in New York. In tin* East Lansing locality, the soil
reaction is approximately neutral. Detailed studies would
doubtless show that other factors are involved.
As to the distribution of this orchid in North America, I am
indebted to tin* late Professor M. L. Fernald and to Dr. Donovan
S. ('orrell for supplying me very generously with the necessary
geographic data. Accordingly, E pi pact is llellcborinc is now
known from the following states or provinces:
Quebec
Vermont
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Connect icut
New York
Pennsylvania
District of Columbia
()ntario
Michigan
Wisconsin
Indiana
Missouri
Montana
The record from Montana, according to Dr. ('orrell, 1 is prob¬
ably that of a cultivated plant. The record from Indiana is
that reported by Mr. Charles ('. Deam (Mora of Indiana, p. 345
(1940)).
Those facts suggest that, this orchid may be reported from other
adjacent mid-western states within tin* next few years.
Department ok Botany and Plant Pathology, Michigan
State College, East Lansing, and Department ok Biology,
Michigan State Normal College, Ypsilanti.
On the Nomenclature ok Luzula saltuensls.
Tlu
re¬
cent ly developed interest in certain cvtological peculiarities, in¬
cluding th<* diffuse centromere, of species of Luzula (Juncaceae)
necessitates a critical and accurate appraisal of tlx* taxonomy
and nomenclatlire of the species under invest igat ion. ()ne of t he
two dozen North American species, Luzula sal turns is was clearly
distinguished and described by M. L. Fernald in 1903 from
1 In personal correspondence.
1951 ]
Jones,—Nomenclature of Luzula saltuensis
243
Orono, Maine. It is now said to occur from Newfoundland to
Saskatchewan, and southward to northern Illinois' and Georgia.
In 1938, Fernald 2 “reduced” L. saltuensis to a “variety” of L.
carolinae S. Wats., and in 1944 he discarded both these species-
names in favor of L. acuminata Ilaf., 3 where he says: “It now
seems that Rafinesque was nearly 40 years ahead of Watson and
more than 60 ahead of me. There can be no doubt that his L.
acuminata was L. saltuensis. 11 is definition of it was good:
1447, Luz. acuminata Raf. repens, glabra, fob lanceol. acum.
striatis nervosis spiculis corymbosis congest is paucifloris fuscatis,
calic. acum.—Boreal America, perhaps J. pilosus Mg. often
blended with last, leaves broader and shorter, 3 uncial, stem
semipedal, corymb, not exceeding the leaves, fl. small.”
Although Fernald says that “there can be no doubt” that the
above description applies to L. saltuensis, when it is compared
carefully point by point with a series of specimens, there seems
on the contrary to be a considerable doubt. It should be remem¬
bered that there is no type specimen of L. acuminata , nor are
there any known specimens of any sort to support Rafinesque’s
description. On account of the repent basal offsets, the term
“repens” might be allowed, but the plants are better described
as cespitose. The leaves are certainly not wholly glabrous,
unless the old leaves from the previous season are examined,
and then these are seen to be much more than three inches
(“3 uncial”) long. If Rafinesque was describing young leaves,
then the conclusion is unavoidable that they were not glabrous.
The inflorescence of L. saltuensis is definitely not congested.
It is a loose umbel with a few spreading or drooping, filiform,
mostlv 1-flowered branches. Finally, the statement “corvmb.
not exceeding the leaves,” does not fit our plants, which have the
inflorescences usually overtopping t he leaves, and as to the item
“fl. small.”, Luzula saltuensis has the perianth as long or longer
at maturity (3-4.5 mm.) than almost any other eastern American
species of wood-rush.
On the basis of these evidences it seems clear that Rafinesque’s
brief description can scarcely be applied to the species described
as Luzula saltuensis or L. carolinae. That these two binomials
• Jones, G. N., in Am. Midi.
•Rhodora 40 : 404 (1938).
5 Op. cit. 46 : 4 (1944).
Nat. 31 : 251. 1944
244
llhodora
(OCTOBKH
mav belong to the same species was tacitly admitted by Fernald
when he savs that
11 very evident transitions occur.”
Twenty years earlier, Farwell 4 described as J unco ides pilosum var.
miehiganense plants with the dark castaneous perianth that is
supposed to be a diagnostic character of L. carolinae.
In the event that Luzula salt-urn sis and L. carolinae are even¬
tually proved to be t he same species, the latter binomial will have
to prevail, but in any ease the name L. acuminata Raf. should be
rejected as a nomen (labium. — George Neville Jones, Univer¬
sity of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.
To the majority, they refer to specific
The Identity of Yinher and \ inland. —Some ethnobo-
ta 11 ica 1 aspects are involved in the identity of \ inland the Good.
According to old Scandinavian sagas, Norsemen under the leader¬
ship of Leif Kricson and Thorium Karlsefni, were supposed to
have come t here bet.ween the years 1000 and 1000. The plants
mentioned are a tree (mdsurr), a wheat ( hveiti ) and the vinber,
generally interpreted as the vineplant. According to Fridtjof
Nansen, the ({notation of wheat and vine is only a reminiscence
of medieval legends.
< *
plants. Old opinion holds that vinber could only be a vine
(Y-iti. s). More recently, Fernald after giving some consideration
to the fact that it might have been some red currant, assumed
that the vinber would more probably be the mountain cranberry
( Yaceinium l itis-Idaea). The latter is one of the most popular
berries in Scandinavia. It is actually known under the name of
%
lingon in Sweden, lylebaer in Norway and ravfberjalyng in Iceland.
Fernald’s opinion has not been generally accepted. Leroy
Andrews, Steensby and Brunt) have revived the old opinion
which believes it to be a vine. Both interpretations are more or
less in accord with the different attempts to localize The Mop,
the Norse sett .lenient in \ inland. Vine (Yitis) is found on parts
of the Maine coast, as well as in the St. Lawrence estuary
«/
(Steensby places The Mop at Montmagny, on the south shore,
35 miles below Quebec). If, on the contrary, vinber were
Yaceinium F itis-Idaea, this interpretation would agree with the
various hypotheses of localization because the plant, is found in
4 Rep. Mich. Acad. Sci. 20: 170 (1918).
