Skip to main content

Full text of "On the nomenclature of Luzula saltuensis"

See other formats



|( )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: 

New Hampshire 

Connect icut 
New York 
District of Columbia 







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 

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. 



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 


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 




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).