. Contributions from the Botanical Laboratory, vol. 8. Botany; Botany. Fig. 1. Phlox amocna waiteri. Six miles north of Jeniison, Chilton County, f.^> >i Fig. 2. Phlox amocna valtcri. In cultivation; originally from North Carolina. 7. Phlox amoena Sims. Hairy Phlox. Plate 3. History.—This species is recorded to have been discovered by Fraser in 1786, but it was not named until 24 years later. Meanwhile Walter^ had listed it with a question, and Michaux^ without question, as P. pUosa Linne. In 1810 Sims^ pub- lished a colored plate of it and ventured to give the name now accepte
. Contributions from the Botanical Laboratory, vol. 8. Botany; Botany. Fig. 1. Phlox amocna waiteri. Six miles north of Jeniison, Chilton County, f.^> >i Fig. 2. Phlox amocna valtcri. In cultivation; originally from North Carolina. 7. Phlox amoena Sims. Hairy Phlox. Plate 3. History.—This species is recorded to have been discovered by Fraser in 1786, but it was not named until 24 years later. Meanwhile Walter^ had listed it with a question, and Michaux^ without question, as P. pUosa Linne. In 1810 Sims^ pub- lished a colored plate of it and ventured to give the name now accepted, though considering that **This species of Phlox is too nearly allied to the one figured in the preceding plate,'' which was the real P. pilosa., Pursh* endeavored to reach a compromise by proposing the combination P. pUosa variety amoena. Elliott,^ on the other hand, returned to Michaux's usage, while Bentham^ overlooked Sims's name entirely. In the second edition of his Manual, Gray' termed the present plant P. pilosa var. ? walteri, and retained this designation in the following two editions. Chapman^ was satisfied that the two are distinct species, and made for the present one the new combination P. walteri; and Gray® then came to the same view, identifying it at first with P. procumhens Lehmann,^° but soon afterward^^ recognizing this as a hybrid, and adopt- ing Sims's name, as required by the rule of priority. In the last cited work, Gray also noted that Nuttall had proposed the name P. involucrata, but had never adequately pub- lished it. The only other date of significance in the history of P. amoena is 1903, when SmalP^ segregated from it a presum- ably distinct species, under the name P. lighthipei. This was reduced to varietal status by Brand" (mis-spelled lightipei), and reasons for accepting his view will be presented in the discussion of variation in the species. 1 Flora Caroliniana 96. 1788. 2 Flora Boreali-Americana (1): 144. 1803. 8 Botanical Magazin
Size: 1842px × 1356px
Photo credit: © The Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1800, bookdecade1890, booksubjectbotany, bookyear1892
