Meehan (1898: 47) reports the species as Aspidium spinulosum Sw. (in J. Bot. (Schrad.) 1800(2): 38. 1801), a synonym of Dryopteris austriaca (Jacq.) Woynar ex Schinz & Thell. (in Vierteljahrs Nat. Ges. Zürich 60: 330. 1915), itself now considered a synonym of D. carthusiana, but used in the more recent literature (e.g., Hitchcock in Univ. Wash. Publ. Biol. 17(1): 73. 1969). The specimen was identified recently as D. expansa (C. Presl) Fraser-Jenk. & Jermy (in Brit. Fern Gaz. 11: 338. 1977) by Schuyler, and Moulton (in press) lists the sheet under this name. Based on the key by Montgomery & Wagner (Fl. N. Amer. 2: 280-288. 1994), the specimen is D. carthusiana. The label data is confusing according to Coues (1898: 315), but this was due to an error by Meehan who gives the collection date as 20 Jun 1806, misreading the actual date on the label of 20 Jan 1806. (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:01/20/1806

This common brown seaweed of the west coast of North America is normally found attached to rocks in moderately exposed intertidal and subtidal areas. The species was described as a member of another common intertidal seaweed, Fucus, a genus erected by Linnaeus that included many brown seaweeds later assigned to other taxa. According to an undated tag on the sheet (possibly in Thomas Meehan's hand [Moulton 1999]), the correct identification of Egregia menziesii was "determined at Cambridge." Collected prior to the species description, this material could have served as a type specimen, but as part of the Lewis and Clark material stored at the American Philosophical Society, it remained unknown to the scientific community until the late 19th century. Aside from mention in Reveal et al. (1999), Moulton (1999), and here, the material remains unstudied. This specimen was collected near the mouth of the Columbia River, in Pacific Co., Washington, 17 Nov 1805 (fide G. Moulton database). (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:11/17/1805

The Cutright (1969: 408) typification precedes that of Ewan (1979: 74) who considered the sheet at K to be the lectotype. While the Kew specimen is annotated "Elaeagnus argentea. Fl. Amer.: Pursh" by Lambert, there is no direct evidence this is a Lewis and Clark collection. In fact, it probably is not. Pursh refers to a Nuttall specimen in his original descriptions and Nuttall (1818: 97) reports he collected the species at or near Fort Mandan in 1811 near what is now Bismarck, North Dakota. There is no Nuttall sheet in the Lambert Herbarium at The Academy of Natural Sciences. Also, the nature of the specimens on the two sheets is markedly different. The Lewis sheet is a much younger specimen than the late season plant we believe Nuttall gathered. Accordingly, we strongly suspect the K sheet originally in Lambert's possession is the Nuttall specimen alluded to by Pursh and accordingly consider it a paratype rather than a duplicate of the lectotype. The fact that the Pursh name is a later homonym was ignored until Rydberg corrected the error in 1917. Lewis obtained the specimens in Nevada Valley, Powell Co., Montana, on 6 Jul 1806, at what he called "the prairi of the Knobs" (Moulton, 1993: 93). Recently the name, Elaeagnus commutata, has been attributed to Bernhardi (Great Plains Flora Association, 1986), suggesting the name was proposed in 1843 (e.g., Allg. Thüring. Gartenzeitung 2: 137. 1843; see Hitchcock, Univ. Wash. Publ. Biol. 17(3): 460. 1961). Thanks to Ms. Ingrid Arnold, head of the Herzogin Anna Amalia Bibliothek in Weimar, German, we have been able to examine the anonymous paper entitled "Ueber einige Eläagneen unserer Lustgebuesche" [On some Elaeagnaceae in our gardens] in this rare journal. The name appears on page 95, not 137. The relevant part of the text reads (in a translation provided by Dr. Norbert Kilian) as follows: "The plants of Shepherdia [argentea Nutt.] that Loudon received from North America, however, agree with the plants named Elaeagnus argentea Pursh in the garden of the Horticultural Society ["Gartenbau-Verein"] of London. As in [Endlicher's] Hort. Vindob. Shepherdia argentea is marked as a low shrub, it is there hardly the right species. In our German gardens, the shrub named as Elaeagnus argentea or, even more frequently as E. macrophylla, is, with respect to its flowers and fruits, a true Elaeagnus. It does not belong to E. argentea Pursh, if Loudon's determination is correct; but it also does not belong to E. macrophylla according to the description of the latter given by Thunberg, although our shrub is named E. macrophylla in France. Seemingly it is a still undetermined species, which could be named Elaeagnus commutata." We consider the name, Elaeagnus commutata, to be provisional and therefore not validly published (Art. 34.1(b); Greuter et al., 1994). Accordingly, Rydberg is the first author to validly publish the name. (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:07/06/1806

Lewis 21 was collected near Decatur, Burt Co., Nebraska, on 10 Aug 1804 (Moulton, 1987a: 468). Only PH-LC 79 is annotated with an original Lewis label. Pursh annotated PH-LC 80 as Equisetum sylvaticum L. (Sp. Pl.: 1061. 1753), but did not mention the Lewis and Clark collections in his Flora (Pursh, 1813: 651). (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:08/10/1804

Ericameria nauseosa (Pall. ex Pursh) G. L. Nesom & Baird in Phytologia 75: 84. 1993, based on Chrysocoma nauseosa Pall. ex Pursh, Fl. Amer. Sept.: 517. Dec (sero) 1813. - Lectotype: PH-LC 55 (Moulton 40a), designated by Hall & Clements (in Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. 326: 218. 1923). Duplicate of the lectotype: PH-LC 56 (Moulton 40b), right-hand specimen. Meehan (1898: 33) calls this taxon Bigelovia graveolens (Nutt.) A. Gray var. albicaulis A. Gray (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 8: 645. 1873), the name then in common use. Moulton (in press) refers to it as the typical phase of Chrysothamnus nauseosus (Pall. ex Pursh) Britton (in Britton & A. Brown, Ill. Fl. N. U.S. 3: 326. 1898), the name now in common use. See Hall & Clements for a review of the misapplication of the name by Asa Gray and others prior to their revision of the genus. The precise type location is unknown. The only date given is Oct 1804 when the expedition was along the Missouri River. (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark

Ericameria nauseosa (Pall. ex Pursh) G. L. Nesom & Baird var. graveolens (Nutt.) Reveal & Schuyler, comb. et stat. nov., based on Chrysocoma graveolens Nutt. (Gen. N. Amer. Pl. 2: 136. 1818) and the autonym Bigelovia graveolens (Nutt.) A. Gray var. glabrata A. Gray (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 8: 645. 1873). [footnote 3] - PH-LC 51 (Moulton 39a), PH-LC 52 (Moulton 39b), PH-LC 53 (Moulton 39c), PH-LC 54 (Moulton 39d) and PH-LC 56 (Moulton 40b), left-hand specimen. [footnote 3:] Additional nomenclatural synonyms are Chrysothamnus graveolens (Nutt.) Greene (in Erythea 3: 108. 1895), C. nauseosus (Pall. ex Pursh) Britton var. graveolens (Nutt.) H. M. Hall (in Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot. 7: 174. 1919), C. nauseosus subsp. graveolens (Nutt.) Piper (in Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 11: 559. 1906), C. nauseosus var. graveolens (A. Gray) Cronquist (in Univ. Wash. Publ. Biol. 17(5): 128. 1955), and Ericameria nauseosa subsp. graveolens (Nutt.) L. C. Anderson (in Great Basin Naturalist 55: 85. 1995). Nesom & Baird incorrected proposed E. nauseosa var. glabrata (A. Gray) G. L. Nesom & Baird (in Phytologia 75: 86. 1993) for the above taxon. They corrected one of their nomenclatural errors subsequently (in Phytologia 78: 61-65. 1995), but they failed to correct the above name as now required by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Greuter et al., 1994). Pursh (1813: 517) reports this series of specimens as Chrysocoma dracunculoides Lam. (Encycl. 2: 198. 1786), listing the plants as found on the "high cliffs on the banks of the Missouri" in October. There are several Lewis and Clark specimens associated with this name. Lewis 32 was collected on "21st. of Sept. 1805. at the upper part of the bigg bend of the Missouri" (PH-LC 51), or in modern parlance at the upper part of the Big Bend of the Missouri in Hughes Co., South Dakota (Moulton, 1987a: 469). [footnote 4] A second collection from this location (PH-LC 52) is annotated "Baccharis linearis" by Pursh, an unpublished name. This may well be the basis for Pursh's report of Baccharis angustifolia (see B. salicina Torr. & A. Gray, No. 32 above). Lewis 54 (PH-LC 53) was gathered on 2 Oct 1804 above the mouth of the Cheyenne River in Dewey or Sully Co., South Dakota (Moulton 1987a: 470). A duplicate of this collection, originally in the Lambert Herbarium (PH-LC 54), is annotated by Pursh with an unpublished name "Chrysocoma elongata." This sheet corresponds with the cited location and date given by Pursh further suggesting that Lewis 32 might possibly be the basis for the report of B. angustifolia. [footnote 4:] This sheet was reported by Moulton (1987a) as Gutierrezia sarothrae but is being corrected to Chrysothamnus nauseosus subsp. graveolens in the forthcoming volume (Moulton, in press) on the botany of the expedition. A third sample of var. graveolens is associated with a mixed collection supposedly gathered "15th- October 1805. / on the Columbia river." As Lloyd Shinners wrote on the sheet (PH-LC 56) in 1946, neither the fragment of var. nauseosa nor that of var. graveolens could have come from the Columbia River area. However, Asa Gray associated the fragment on the left with the name Bigelovia graveolens (Nutt.) A. Gray var. albicaulis (Nutt.) A. Gray (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 8: 644. 1873), or what is now variously known as Chrysothamnus nauseosus (Pall. ex Nutt.) Britton var. speciosus (Nutt.) H. M. Hall (in Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot. 7: 169. 1919), C. nauseosus var. albicaulis (Nutt.) Rydb. (in Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 1: 385. 1900), C. nauseosus subsp. albicaulis (Nutt.) H. M. Hall & Clem. (in Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. 326: 212. 1923), or Ericameria nauseosa var. speciosus (Nutt.) G. L. Nesom & Baird (in Phytologia 75: 87. 1993). The monographer of the genus, Loran C. Anderson of Florida State University, annotated the left-hand fragment subsp. graveolens. The supposed location of PH-LC 56 is from along the lower Snake River in Franklin or Walla Walla Co., Washington, but clearly the specimen(s) from this location are now missing. Nuttall did not cite any of the Lewis and Clark material when he proposed Chrysocoma graveolens, and therefore, contrary to Cutright (1969: 405), none of the sheets cited above can be considered type material of the Nuttall name. (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:10/02/1804

Ericameria nauseosa (Pall. ex Pursh) G. L. Nesom & Baird var. graveolens (Nutt.) Reveal & Schuyler, comb. et stat. nov., based on Chrysocoma graveolens Nutt. (Gen. N. Amer. Pl. 2: 136. 1818) and the autonym Bigelovia graveolens (Nutt.) A. Gray var. glabrata A. Gray (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 8: 645. 1873). [footnote 3] - PH-LC 51 (Moulton 39a), PH-LC 52 (Moulton 39b), PH-LC 53 (Moulton 39c), PH-LC 54 (Moulton 39d) and PH-LC 56 (Moulton 40b), left-hand specimen. [footnote 3:] Additional nomenclatural synonyms are Chrysothamnus graveolens (Nutt.) Greene (in Erythea 3: 108. 1895), C. nauseosus (Pall. ex Pursh) Britton var. graveolens (Nutt.) H. M. Hall (in Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot. 7: 174. 1919), C. nauseosus subsp. graveolens (Nutt.) Piper (in Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 11: 559. 1906), C. nauseosus var. graveolens (A. Gray) Cronquist (in Univ. Wash. Publ. Biol. 17(5): 128. 1955), and Ericameria nauseosa subsp. graveolens (Nutt.) L. C. Anderson (in Great Basin Naturalist 55: 85. 1995). Nesom & Baird incorrected proposed E. nauseosa var. glabrata (A. Gray) G. L. Nesom & Baird (in Phytologia 75: 86. 1993) for the above taxon. They corrected one of their nomenclatural errors subsequently (in Phytologia 78: 61-65. 1995), but they failed to correct the above name as now required by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Greuter et al., 1994). Pursh (1813: 517) reports this series of specimens as Chrysocoma dracunculoides Lam. (Encycl. 2: 198. 1786), listing the plants as found on the "high cliffs on the banks of the Missouri" in October. There are several Lewis and Clark specimens associated with this name. Lewis 32 was collected on "21st. of Sept. 1805. at the upper part of the bigg bend of the Missouri" (PH-LC 51), or in modern parlance at the upper part of the Big Bend of the Missouri in Hughes Co., South Dakota (Moulton, 1987a: 469). [footnote 4] A second collection from this location (PH-LC 52) is annotated "Baccharis linearis" by Pursh, an unpublished name. This may well be the basis for Pursh's report of Baccharis angustifolia (see B. salicina Torr. & A. Gray, No. 32 above). Lewis 54 (PH-LC 53) was gathered on 2 Oct 1804 above the mouth of the Cheyenne River in Dewey or Sully Co., South Dakota (Moulton 1987a: 470). A duplicate of this collection, originally in the Lambert Herbarium (PH-LC 54), is annotated by Pursh with an unpublished name "Chrysocoma elongata." This sheet corresponds with the cited location and date given by Pursh further suggesting that Lewis 32 might possibly be the basis for the report of B. angustifolia. [footnote 4:] This sheet was reported by Moulton (1987a) as Gutierrezia sarothrae but is being corrected to Chrysothamnus nauseosus subsp. graveolens in the forthcoming volume (Moulton, in press) on the botany of the expedition. A third sample of var. graveolens is associated with a mixed collection supposedly gathered "15th- October 1805. / on the Columbia river." As Lloyd Shinners wrote on the sheet (PH-LC 56) in 1946, neither the fragment of var. nauseosa nor that of var. graveolens could have come from the Columbia River area. However, Asa Gray associated the fragment on the left with the name Bigelovia graveolens (Nutt.) A. Gray var. albicaulis (Nutt.) A. Gray (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 8: 644. 1873), or what is now variously known as Chrysothamnus nauseosus (Pall. ex Nutt.) Britton var. speciosus (Nutt.) H. M. Hall (in Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot. 7: 169. 1919), C. nauseosus var. albicaulis (Nutt.) Rydb. (in Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 1: 385. 1900), C. nauseosus subsp. albicaulis (Nutt.) H. M. Hall & Clem. (in Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. 326: 212. 1923), or Ericameria nauseosa var. speciosus (Nutt.) G. L. Nesom & Baird (in Phytologia 75: 87. 1993). The monographer of the genus, Loran C. Anderson of Florida State University, annotated the left-hand fragment subsp. graveolens. The supposed location of PH-LC 56 is from along the lower Snake River in Franklin or Walla Walla Co., Washington, but clearly the specimen(s) from this location are now missing. Nuttall did not cite any of the Lewis and Clark material when he proposed Chrysocoma graveolens, and therefore, contrary to Cutright (1969: 405), none of the sheets cited above can be considered type material of the Nuttall name. (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:09/21/1804

Pursh provides an extended description of this new species, stating the plant was found "On the high lands of the Kooskoosky." Both specimens now at PH are annotated 6 Jul 1806 and with phrases alluding to an upland. We can not account for the "July, Aug." date given by Pursh and therefore assume this is an error. Constance (1937: 84) did not distinguish between the two sheets calling both of them the type. Cronquist (in Cronquist et al., 1994: 110) cites the "holotype" as being at PH, but he too fails to distinguish between the two sheets. Meehan (1898: 33) lists this as Eriophyllum caespitosum Douglas (in Lindley, Bot. Reg. 14: ad t. 1167. 1828), a later synonym. The specimens were collected near Kamiah in Idaho Co., Idaho, on 6 Jun 1806 (Moulton, 1991: 338-343). (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:06/06/1806

Under Erysimum lanceolatum Ait. (Hort. Kew., ed. 2, 4: 116. 1810), Pursh (1813: 436) says "On the banks of the Missouri . . . June." This might be a reference to a Nuttall collection, but it may have applied to the Lewis and Clark collection labeled by Pursh as "On the Kooskooskie / Jun: 1st- 1806." Meehan (1898: 18), Cutright (1969: 408) and Moulton (in press) list the sheet as E. asperum (Nutt.) DC. (Syst. Veg. 2: 505. 1821). According to Rollins, E. lanceolatum is a synonym of var. purshii. The following is material added to this electronic publication (E. E. Spamer and R. M. McCourt, PH). Moulton (1999, pl. 64) identified this material as Erysimum asperum (Nutt.) DC. (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:06/01/1806

Under Erysimum lanceolatum Ait. (Hort. Kew., ed. 2, 4: 116. 1810), Pursh (1813: 436) says "On the banks of the Missouri . . . June." This might be a reference to a Nuttall collection, but it may have applied to the Lewis and Clark collection labeled by Pursh as "On the Kooskooskie / Jun: 1st- 1806." Meehan (1898: 18), Cutright (1969: 408) and Moulton (in press) list the sheet as E. asperum (Nutt.) DC. (Syst. Veg. 2: 505. 1821). According to Rollins, E. lanceolatum is a synonym of var. purshii. The following is material added to this electronic publication (E. E. Spamer and R. M. McCourt, PH). Moulton (1999, pl. 64) identified this material as Erysimum asperum (Nutt.) DC. (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:05/08/1806

The initial Lewis collection (PH-LC 85) was obtained on 8 May 1806 somewhere along the Clearwater River between Big Canyon Creek in Nez Perce Co. and Little Canyon Creek in Clearwater Co., Idaho (Moulton, 1991: 215-220). A second collection was made on 15 Jun 1806 when the party was along the Lolo Trail in Idaho Co., Idaho. Here Lewis and Clark were north of Lolo Creek and camped that evening along Eldorado Creek near the mouth of Lunch Creek (Moulton, 1993: 25-27). It is upon this latter element that Pursh bases his description of the species. In his journal entry for 16 Jun, Lewis mentions "the dogtooth violet is just in blume" (Moulton, 1993: 28) at a higher elevation than where they were the previous day. Meehan (1898: 43), Coues (1898: 313), Cutright (1969: 408), and Moulton (1993: 30) state the lectotype was found on 5 Jun 1806. Nonetheless, the label clearly gives the date as 15 Jun. We can not account for this consistent error especially since Lewis and Clark give listings of the plants they observed on 5 Jun and neither mentions a dogtooth violet (Moulton, 1991: 335, 337). We have no reason to believe the label has been altered in recent years. Meehan refers the paratype to Erythronium grandiflorum var. parviflorum S. Watson (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 26: 129. 1891). This distinction based on flower size alone is not worthy of formal taxonomic consideration (Reveal, in Cronquist et al., 1977: 492). (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:06/15/1806

Pursh (1813: 605) neither cites this specimen or suggests the plant occurs on the Missouri River. Meehan (1898: 40) reports the specimen, Lewis 38, as Euphorbia heterophylla L. (Sp. Pl.: 453. 1753), a misapplied name for a tropical species that just enters the southern United States. Coues (1898: 311) incorrectly suggests the Lewis specimen was gathered along the Missouri River above the Big Cheyenne River on 4 Oct 1804. In fact the label on Lewis 38 gives the date as 15 Oct meaning that the specimen was more likely gathered near Fort Yates in Sioux Co., North Dakota (Moulton, 1987a: 470). Moulton (1987a) reports the species as Poinsettia cyathophora (Murray) Klotzsch & Graebn. (in Abh. Königl. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1859: 104. 1860), but now treats the name as a synonym of E. cyathophora. (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark

William Clark made the collection on 28 Jul 1806 when he was apart from Lewis on the Yellowstone River in Rosebud Co., Montana (Moulton, in press). According to Clark's journal, the expedition traveled 73 miles by boat that day from some seven miles downstream from Reservation Creek to the mouth of Graveyard Creek (Moulton, 1993: 243-246). He makes no mention of landfall during the day. Even though the label on the specimen clearly states the plant was gathered along the Yellowstone River, both Coues (1898: 311) and Cutright (1969: 408) suggests that Lewis found the species along the Marias River in Chouteau Co., Montana. In print, Pursh was specific as to location and date: "On the Yellow-stone river. . . . July." We accept the label data as correct. There is no reason to believe that Clark was oblivious to plants. Surely he would not have ignored this curious species. (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:07/28/1806

It is curious that Lewis and Clark collected so few grasses and apparently no sedges or rushes. Both men surely appreciated the importance of forage grasses given their agricultural background. This specimen was found "On the plains of Columbia" according to the Pursh label, but on 10 Jun 1806 when the expedition was traveling along the trail toward Weippe Prairie northeast of Kamiah in Clearwater Co., Idaho (Moulton, 1993: 7-14). Lewis mentions numerous plants in his journal of this date, but no grasses. He does discuss several graminoids on 5 Jun, however, but none seem to be this species (Moulton, 1991: 334-338). Meehan (1898: 45) lists the specimen as Festuca ovina L. (Sp. Pl.: 73. 1753), a closely related species with a nearly circumboreal distribution. (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:06/10/1806

Frangula purshiana (DC.) J. G. Cooper, Pacif. Railr. Rep., Stevens Exped. 12: 57. 1860, a new name for Rhamnus alnifolius Pursh, Fl. Amer. Sept.: 166. Dec (sero) 1813 (non L'Her., 1788) = R. purshiana DC., Prodr. 2: 25. 1825. - Lectotype: PH-LC 91, left-hand fragment (Moulton 69b), designated here! Duplicate of the lectotype: PH-LC 90 (Moulton 69a). {N.B.: In Reveal et al.'s original text, the equals-sign preceding R. purshiana is typeset as three horizontal parallel lines, indicating a nomenclatural synonym, a symbol unavailable for this html document. -Spamer & McCourt, here} The separation of Frangula from Rhamnus is tentative, but as Moulton (in press) has adopted the above name, we retain it here. The type material was collected near Kamiah in Idaho Co., Idaho, on 29 May 1806 (Moulton, 1991: 302-308). Lewis makes no mention of the species. The following is material added to this electronic publication (E. E. Spamer and R. M. McCourt, PH). On PH-LC 91, Reveal et al. (1999) designate the "left-hand fragment", a Lewis collection, as the lectotype. The larger right-hand specimen is a Menzies collection probably from southwestern Canada or northwestern United States, according to Lambert's annotation (see below). We note that the two small, single leaves on either side of the Menzies specimen more resemble now the (dried) coloration of the Lewis specimen and question their association with the Menzies specimen. If they are Lewis-collected specimens, they are additional duplicates of the lectotype. (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:05/29/1806

Today the lectotype consists of a single leaf, and while diagnostic for the species, it is clear that Pursh had additional material given the floral details he includes in his description. Given the tendency for inflorescences of this species to suffer from insect damage, it is possible the inflorescence was destroyed while housed at the American Philosophical Society. However, it can not be ruled out that Pursh took leaf and flowering material to London and these have since disappeared. The lectotype was collected on the Weippe Prairie in Clearwater Co., Idaho, on 14 Jun 1806 (Moulton, 1993: 23-25). Meehan (1898: 36) reports the plant as Frasera thyrsiflora Hook. (Hooker's J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 3: 288. 1851), a later synonym. Robinson and Greenman, as well as Meehan, rather consistently do not take up Pursh names when they replace names in current use. (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:06/14/1806

The Pursh name, long in use, is technically superfluous as he included Lilium camschatcense L. (Sp. Pl.: 303. 1753) via Willdenow (Sp. Pl. 2: 89. 1799) in synonymy. Furthermore, he goes on and states the Lewis and Clark plant is L. camschatcense and he "had no idea of finding it under Lilium." No plate was published in the Flora but Pursh states he "made a drawing and description under the above name [F. lanceolata] for the Travels of Lewis and Clark." The currently available name for the taxon is Fritillaria affinis. A handwritten Lewis label on one specimen (PH-LC 93) indicates he collected this species on 10 Apr 1806 as the party worked their canoes up the rapids around Bradford (then "Bryant") Island, Multnomah Co., Oregon, in the Columbia River (Moulton, 1991: 101-104). It is interesting to speculate on the scene that Lewis must have presented, carefully collecting this checker lily while others labored to pull boats up stream through cascading waters. (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:04/10/1806

The type specimens were collected along the Clearwater River on 8 May 1806 as the expedition traveled from Canyon Creek in Nez Perce Co. to near Little Canyon Creek in Clearwater Co., Idaho (Moulton, 1991: 226-233). No mention is made of the species in the journals. The plate is based on features found on both specimens (Rossi & Schuyler, 1993: 49) meaning that Pursh must have done sketches of the species while still in Philadelphia. (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:05/08/1806

Pursh provides an extended description of the species, noting it was found "On dry hills on the Rocky-mountains." On the label, Pursh gives this and a date. The morning of 7 Jul 1806 found Lewis's party on Beaver Creek in Lewis and Clark Co., Montana. They set out early heading northeast crossing the Continental Divide via Lewis and Clark Pass to an evening camp near Table Mountain (Moulton, 1993: 95-96). Most of the country east of the divide is low in elevation and characterized by "dry hills." The species is common here even today. Clark's party, on the other hand, was delayed in leaving camp having lost nine horses overnight. They were in Big Hole Valley in Beaverhead Co., Montana. After considerable delay, the main portion of Clark's men moved onward across Big Hole Pass, where they camped after going some 25 miles (Moulton, 1993: 169-171). Neither explorer mentions collecting this beautiful plant. Coues (1898: 305-306) suggests Lewis gathered the type, and given the circumstances, this seems most reasonable. Cutright (1969: 409) gives the date of the collection as 6 Jul. (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:07/07/1806

The lectotype designated here fits all of the details of the description given by Pursh in his expanded Latin description, whereas the Lewis and Clark collection lacks floral features. Also, the Menzies sheet at PH is the basis for the figure published by Pursh (Rossi & Schuyler, 1993: 49). Hitchcock (in Hitchcock et al., 1959: 12) regards the Lewis and Clark element as representative of the species, but did not technically propose it as the type. In any case it would have been an inappropriate selection as Pursh says "I was first inclined to take this species to belong to Arbutus, having only seen imperfect specimens [i.e., the sterile Lewis and Clark collection]." The paratype was collected at Fort Clatsop, Clatsop Co., Oregon, on 20 Jan 1806, but this fact is not noted in the journals (Moulton, 1990: 223-225). The species is mentioned several times in the Lewis and Clark journals (Moulton, 1990) with Clark providing a description and an illustration of the plant on 8 Feb 1806 (Moulton, 1990: 288-290, fig. 29). (The Lewis & Clark Herbarium Digital Imagery Study Set, ANSP, 2002) On deposit at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Collected by:Meriwether Lewis & William Clark Collection date:01/20/1806