See Meehan (1898: 41) for his review of this fragmentary specimen. Clark first reports this plant on 30 Oct 1805 (Moulton, 1988: 358). On 9 Feb 1806, Lewis provides a brief description (Moulton, 1990: 290), referring to the species as "black alder." The tiny fragments that exist today were collected on 26 Mar 1806. Coues (1898: 311) suggests Lewis and Clark collected the specimen on the lower Columbia River between Puget's Island and the Cowlitz River. On 27 Mar, Lewis states he "saw . . . the growth which resembles the beach" (Moulton, 1991: 19) which Moulton (1991: 22) takes to mean Alnus rubra. At the same time, Lewis reports "the black alder appears as well on some parts of the hills as the bottoms." On 30 Mar, Lewis mentions that "the black alder common on the coast has now disappeared" (Moulton, 1991: 32). (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:03/26/1806

Pursh indirectly refers to the above specimen when he proposed Pyrus sanguinea Pursh (1813: 340) as a new name at the species rank for Mespilus canadensis var. rotundifolia Michx. (Fl. Boreali-Amer. 2: 291. 1803). He reports the distribution of the species as "In Canada and on the banks of the Columbia." Pursh makes no direct mention of the Lewis and Clark sheet. Amelanchier sanguinea (Pursh) DC. (in Prodr. 2: 633. 1825) is a species of eastern North America (Little, 1979). Jones (1946: 62-63) reviews the confusion regarding the definition of A. sanguinea. The type of the species cannot be a Pursh specimen as implied by McVaugh (1935: 30) and seemingly accepted by Ewan (1979: 94). The type of A. alnifolia (Nutt.) Nutt. ex M. Roem. (in Fam. Nat. Syn. Monogr. 3: 147. 1847) is an 1811 Nuttall collection from near present-day Bismarck, North Dakota. Meehan (1898: 24), Cutright (1969: 402) and Moulton (in press) list the sheet as Amelanchier alnifolia. Clark first mentions the taxon on 11 Apr 1806 (Moulton, 1991: 110-111), but the specimen was collected at the "Narrows" of the Columbia River on 15 Apr 1806. Coues (1898: 299) suggests Lewis and Clark gathered the plant at Rock Fort Camp near The Dalles in Wasco Co., Oregon. Moulton (1991: 123-125) notes that the expedition traveled from Major Creek in Klickitat Co., Washington, to Rock Fort Camp, having been delayed that morning as horses were purchased and several stops were made to make observations. (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:04/15/1806

This sheet supposedly consists of two collections, one made on 7 May 1806 and another on 27 Jun 1806. The first was found along the Clearwater River (Moulton, 1991: 220-225) and the second along the Lolo Trail at or near Lolo Creek (Moulton, 1993: 55-59). Meehan (1898: 25) considers the two sterile branchlets to be an unknown species of Prunus whereas Piper annotates the sheet with "I think this is Amelanchier sp." We are following Moulton (in press) in referring to the sheet under the latter scientific name although we have no firm opinion as to the correct identification of the two sterile branchlets. If indeed these are fragments of Amelanchier, they probably represent A. alnifolia var. alnifolia. Several species of Prunus occur in both areas. (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:05/07/1806

Pursh gives only a brief diagnosis for the new variety, indicating his specimen came from Lewis but provides no specific location. This is a highly variable species and we do not attempt to recognize infraspecific entities. The type was collected on 27 Aug 1806. The expedition was at the lower end of the Big Bend of the Missouri River on a nameless island between Lyman and Buffalo cos., South Dakota (Moulton, 1993: 325-326). The area is now under Big Bend Reservoir. Clark reports "My friend Capt Lewis hurt himself very much by takeing a longer walk on the Sand bar in my absence at the buffalow than he had Strength to undergo, which Caused him to remain very unwell all night" (1993: 325). Perhaps Lewis collected this specimen during his walk. The name Amorpha fruticosa var. lewisii Loudon (Arbor. Frutic. Brit. 2: 607. 1838), is based on cultivated plants grown from seeds obtained by Lewis and Clark. We have not attempted to find authentic material associated with the Loudon 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:08/27/1806

The label information is confusing as the location is given as "near Counsel Bluffs," but supposedly the collection was made on 14 Sep 1806 when Lewis and Clark were in Leavenworth Co., Kansas. The rapidly returning expedition passed Council Bluff in Washington Co., Nebraska on 8 Sep 1806. There are two fragments on the sheet, but they seem to represent only a single collection with a single branch broken into two parts. Coues (1898: 297) lists the plant as Cissus ampelopsis Pers. (Syn. Pl. 1: 142. 1805), a nomenclatural synonym of Ampelopsis cordata. (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:09/08/1806

Meehan (1898: 37) lists the specimen as a species of Krynitskia. Piper tentatively annotated the collection Amsinckia intermedia Fisch. & C. A. Mey. (Index Sem., Hort. Petrop. 2: 26. 1836) and Moulton (in press) takes up this name. The rugose hairs on the stem are diagnostic. The specimen was apparently collected at Rock Fort Camp near The Dalles in Wasco Co., Oregon, on 17 Apr 1806 (Moulton, 1991: 130-132). Interestingly, Suksdorf gathered the type of Amsinckia retrorsa near Bingen, Klickitat Co., Washington, only a short distance away. Cronquist (in Cronquist et al., 1984: 277-278) suggests Amsinckia retrorsa might well be included within the related A. menziesii (Lehm.) A. Nelson & J. F. Macbr. (Bot. Gaz. 61: 36. 1916). We concur, and thus make the above new combination. (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:04/17/1806

Given the description, it is not likely that this is the element Pursh had before him when he proposed Anemone tenella (1813: 386), an illegitimate name for A. caroliniana Walter (Fl. Carol.: 157. 1788; see No. 13, below). He makes no reference to A. pensylvanica L. (Mant. 2: 247. 1771), as the plant was then known. The Lewis specimen was collected along the Missouri River at or near Tonwontonga, a large Indian village in Dakota Co., Nebraska, on 17 Aug 1804 (Moulton, 1986: 486-488). The sheet lacks a Lewis label and is not listed among the plants collected by him in 1804 (Moulton, 1987a: 450-472). (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:08/17/1804

Meehan (1898: 17) and others incorrectly identify this specimen as Anemone quinquefolia L. (Sp. Pl.: 541. 1753), an eastern North American species (see Dutton et al., 1997). The Lewis 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). (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

Only a bug-chewed label is now present. If the specimen was a species of Angelica then the plant was probably A. dawsonii S. Watson (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 20: 369. 1885). This conclusion is based on the two locations cited on the label. Flowering material was gathered on 3 Sep 1805 near Lost Trail Pass on the border of Idaho and Montana, but probably in Missoula Co., Montana, and on the Lolo Trail east of Hungery Creek in Idaho Co., Idaho, on 25 Jun 1806. Angelica dawsonii is seen occasionally in both areas. However, Moulton (1993: 31) properly notes that Ligusticum verticillatum (Geyer) J. M. Coult. & Rose (in Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 3: 320. 1895) was seen earlier (16 Jun), and while less common than A. dawsonii, it is found in the Hungery Creek area. It is not common in the Lost Trail Pass region. Cutright (1969: 402) suggests the plant was A. arguta Nutt. (in Torr. & A. Gray, Fl. N. Amer. 1: 620. 1840), correcting the name proposed by Piper (in Thwaites, 1904: 5: 138), namely A. lyallii S. Watson (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 17: 374. 1882). It must be noted that events of 3 Sep 1805 were rather unpleasant for the expedition, the country was steep and rocky, and snow as on the ground with rain and sleet falling (Moulton, 1988: 185-187). Even their exact whereabouts is debated. Perhaps finding something in flower brightened the day! (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

Pursh's name is based entirely upon Menzies material collected on the Vancouver expedition to North America from 1791 until 1795. The Lewis and Clark specimen, collected along the Columbia River on 1 Nov 1805, is not mentioned. The expedition was at the Cascades of the Columbia and much of the day was spent moving canoes and baggage over a "bad Slippery and rockey way" in what is now Skamania Co., Washington. There is no mention of this common shrub having been collected on this day (Moulton, 1988: 366-373). (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:11/01/1805

Pursh (1813: 283) makes no direct mention of Lewis and Clark material under the basionym, Arbutus uva-ursi L. (Sp. Pl.: 395. 1753). However, his comment that on "the plains of the Mississippi the Indians smoke the leaves under the name Sacacommis, and consider this of great medicinal virtue" is a garbled form of what is found on the label of Lewis 33. Lewis writes, "the natives smoke its leaves and mixed with tobacco / Called by the French Engages Sacacommis." According to the original label data, the plant was collected at Fort Mandan, McLean Co., North Dakota (Moulton, 1987a), where the expedition spent the winter. The plant was gathered in fruit so it most likely was taken in the late fall of 1804. (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

Meehan (1898: 25) lists the specimen as Potentilla anserina L. (Sp. Pl.: 495. 1753); Moulton (in press) reports it as Argentina anserina (L.) Rydb. (Mem. Dept. Bot. Columbia Coll. 2: 159. 1898). Neither Ertter (1993) nor Holmgren (in Cronquist et al., 1997) divides the herbaceous species into smaller genera, but based on data from Eriksson et al. (1998) we accept the segregate genus. The plant is known also as P. anserina var. grandis Torr. & A. Gray (Fl. N. Amer. 1: 444. 1840) or P. pacifica Howell (Fl. N.W. Amer. 1: 179. 1898). The specimen was collected near Fort Clatsop, Clatsop Co., Oregon, on 13 Mar 1806. Neither explorer mentions the plant although the label states "The roots are eat by the natives, & taste like Sweet Potatoes, grows in marshy ground." The specimen consists of some small roots and two fragments of immature leaves. Moulton (1991: 61) suggests that Lewis might have seen this species on 2 Apr 1806 as the expedition was moving up the Columbia River. The correct name for this taxon may well prove to be Argentina egedii (Wormsk.) Rydb. (in Mem. Dept. Bot. Columbia Coll. 2: 158. 1898) but for now we follow Ertter and Holmgren in defining A. anserina in a broad sense. (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:03/13/1806

The lectotype designated by Cronquist does not fully agree with Pursh's description in all of its details that were clearly taken from the Lambert sheet (PH-LC 22). Although Cronquist cites the type as "Lewis 6" and terms it the "holotype," there is no question he means Lewis 60 given the location he quotes, which was where Lewis and Clark were on 1 Oct 1804, the date given on the sheet. In accordance with the Code (Greuter et al., 1993), we correct Cronquist's declaration of a "holotype" to a lectotype. The lectotype was collected near the mouth of the Cheyenne River in Stanley Co., South Dakota (Moulton, 1987a: 470). The remaining sheets (PH-LC 20-22), all duplicates of Lewis 55, represent a second collection made the following day (2 Oct 1804) above the mouth of the Cheyenne River near the Sully-Potter Co. line in South Dakota (Moulton, 1987a: 470). (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:10/01/1804

Artemisia cana Pursh, Fl. Amer. Sept.: 521. Dec (sero) 1813. - Lectotype: Lewis 60, PH-LC 19 (Moulton 17a), designated by Cronquist (Interm. Fl. 5: 162. 1994). Paratypes: PH-LC 20 (Moulton 17b), PH-LC 21 (Moulton 17c) and PH-LC 22 (Moulton 17d). The lectotype designated by Cronquist does not fully agree with Pursh's description in all of its details that were clearly taken from the Lambert sheet (PH-LC 22). Although Cronquist cites the type as "Lewis 6" and terms it the "holotype," there is no question he means Lewis 60 given the location he quotes, which was where Lewis and Clark were on 1 Oct 1804, the date given on the sheet. In accordance with the Code (Greuter et al., 1993), we correct Cronquist's declaration of a "holotype" to a lectotype. The lectotype was collected near the mouth of the Cheyenne River in Stanley Co., South Dakota (Moulton, 1987a: 470). The remaining sheets (PH-LC 20-22), all duplicates of Lewis 55, represent a second collection made the following day (2 Oct 1804) above the mouth of the Cheyenne River near the Sully-Potter Co. line in South Dakota (Moulton, 1987a: 470). The following is material added to this electronic publication (E. E. Spamer and R. M. McCourt, PH). Subsequent to 1995-1996 photography for Moulton's (1999) illustration of sheet PH-LC 20, the following annotation label has been added: "Leaf fragment removed for biogeochemical analysis Mark A Teece Geophysical Laboratory Carnegie Institution of Washington Removed 18 Dec 1997". (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

Artemisia cana Pursh, Fl. Amer. Sept.: 521. Dec (sero) 1813. - Lectotype: Lewis 60, PH-LC 19 (Moulton 17a), designated by Cronquist (Interm. Fl. 5: 162. 1994). Paratypes: PH-LC 20 (Moulton 17b), PH-LC 21 (Moulton 17c) and PH-LC 22 (Moulton 17d). The lectotype designated by Cronquist does not fully agree with Pursh's description in all of its details that were clearly taken from the Lambert sheet (PH-LC 22). Although Cronquist cites the type as "Lewis 6" and terms it the "holotype," there is no question he means Lewis 60 given the location he quotes, which was where Lewis and Clark were on 1 Oct 1804, the date given on the sheet. In accordance with the Code (Greuter et al., 1993), we correct Cronquist's declaration of a "holotype" to a lectotype. The lectotype was collected near the mouth of the Cheyenne River in Stanley Co., South Dakota (Moulton, 1987a: 470). The remaining sheets (PH-LC 20-22), all duplicates of Lewis 55, represent a second collection made the following day (2 Oct 1804) above the mouth of the Cheyenne River near the Sully-Potter Co. line in South Dakota (Moulton, 1987a: 470). (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

Pursh (1813: 521) cites Lewis material from "On the Missouri. . . . Aug.-Oct." The collection was made near the mouth of the White River in Lyman or Brule cos., South Dakota (Moulton, 1987a: 469). We are uncertain what Pursh had in mind when he proposed Artemisia santonica (see No. 19 above). (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:09/15/1804

Collected near Springfield, Bon Homme Co., South Dakota on 2 Sep 1804 (Moulton, 1987a: 469). (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:09/02/1804

Gathered above the Cheyenne River near the Sully-Potter Co. line in South Dakota on 3 Oct 1804 (Moulton, 1987a: 470). Pursh (1813: 522) gives the location as "On the plains of the Missouri. . . . Oct. Nov." (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:10/03/1804

PH-LC 27 has an original Lewis label (Lewis 53) indicating the collection was gathered above the Cheyenne River near the Sully-Potter Co. line in South Dakota on 3 Oct 1804 (Moulton, 1987a: 470). A second label, written by Pursh, proclaims the plant was gathered on 1 Oct 1804. It is not clear if the two labels on the sheet refer to each of the two fragments or if Pursh mistakenly dated his label 1 Oct instead of 3 Oct. It is our opinion that the two fragments represent a single, broken stem. On PH-LC 29, Pursh gives the date as 1 Oct; he also annotates it as Artemisia integrifolia L. (Sp. Pl.: 848. 1753), the name he (Pursh 1813: 520) eventually published. As noted under Artemisia campestris subsp. caudata (see No. 19 above), we have been unable to find either of the specimens Pursh attributes to Lewis and Clark under A. campestris or A. santonica. It is possible the original Lewis label went with one of these missing specimens. A comparison of PH-LC 27 with PH-LC 29 is not entirely helpful as the Lewis fragments on the two sheets are not all that similar. We can not ignore the notion that PH-LC 27 (Lewis 53) was collected a few days after PH-LC 29 and perhaps the Pursh label on PH-LC 27 was mistakenly attached. (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:10/03/1804

The label data on this specimen is confusing (Coues, 1898: 305). On 10 Apr 1806 the expedition was attempting to get up the Cascades of the Columbia River. On this day Lewis collected Fritillaria affinis on Bradford (then "Bryant") Island, Multnomah Co., Oregon, and he walked along the Columbia River below the Cascades in Skamania Co., Washington, where he might have found Trillium ovatum (Moulton, 1991: 101-104). However, the location given is "Rockford Camp" otherwise known as Rock Fort Camp near The Dalles in Wasco Co., Oregon. The expedition did not arrive there until 15 Apr. Lewis remained at The Dalles until 18 Apr (Moulton, 1991: 123-135). No mention is made of this species of wormwood at either location. The plant is also known as A. ludoviciana subsp. candicans (Rydb.) Keck (in Bull. Calif. Acad. Sci. ser. 4, 25: 447. 1946). (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