identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
CE698783A441B8695E40FC76E8C1FA51.text	CE698783A441B8695E40FC76E8C1FA51.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Astragalus trichocarpus (Torr. & A. Gray) M. J. Young	<div><p>Astragalus trichocarpus (Torr. &amp; A. Gray) M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 228. 1873, non Graham ex Benth. in Royle, Ill. Bot. Himal. Mts. 199. 1835 [1839].</p><p>Astragalus nuttallianus var. trichocarpus Torr. &amp; A. Gray, Fl. N. Amer.1(2):334.1838 (“β. trichocarpu s”).</p><p>TYPE: U.S.A. Texas. Sine loc .,s.d. [1834], T. Drummond I s.n. [LECTOTYPE as “holotype” designated by Barneby (1964: 1067): NY00005570 as image !; ISOLECTOTYPE: BM [BM001042704 as image!] [“Texas I”]; POSSIBLE ISOLECTOTYPES: G, LAU, OXF, US [US00004242] !].</p><p>Young (1873) recognized six species of Astragalus L., including “ A. trichocarpus, Gray and Torrey. ” She incorrectly ascribed authorship for what is, in fact, a new combination and change in status for A. nuttallianus var. trichocarpus Torr. &amp; A. Gray (1838). Young’s ascription of authorship to “Gray and Torrey,” albeit the correct order of names reversed, provides an indirect reference (Turland et al. 2018; Art. 41.3) to the basionym. Additionally, Young’s (1873) description is almost a verbatim copy of what Torrey and Gray (1838) published for A. nuttallianus s.l. However, Young (or Buckley) curiously managed to omit from her description the few characters used to distinguish A. nuttalianus var. trichocarpus from the nominate variety. The only collection cited for this taxon in either flora is “ Drummond .” A single, unnumbered Drummond collection (“Coll. I”) from Texas is in the Torrey Herbarium (NY) and was designated by Barneby (1964) as the lectotype of the basionym.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CE698783A441B8695E40FC76E8C1FA51	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Dorr, Laurence J.	Dorr, Laurence J. (2022): New Species And Combinations Published In M. J. Young’S Familiar Lessons In Botany With Flora Of Texas (1873). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 16 (1): 29-46, DOI: 10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218, URL: https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218
CE698783A441B8685E40FA1DE9C1FDC2.text	CE698783A441B8685E40FA1DE9C1FDC2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Berberis swaseyi , Buckley 1870	<div><p>Berberis swaseyi Buckley, Southern Horticulturist 2(1):14. 1870 (“ Swaseyii ”); M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 152. 1873 (“Swaseyi”).</p><p>Alloberberis swaseyi (Buckley) C.C. Yu &amp; K.F. Chung, Taxon 66:1387.2017.</p><p>TYPE: U.S.A. Texas. Hays Co.: Sine loc., s.d., S.B. Buckley ” (NEOTYPE, designated here: NY!-Columbia College Herbarium; POSSIBLE ISONEOTYPE: PH [PH00007702]!).</p><p>Watson (1878) and subsequent authors cite Young (1873) as the place of publication of Buckley’s species, which is incorrect. The name was published several years earlier by Buckley in one of the many agricultural journals that were popular in 19th century America. In the protologue of Berberis swaseyi, Buckley (1870a) indicates that he found this species with ripe fruit in the beginning of June 1866 in Hays County, Texas. Later, Young (1873) described the shrub’s distribution as “Western Texas on the Perdinales [sic] River” and stated that the species flowered in February and March and that fruit was ripe in early June. This is consistent with the type description since the Pedernales River passes through northern Hays County, and we know that Buckley (1874) considered anything west of the Colorado River to be Western Texas. No original material has been located. The neotype designated here is a specimen in the Columbia College Herbarium (now NY) from Hays Co. labeled in ink by Buckley. According to Newberry (1884), Columbia College (now University) received about 300 specimens of Texas plants from Buckley in 1883–1884 and they probably were received when Buckley visited New York City in early 1884 shortly before he died. The specimen selected as neotype has ripe fruit, which is mentioned in the protologue. Possible isoneotype material (PH), also in fruit, is labeled in ink by Buckley “ Berberis Swaseyi Buckley, Hays Co. Texas, April 2/81, S.B. Buckley.” However, given that the neotype is undated and the possible isoneotype is dated, there is no way of ascertaining now if these two specimens are part of a single gathering.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CE698783A441B8685E40FA1DE9C1FDC2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Dorr, Laurence J.	Dorr, Laurence J. (2022): New Species And Combinations Published In M. J. Young’S Familiar Lessons In Botany With Flora Of Texas (1873). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 16 (1): 29-46, DOI: 10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218, URL: https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218
CE698783A440B86B5E58FD82EB95FE02.text	CE698783A440B86B5E58FD82EB95FE02.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Alloberberis trifoliolata (Moric.) C. C. Yu & K. F. Chung	<div><p>Berberis trifoliata Hartw. ex Lindl., Bot. Reg. 27 [= n.s., 4]: [Misc.] 68. 1841; M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 152. 1873. TYPE: MEXICO. Chihuahua:Rocky hills near Chihuahua, 25 Mar 1885 (fl), C.G. Pringle 261 p. p. (NEOTYPE, designated here: US [US 00103926]!; ISONEOTYPES: P [P0232716 as image!], US [US 00952515]!).</p><p>Mahonia trifoliolata var. glauca I.M. Johnst, J. Arnold Arbor. 31:190. 1950. TYPE: MEXICO. Chihuahua:Rocky hills near Chihuahua, 25 Mar 1885 (fl), C.G. Pringle 261 p. p. (LECTOTYPE, designated here: US [US 00103926]!; ISOLECTOTYPES: P [P0232716 as image!], US [US 00952515]!).</p><p>Alloberberis trifoliolata (Moric.) C.C. Yu &amp; K.F. Chung, Taxon 66:1387. 2017.</p><p>Berberis trifoliolata Moric., Pl. Nouv. Amérique 113, t. 69. 1841.</p><p>TYPE: MEXICO [now U.S.A. Texas:]. Entre Laredo et Bejar, Mar 1828, J.L. Berlandier 1437 (LECTOTYPE, designated here: G [G00342708 as image!] ; ISOLECTOTYPES: G [G00342706 as image!], G [G00342707 as image!], GH [GH00038685 as image!], NY [NY00000019 as image!], P [P00752258 as image!], P [P00752259 as image!], P [P00752260 as image!], WU [WU sheet no. 0064710 as image!]).</p><p>In her treatment of Berberis L., Young (1873) recognized both “ B. trifoliata ” and “ B. trifoliolata, Torr. ” and provided them with very slightly different descriptions and distributions, although as she circumscribes them, they have overlapping morphology and geography and cannot really be distinguished. Both names antedate her flora, and both were published in 1841 as B. trifoliata Hartw. ex Lindl. and B. trifoliolata Moric., respectively. The former name has been placed in synonymy under the latter (Watson 1878), but priority cannot be established with certainty because while we know B. trifoliata was published in September 1841, only the year of publication is known for B. trifoliolata . Frequently the epithet of the former also is used mistakenly in place of the latter. Young’s (1873) treatment of Berberis appears to be derived from an earlier note by Buckley (1870a) where he discussed the “Three-Leaved Berberry. ( Berberis trifoliata .)” and was silent regarding B. trifoliolata . Elements of Buckley’s description of “ B. trifoliata,” including its habit, distribution, and edible fruit, strongly suggest that it is the same as the description of “ B. trifoliolata, Torr. ” in Young’s flora.</p><p>Torrey (1857, 1859) also confounded “trifoliata ” and “trifoliolata ” when he treated Berberis from Texas and the Southwest. Invariably, however, he cited Moricand suggesting that his “ B. trifoliata ” was nothing more than a misreading of the epithet. Torrey (1857) treated a blue-berried species as “ Berberis trifoliata, Moricand, Pl. Amer., t. 69?” and not only corrupted the epithet but misapplied the name to a species that he later described as B. fremontii Torr. [≡ Alloberberis fremontii (Torr.) C.C. Yu &amp; K.F. Chung]. In his contribution to the Botany of the Boundary Survey, Torrey (1859) wrote “ Berberis trifoliata [sic], Moric. Pl. Nuov. Amer. p. 113, t. 69 … Western Texas, and on hills near the Copper Mines, New Mexico; Bigelow.” This latter treatment is the source for part of the locality and the sole collector cited by Young (1873), viz. “Austin, thence west to New Mexico.– Bigelow.”</p><p>The protologue of Berberis trifoliata Hedw. ex Lindl. indicates that the name was based on plants grown in England from seed collected in Mexico near Hacienda del Espiritu Santo on the road from Zacatecas to San Luis Potosi by “Mr. Hartweg.” The seeds were then distributed by the Horticultural Society of London, but no original material has been traced. A neotype is designated here that fixes the application of the name to the glaucous-leaved form of Alloberberis trifoliolata found in both Mexico and the southwestern U.S.A.</p><p>Johnston (1950) intentionally redescribed Berberis trifoliata as Mahonia trifoliolata var. glauca . He indicated that “Pringle 261” was the type of this variety, but he did not specify where he examined material. Yu and Chung (2017) stated that a specimen at US was the “ holotype,” but this is incorrect, and their designation cannot be treated as a misused term (Turland et al. 2018; Art. 9.10) because other provisions of the ICN are not met (Turland et al. 2018; Arts. 7.11, 9.23). Furthermore, Yu and Chung (2017) failed to notice that each sheet of “Pringle 261” is comprised of two separate gatherings:the labels clearly state “Flowers, 25, March; fruit, 20, May.” The flowering material only is designated here as the lectotype of this varietal name.</p><p>Yu and Chung (2017) considered a specimen of “Berlandier 1437” in Geneva (G) to be the “ holotype ” of Berberis trifoliolata . The name, however, was published without a holotype and the designation by Yu and Chung also cannot be treated as a misused term for the reasons cited in the previous paragraph. The lectotype designated here is the same specimen that they incorrectly assumed was the holotype.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CE698783A440B86B5E58FD82EB95FE02	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Dorr, Laurence J.	Dorr, Laurence J. (2022): New Species And Combinations Published In M. J. Young’S Familiar Lessons In Botany With Flora Of Texas (1873). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 16 (1): 29-46, DOI: 10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218, URL: https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218
CE698783A443B86B5E40FE42EB14FBE7.text	CE698783A443B86B5E40FE42EB14FBE7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Acanthocereus tetragonus (L.) Hummelinck	<div><p>Cereus vasmerae M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 276. 1873 (“ Vasmerii ”). TYPE: U.S.A. Texas.Webb Co.:Laredo,1906, J.N. Rose &amp; J.S.Rose s.n. (NEOTYPE, designated here: US [US 00048387]-excluding seeds in packet!).</p><p>Acanthocereus tetragonus (L.) Hummelinck, Succulenta (Netherlands) 20:165. 1938.</p><p>Cereus vasmerae is the only new species that Young (1873) appears to have intentionally published. Its type locality is stated to be “On hills near La Grange [Fayette Co., Texas]” and the species also was said to have been “introduced into gardens by Mrs. T.W. House.” Mrs. House or Mary Elizabeth House (née Shearn) (1822– 1870) was the wife of Thomas William House (1814–1880), a financially successful Houston merchant and entrepreneur (Beazley 2021). Presumably the gardens noted by Young (1873) were those of their social circle in Houston.</p><p>It is not altogether clear that Young’s new species was based on herbarium material and no original material of C. vasmerae is known. The neotype consists of flowers and the remnants of a fruit. The specimen appears to have been prepared from a cultivated plant (“06.1012”) from which seeds were acquired in September 1911. A separate sheet (US [US 00048384]!) consists of seedlings of “06.1012” gathered in 1911. The seeds in the packet of the neotype and the separately-mounted seedlings cannot be considered part of the type gathering (Turland et al. 2018; Art. 8.2) even though they are very likely genetically identical to the neotype.</p><p>The etymology of the species epithet was not fully explained by Young (1873). She simply stated that Cereus vasmerae was “named for Mrs. Vasmer,” who probably was Elisabeth Holt Vasmer (née Stanley) (1835– 1907) of Houston, the widow of a Dr. Ernest Henry Vasmer (1829–1865).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CE698783A443B86B5E40FE42EB14FBE7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Dorr, Laurence J.	Dorr, Laurence J. (2022): New Species And Combinations Published In M. J. Young’S Familiar Lessons In Botany With Flora Of Texas (1873). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 16 (1): 29-46, DOI: 10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218, URL: https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218
CE698783A443B86B5E40FBE6EBE3FAB2.text	CE698783A443B86B5E40FBE6EBE3FAB2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cocculus carolinus (L.) DC.	<div><p>Cocculus carolinus (L.) DC., Syst. Nat. 1:524. 1817 [1818]; M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 151. 1873 (“ Caroliniana ”).</p><p>The name “C[occulus] Caroliniana, DC. ” adopted by Young (1873) is an orthographic variant of C. carolinus . The description of this species in her flora clearly is copied from Chapman (1860, as “ C. Carolinus, DC. ”), while the specific epithet probably was taken from Wood (1861, as “ C. Carolinianus DC. ”). Standard indices (IPNI 2021; Tropicos 2021) suggest that this orthographic variant first appeared in the horticultural literature as “ Cocculus carolinianus auct., Gartenflora 35:404. 1886 ” even though this source itself attributes the name to “Gard.monthly Philad.” where the same orthographic variant was used (Thomson 1886) earlier. Nonetheless, as evidenced by Wood (1861) the variant spelling was in the floristic literature well before then.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CE698783A443B86B5E40FBE6EBE3FAB2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Dorr, Laurence J.	Dorr, Laurence J. (2022): New Species And Combinations Published In M. J. Young’S Familiar Lessons In Botany With Flora Of Texas (1873). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 16 (1): 29-46, DOI: 10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218, URL: https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218
CE698783A443B86A5E40FA32E8B6FF62.text	CE698783A443B86A5E40FA32E8B6FF62.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Desmodium paniculatum (L.) DC.	<div><p>Desmodium pubens (Torr. &amp; A. Gray) M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 233. 1873. Desmodium paniculatum var. pubens Torr. &amp; A.Gray, Fl. N. Amer.1(3):364. 1840 (“γ. pubens ”). TYPE: U.S.A. Louisiana.“Western Louisiana,” s.d., Dr. Hale s.n. (LECTOTYPE, designated here: GH [GH01961878 as image!]).</p><p>Desmodium paniculatum (L.) DC., Prodr. 2:329. 1825.</p><p>In Young’s (1873) treatment of Desmodium Desv., this taxon is reported as “ D. pubens .” She gave no authority for the name. Her description, however, was copied from Torrey and Gray (1838) and she ends her entry with “– Gray and Torrey,” an indirect reference to the latter publication and not to a specimen. This name was recorded by Index Kewensis (Jackson 1884) as “[ Desmodium] pubens, Young, Fl. Texas, 233; ex S. Wats. Bibliog. Ind.N. Am. Bot. 218 = paniculatum ” and sometimes is cited incorrectly as “ Desmodium pubens M.J. Young ex S.Watson. ”</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CE698783A443B86A5E40FA32E8B6FF62	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Dorr, Laurence J.	Dorr, Laurence J. (2022): New Species And Combinations Published In M. J. Young’S Familiar Lessons In Botany With Flora Of Texas (1873). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 16 (1): 29-46, DOI: 10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218, URL: https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218
CE698783A442B86A5E58FF62E96CFB3D.text	CE698783A442B86A5E58FF62E96CFB3D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Malvaviscus arboreus var. drummondii (Torr. & A. Gray) Schery	<div><p>Hibiscus drummondii (Torr. &amp; A. Gray) M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 186. 1873 (“ Drummondii ”), non Turcz., Bull. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou 31(1):195. 1858. Malvaviscus drummondii Torr. &amp; A.Gray,Fl. N. Amer. 1(2):230. 1838.</p><p>Malvaviscus arboreus var. drummondii (Torr. &amp; A. Gray) Schery, Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 29:215. 1942 (“ Drummondii ”).</p><p>TYPE: U.S.A. Texas.Sine loc., s.d., T.Drummond III 1 [LECTOTYPE, designated by Turner &amp; Mendenhall (1993:447): NY (NY00221867 as image!)].</p><p>Although this combination appears without authorship in Young (1873), it is indirectly linked to a name previously published by Torrey and Gray (1838). Young’s description of Hibiscus drummondii is copied almost verbatim from the protologue of Malvaviscus drummondii . The only differences are that the former is abbreviated in length. Otherwise, every word in the former is exactly the same as in the latter with one insignificant exception, Young (or Buckley) substituted “red” for “scarlet.” Given that the descriptions are identical, the species epithet is the same, the voucher collection is the same, and Young (and Buckley) is known to have used Torrey and Gray’s A flora of North America (1838) while compiling her own flora, it seems clear that H. drummondii is a combination and not a new species. The change in generic circumscription is not explained by Young (1873),but Gray (1852) in a footnote attached to his treatment of M.drummondii in Plantae Wrightianae transferred M. floridanus Nutt. to H. floridanus (Nutt.) Shuttlew. ex A. Gray. Perhaps this was the impetus for the analogous transfer of M. drummondii .</p><p>The protologue of Malvaviscus drummondii states simply “ Texas, Drummond !” The lectotype is a specimen in the Torrey Herbarium (NY) that does not have an original label. Torrey, however, wrote on the sheet “ Malvaviscus Drummondii, T &amp; Gr. ” and “ Texas, Drummond, Coll. III, 1.” The sheet also includes pencil sketches of the stigmas and the anther column, the latter mentioned in the protologue. It is not clear that there are duplicates of “ Drummond, Coll. III, 1.” Several herbaria have Drummond specimens of M. arboreus var. drummondii from Texas that are labelled “ Drummond Coll.II, no.1”and these are found in:BM[BM000645403 as image!], GOET [GOET007742 as image!], K [K000659685 as image!] [“Brazoria Texas ”], and P [P02285843 as image!]. Unnumbered Drummond specimens of this taxon from Texas also can be found in several herbaria, including: GH [GH0005294 as image!] [“no. 1 Hibiscus Malvaviscus | S. Felipe de Austin: Texas | T. Drummond . Hooker misit|Januar. 1835.”], GH [GH00052945 as image!], K [K000659686 as image!], and NY [NY00221866 as image!].</p><p>The type locality cannot be identified more precisely than Texas and the exact collecting date cannot be determined. Turner and Mendenhall (1993) inferred that the type locality is “San Felipe de Tejas” in Austin Co. from information on one of the unnumbered specimens. The fact that another Drummond specimen of this taxon is labeled “Brazoria” in Brazoria Co., which is some 135 km distant from San Felipe de Austin, makes this inference untenable and further suggests that Drummond may have assembled his sets of this taxon from different localities.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CE698783A442B86A5E58FF62E96CFB3D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Dorr, Laurence J.	Dorr, Laurence J. (2022): New Species And Combinations Published In M. J. Young’S Familiar Lessons In Botany With Flora Of Texas (1873). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 16 (1): 29-46, DOI: 10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218, URL: https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218
CE698783A442B86D5E58FB49EA75FE42.text	CE698783A442B86D5E58FB49EA75FE42.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Callirhoe involucrata var. lineariloba (Torr. & A. Gray) A. Gray	<div><p>Malva lineariloba (Torr. &amp; A. Gray) M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 180. 1873.</p><p>Malva involucrata var. lineariloba Torr. &amp; A.Gray, Fl. N. Amer.1(2):226. 1838 (“β. lineariloba ”).</p><p>Callirhoe involucrata var. lineariloba (Torr. &amp; A.Gray) A. Gray, Proc.Acad.Sci.Philadelphia1862:161.1862 .</p><p>TYPE: U.S.A. Texas.[San Felipe de Austin],s.d.[Apr.1834], T. Drummond II 40 [LECTOTYPE, designated by Dorr (1990: 48): NY [NY00221809] !; POSSIBLE ISOLECTOTYPES: BM!, E!, G [G00353067]! [“40”], G [00353144]! [“40”],OXF!)].</p><p>Although this species is presented simply as “ M [alva] lineariloba ” in Young’s (1873) flora, it is a new combination based on M. involucrata var. lineariloba (see e.g., IPNI 2021; Tropicos 2021). The description published by Young is almost a verbatim copy of the description of the variety published by Torrey and Gray (1838) except that she did not include Torrey and Gray’s parenthetic description of the length of the flowers, and she omitted their note that their description of the carpels was based on immature material. Both floras only cite “ Drummond .” Thus, it appears that Young (1873) provides “a clear (if cryptic) indication, by an author citation or in some other way, that a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis applies” (Turland et al., 2018; Art. 38.14; emphasis added).</p><p>The lectotype is a specimen in the Torrey Herbarium (NY). Apart from “Tex. II” penciled by Torrey on the label, there are no locality data, and there is no collecting date. McKelvey (1955) noted that Drummond visited San Felipe de Austin in August and October 1833 and again in April 1834. Consequently, Dorr (1990) inferred that Drummond collected the type material of this spring-flowering species on the latter trip.</p><p>Several herbaria have Drummond specimens of Malva involucrata var. lineariloba from Texas that are no. 40 in Drummond’s “Coll. III.” These include: K [K000659302]! [“No. 40 Third Collection, Texas Drummond, 1835”], K [K000659303]! [“ Texas III n. 40, San Felipe”], K [K000659304]! [“ Texas III, nr. 40” &amp; “San Felipe”], NY [NY00221810]! [“Coll. III. No 40”], and P [P02286260]! [“III–40”]. At least two of these specimens indicate that they were collected in “San Felipe [de Austin].”</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CE698783A442B86D5E58FB49EA75FE42	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Dorr, Laurence J.	Dorr, Laurence J. (2022): New Species And Combinations Published In M. J. Young’S Familiar Lessons In Botany With Flora Of Texas (1873). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 16 (1): 29-46, DOI: 10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218, URL: https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218
CE698783A445B86C5E40FB69EBEEFF02.text	CE698783A445B86C5E40FB69EBEEFF02.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dalea phleoides (Torr. & A. Gray) Shinners	<div><p>Petalostemon phleoides Torr. &amp; A. Gray, Fl. N. Amer. 1(2):310. 1838; M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 221. 1873 (“ aphleoides ”).</p><p>Dalea phleoides (Torr.&amp; A.Gray) Shinners, Field &amp; Lab. 17:83.1949.</p><p>TYPE: U.S.A. “ Arkansas ” [Texas?]. Sine loc .,s.d., Dr.M.C. Leavenworth s.n. (LECTOTYPE, designated here: NY [NY00026681 as image!] ).</p><p>Given that Young (1873) borrowed extensively from Torrey and Gray (1838), it is difficult to interpret “ Petalostemon aphleoides” as anything more than the inadvertent miscopying of the specific epithet of P. phleoides and not as a new species as is done in Tropicos (2021). Watson (1878) very early adopted the former interpretation. Young’s (1873) description clearly is copied from Torrey and Gray (1838) although she altered in her flora the sequence of characters that they listed.</p><p>Young (1873) cites “ Drummond ” at the end of her description, which is unfortunate if not understandable as it is the sole collection attributed to Texas in Torrey and Gray (1838) who cited Drummond as the type of Petalostemon phleoides var. microphyllus Torr. &amp; A. Gray. The type of P.phleoides is a Leavenworth collection from Arkansas, but because there are no modern collections from that state there is a suspicion (Barneby 1977; Turner 2013) that the material may have been collected in eastern Texas, which was visited by Leavenworth in 1834 and 1837 (McVaugh 1947). Despite citing the type of P. phleoides var. microphyllus with her treatment of “P. aphleoides” (i.e., P. phleoides var. phleoides), the morphological characters provided by Young (1873) match those of the nominate variety and not those of the small-leaved taxon that Turner (2013) refers to Dalea drummondiana Shinners [≡ D. phleoides var. microphylla (Torr. &amp; A. Gray) Barneby].</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CE698783A445B86C5E40FB69EBEEFF02	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Dorr, Laurence J.	Dorr, Laurence J. (2022): New Species And Combinations Published In M. J. Young’S Familiar Lessons In Botany With Flora Of Texas (1873). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 16 (1): 29-46, DOI: 10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218, URL: https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218
CE698783A445B86D5E40FE02EBFCFB1D.text	CE698783A445B86D5E40FE02EBFCFB1D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mammillaria prolifera var. texana (Engelm.) Borg, Cacti	<div><p>Mammillaria texana (Engelm.) M.J.Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 279.1873 (“ Mammilaria Texana ”).</p><p>Mammillaria pusilla var. texana Engelm., Proc. Amer.Acad.Arts Sci. 3:261.1856 (“ Mamillaria pusilla var. Texana ”); Engelmann in Emory, Rept. U.S. Mex. Bound. 2(1):5, t. 5. 1859 (“ Mamillaria pusilla var. Texana ”).</p><p>Mammillaria prolifera var. texana (Engelm.) Borg, Cacti 316. 1937.</p><p>TYPE: MEXICO. Santa Rosa, 1853, J.M. Bigelow s.n. (LECTOTYPE (second step), designated here: MO [MO-2035110 as image!]) .</p><p>Although this species is presented simply as “ M [ammillaria] Texana ” in Young’s (1873) flora, it is a new combination and change in status based on M. pusilla var. texana (see e.g., IPNI 2021; Tropicos 2021). When Engelmann (1856) published the varietal name, he indicated that he was validating it in advance of a more elaborate illustrated treatment of the Cactaceae for the “Reports of the Boundary Commission and those of the Pacific Railroad Surveys.” In the original protologue, Engelmann (1856) states only “On the Rio Grande, near Eagle Pass and southward” and does not provide the name of a collector or collectors yet when he (Engelmann 1859) treated this taxon again in Cactaceae of the Boundary, he wrote “From Eagle Pass to Santa Rosa, Dr. Bigelow, and, according to Dr.Poselger, common on the Rio Grande below” thereby indicating that collections by Bigelow and Poselger constitute original material. The plate (Engelmann 1859) accompanying this later description, however, is not original material as it was completed several years after the varietal name was first validly published. Interestingly, Young’s (1873) description is not copied from the protologue (Engelmann 1856), but rather the description published in the Cactaceae of the Boundary (Engelmann 1859). This suggests that Young (or Buckley) had a copy of the latter but not the former publication.</p><p>When Young (1873) published the combination Mammillaria texana, she cited only a collection made “Along the Rio Grande” by Dr.Poselger and not one made by Dr. Bigelow. This is not in and of itself a lectotype designation because the word type or its equivalent was not used. Coulter (1894) effectively selected a lectotype (first-step) when he wrote “Type, Bigelow specimens in Herb. Mo. Bot. Gard.” Benson (1982), who discussed the typification of most cacti of the U.S.A. and who had access to the Engelmann collection, however stated “original material not found, Mo.” A lectotype (second-step) is designated here because Coulter did not specify a single collection (viz., “specimens”) and no material annotated by him has been located.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CE698783A445B86D5E40FE02EBFCFB1D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Dorr, Laurence J.	Dorr, Laurence J. (2022): New Species And Combinations Published In M. J. Young’S Familiar Lessons In Botany With Flora Of Texas (1873). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 16 (1): 29-46, DOI: 10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218, URL: https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218
CE698783A444B86C5E58FDD8EBF2FB92.text	CE698783A444B86C5E58FDD8EBF2FB92.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Photinia melanocarpa (Michx.) K. R. Robertson & J. B. Phipps, Syst. Bot.	<div><p>Pyrus angustifolia var. melanocarpa (Michx.) M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 259. 1873.</p><p>Mespilus arbutifolia var. melanocarpa Michx.,Flor.Bor.-Amer. 1:292.1803 (“β. melanocarpa ”). Aronia melanocarpa (Michx.) Elliott,Sketch Bot. S.Carolina 1(6):557. 1821 ( “ Melanocarpa ”). Pyrus arbutifolia var. melanocarpa (Michx.) Hook., Fl. Bor.-Amer. 1(4):204. 1832 (“β. melanocarpa ”).</p><p>Photinia melanocarpa (Michx.) K.R. Robertson &amp; J.B. Phipps, Syst. Bot. 16:391.1991.</p><p>TYPE: “ Mespilus a [sic] fruit noir| Mespilus arbutifolia fructo nigro| Tres [sic] Hautes Montagnes de| la Caroline Septentrionale et| Canada; aussi Connecticut, Boston,|etc.” and auxiliary label “ Mespilus arbutifolia | Amelanchier d’Ameri.|fruit noir. Canada |Mistassin et Quebec ” [LECTOTYPE, designated by Uttall (1984:200): P-MICH (as IDC microfiche 6211.65: III.6!)] .</p><p>Young (1873) clearly associated “Var., melanocarpa ” with Pyrus angustifolia Ait. Her brief description of the variety is taken directly from Chapman (1860) and her equally brief description of the species is almost word for word the same as Chapman’s (1860) description of P. arbutifolia var. melanocarpa, which Chapman associated with “ Aronia melanocarpa Elliott [sic].” The variety published by Young (1873) is interpreted here as a new combination made by indirect reference to the basionym. Why she chose to associate this variety with P. angustifolia rather than P. arbutifolia L. is unknown although it appears to have been done in error. In Chapman (1860), the description of P. arbutifolia is sandwiched between a description of P. angustifolia and a description of P. arbutifolia var. erythrocarpa (Michx.) Torr. It is easy to imagine Young (or Buckley) inadvertently associating the variety with the wrong species as she (he) hastily cut and pasted descriptions.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CE698783A444B86C5E58FDD8EBF2FB92	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Dorr, Laurence J.	Dorr, Laurence J. (2022): New Species And Combinations Published In M. J. Young’S Familiar Lessons In Botany With Flora Of Texas (1873). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 16 (1): 29-46, DOI: 10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218, URL: https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218
CE698783A444B86C5E58FF42EBA6FD8D.text	CE698783A444B86C5E58FF42EBA6FD8D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ptelea trifoliata L	<div><p>Ptelea baldwinii Torr. &amp; A. Gray, Fl. N. Amer. 1(2):215. 1838 ( “ Baldwinii ”); M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 196. 1873 ( “ Baldwinii ”). TYPE: U.S.A. Florida.“St.John’s, East Florida,” s.d., Wm. Baldwin s.n. (HOLOTYPE: PH [PH 00022669 as image!]).</p><p>Ptelea trifoliata L, Sp. Pl. 1:118. 1753.</p><p>Watson (1878) treated Ptelea baldwinii Torr. &amp; A.Gray and “ P. baldwinii Young ” as distinct names.The former he accepted and the latter he considered to be a synonym of P.angustifolia Benth. [≡ P.trifoliata var. angustifolia (Benth.) M.E. Jones]. Watson’s synonymy was repeated in Index Kewensis (Jackson, 1884) and adopted by IPNI (2021). Young’s name, however, is not a nomenclatural innovation, but simply a citation of the species described earlier by Torrey and Gray (1838). The description in Young (1873) matches verbatim that in the earlier flora except that the phrase “styles none” in the latter is corrupted to “style none” in the former. Young also suppressed the locality and collector information provided by Torrey and Gray (1838).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CE698783A444B86C5E58FF42EBA6FD8D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Dorr, Laurence J.	Dorr, Laurence J. (2022): New Species And Combinations Published In M. J. Young’S Familiar Lessons In Botany With Flora Of Texas (1873). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 16 (1): 29-46, DOI: 10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218, URL: https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218
CE698783A444B86C5E58FBD2E993FAB7.text	CE698783A444B86C5E58FBD2E993FAB7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Quercus sinuata var. breviloba (Torr.) C. H. Mull., J. Arnold Arbor.	<div><p>Quercus san-sabeana Buckley in M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 507. 1873 ( “ San-Sabeana ”). TYPE: U.S.A. Texas. San Saba Co.:“Limestone Hills,” 1875, S.B. Buckley s.n. [NEOTYPE, designated by Dorr &amp; Nixon (1985:219):MO (MO-204129)!].</p><p>Quercus sinuata var. breviloba (Torr.) C.H. Mull., J. Arnold Arbor. 25:439. 1944.</p><p>This new species is clearly attributed to Buckley in Young’s (1873) flora (viz., “ Q. San-Sabeana, Buckley ”). The specific epithet “san-sabeana ” is hyphenated in the flora and this punctuation should be maintained.Although “san-” does not appear to stand independently, it is an abbreviated form of Santa (a noun in the nominative) and “sabeana” is an adjective in the nominative. Such epithets, if published with a hyphen, retain the hyphen (see Turland et al. 2018; Art. 60.11).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CE698783A444B86C5E58FBD2E993FAB7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Dorr, Laurence J.	Dorr, Laurence J. (2022): New Species And Combinations Published In M. J. Young’S Familiar Lessons In Botany With Flora Of Texas (1873). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 16 (1): 29-46, DOI: 10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218, URL: https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218
CE698783A444B86C5E58FA36E93AF94D.text	CE698783A444B86C5E58FA36E93AF94D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Quercus texana Buckley, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 1860	<div><p>Quercus texana Buckley, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 1860:444 . 1860 [1861]; M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 507. 1873 (“ Q.Texana, Buckley ”).</p><p>TYPE: U.S.A. Texas. Liberty Co.: 1 mi W of Romayor along Texas State Hwy 105, ca. 0.5 mi W of the Trinity River, 22 Oct 1983, K.C.Nixon &amp; P.Phillips 4063 [NEOTYPE, designated by Dorr &amp; Nixon (1985: 220): TEX (TEX00370442)! ].</p><p>It is unclear why Tropicos (2021) considers “ Quercus texana M.J. Young ” to be a later homonym of Quercus texana Buckley, especially as the name is clearly attributed to Buckley in Young’s (1873) flora. Her statement (“Hills in the vicinity of Austin”) suggests that she (or Buckley) was, however, misapplying this name to what is known now as Q. buckleyi Nixon &amp; Dorr. The reasons why she (or Buckley) did this are discussed at length in Dorr and Nixon (1985).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CE698783A444B86C5E58FA36E93AF94D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Dorr, Laurence J.	Dorr, Laurence J. (2022): New Species And Combinations Published In M. J. Young’S Familiar Lessons In Botany With Flora Of Texas (1873). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 16 (1): 29-46, DOI: 10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218, URL: https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218
CE698783A447B86F5E40FF32EBF7FC8D.text	CE698783A447B86F5E40FF32EBF7FC8D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Colubrina texensis (Torr. & A. Gray) A. Gray	<div><p>Rhamnus drummondii M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 204. 1873 ( “ Drummondii ”). TYPE: U.S.A. Texas.Sine loc.,s.d., T. Drummond II 67 (NEOTYPE, designated here: NY [NY00415024 as image!]; POSSIBLE ISOLECTOTYPE: G [G00440908 as image!] [“67”]).</p><p>Colubrina texensis (Torr. &amp; A. Gray) A. Gray, Boston J. Nat. Hist. 6:169. 1850 .</p><p>Rhamnus texensis Torr. &amp; A.Gray,Fl. N.Amer.1(2):263.1838 (“ R.?Texensis ”); M.J.Young, Familiar Lessons Bot.204.1873 ( “ Texensis ”).</p><p>TYPE: U.S.A. Texas. Sine loc.,s.d., T. Drummond II 67 (LECTOTYPE, designated here: NY [NY00415024 as image!] ; POSSIBLE ISOLECTOTYPE: G [G00440908 as image!] [“67”]).</p><p>Rhamnus drummondii is one of four species of Rhamnus L. recognized by Young (1873).She lists it simply as “ R. Drummondii . ” No author is given nor is a collection cited. Interestingly, her description comes very close to being a verbatim copy of the second paragraph of the protologue of R. texensis published by Torrey and Gray (1838) with simply the omission of the phrase that begins this paragraph, viz. “ Texas, Drummond ! (coll. 2. no. 67).”</p><p>Rhamnus texensis was also accepted in Young’s (1873) flora.In this instance, her description is a verbatim copy of the first paragraph of the protologue of R. texensis published by Torrey and Gray (1838) with merely the parenthetic and speculative phrase “(flowers solitary?)” omitted (and, of course, the second paragraph suppressed in its entirety).</p><p>Johnston (1971) effectively designated a lectotype for the name Rhamnus texensis when he stated that the holotype was a specimen at GH. However, the specimen he selected was from the third (III), not the second (II) collection of Drummond and thus does not agree with the protologue and can be superseded. Moreover, the GH specimen was acquired well after the publication of the name and cannot be considered original material. Specimens of R. texensis from the third collection can be found in the following herbaria: BM [BM000838445 as image!] [“III, 67”], GH [GH00139465 as image!] [“III 67”], K [K000729226 as image!] [“Third collection, No 67”], P [P01818876 as image!] [“III, 67”], and US [US 00094445]! [“III 67”].</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CE698783A447B86F5E40FF32EBF7FC8D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Dorr, Laurence J.	Dorr, Laurence J. (2022): New Species And Combinations Published In M. J. Young’S Familiar Lessons In Botany With Flora Of Texas (1873). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 16 (1): 29-46, DOI: 10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218, URL: https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218
CE698783A447B86F5E40FBD9E96AFA37.text	CE698783A447B86F5E40FBD9E96AFA37.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Spiranthes longilabris Lindl., Gen. Sp. Orchid. Pl.	<div><p>Spiranthes brevifolia Chapm., Fl. South. U.S. 462. 1860; M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 539. 1873. TYPE: U.S.A. Florida. Franklin Co.: Apalachicola, Oct – Nov, A.W. Chapman s.n. (LECTOTYPE, designated here: NY [NY00009342 as image!]; POSSIBLE ISOLECTOTYPE: NY [NY00009343 as image!]).</p><p>Spiranthes longilabris Lindl., Gen. Sp. Orchid. Pl. 476. 1840.</p><p>In her treatment of Spiranthes Rich., Young (1873) included “ S. brevifolia, n. sp. ” and provided a description. Despite the “n. sp.” it does not appear that she intended to describe this orchid species. Her treatment is almost a verbatim copy with very minor emendations of a species described earlier by Chapman (1860). Young’s description was copied so faithfully that she (or Buckley) failed to excise the “n. sp.” from Chapman’s original description! Young (or Buckley) did manage to modify the locality and phenology data to imply that the species is found in Texas (where it does occur). “Open grassy swamps in the pine barrens, Apalachicola, Florida. Oct. and Nov.” in Chapman (1860) becomes “Open grassy swamps in the pine-barrens. October and November” in Young (1873).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CE698783A447B86F5E40FBD9E96AFA37	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Dorr, Laurence J.	Dorr, Laurence J. (2022): New Species And Combinations Published In M. J. Young’S Familiar Lessons In Botany With Flora Of Texas (1873). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 16 (1): 29-46, DOI: 10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218, URL: https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218
CE698783A447B86F5E40FCD9EAB4FB8D.text	CE698783A447B86F5E40FCD9EAB4FB8D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze	<div><p>Rhus toxicodendron var. trilobata M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 197. 1873 (“ Trilobate ”), nom. nud.</p><p>Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 1:153. 1891.</p><p>Young (1873) divided Rhus toxicodendron L. ( = Toxicodendron radicans) into four varieties. Three were noted explicitly and the fourth presumably was the nominate variety. No description accompanies R. toxicodendron var. trilobata . Young (1873) simply states “Found in the northern part of Texas.” There is no indication that Young (1873) is proposing a new combination and change in status based on R. trilobata Nutt., which was described from the Rocky Mountains but also occurs in Texas.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CE698783A447B86F5E40FCD9EAB4FB8D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Dorr, Laurence J.	Dorr, Laurence J. (2022): New Species And Combinations Published In M. J. Young’S Familiar Lessons In Botany With Flora Of Texas (1873). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 16 (1): 29-46, DOI: 10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218, URL: https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1218
