Despite many reports from Ky. this widespread northern species of base-rich wetlands remains unverified (FNA 23). It has been reported by M and NP based on colls. at MUR from two counties:on the Coastal Plain: FULT (by Webb) and MCRA (by Athey). However, the MCRA material (Athey #521 / 623) has been redetermined as hyalinolepis (V, Voelker, pers. comm. at NP). There is also an old coll. of C.W. Short (at Univ. of Cincinnati or elsewhere) from Ky. (Short & Peter 1834; B, Gl), which needs to be checked; M indicated that this coll. is lurida. Reports from Appalachian regions (M) have been based on misidentified colls. of lurida or lupulina: BELL at KY ( Anderson 1924); MCRE at MUR (Rogers 1941); ROCK at KY (F.T. McFarland in 1940); ROWA at OS (Braun #2430). C. hystericina has been also been reported as far south as e. Tenn. (Ch, verified), n. Ga. (W. verified) and n. Miss. (K, dubious). Compared to lurida (and baileyi), hystericina (and comosa) can be distinguished as follows (FNA 23): perigynia with 12-25 veins (versus 5-12), confluent at mid-beak or below (versus nearly to beak apex); bodies elliptic to lance-ovate (versus elliptic to rotund); achense smooth (versus rough papillose).