C. sanguinea of Pallas, referred to C. glandulosa by Willdenow, De Candolle, and 
Loudon, is distinet from C. coccinea in its want of glands upon the calyx and petioles, 
8s well as in its country and habit. 
C. glandulosa of Aiton, referred by Willdenow, De Candolle, and Loudon to C. coccinea, 
miscalled glandulosa, is a totally different species, and may be the same as C. spa- 
thulata. 
With Dr. Asa Gray's note above referred to, I received the following criticism 
upon C. spathulata, fol. 1890 :— 
€ I am not convinced of the correctness of the view you take respecting the C. 
spathulata, Micha. and C. Virginica, Loudon. I have before me specimens of C. Virginica, 
Loudon, in various states, from North Carolina to Florida; and of the true C. spathulata, 
as it is considered by N. American botanists (your C. microcarpa), from Georgia, New 
Orleans, Texas, and Arkansas. The specimens exhibit the various diversities in foliage 
for which the plant is so remarkable. This: species is well known to our botanists, 
and the reason of its being * altogether omitted from the Floras of Torrey, Hooker, and 
Beck,' is that the works alluded to are confined to the botany of the Northern States and 
British America, whereas the above-mentioned species does not grow North of Virginia. 
The chief reasons for considering the C. microcarpa, Bot. Reg. to be the original C. 
spathulata are these— 
* 1, The lower leaves of the plant are almost always fascicled on very short spurs, or 
abortive branches; corresponding in this particular with the character of Michaux; 
which can hardly be said of C. Virginica. 
* 2. The fasciculate leaves are very much smaller than the irregularly-shaped 
younger ones, which terminate the vigorous branches ;: smaller, indeed, than those of any 
other species, thus agreeing with the character * foliis adulte plante parvulis. The small, 
lucid, and coriaceous fasciculate leaves, of such uniform occurrence in our native speci- 
mens, are not represented in Bot. Reg. t. 1846. 
* 3. The phrase ‘foliis longissimè deorsüm angustatis’ is peculiarly applicable to 
this plant, but by no means strikingly so to C. Virginica. They are decidedly spatulate, 
while in C. Virginica they are obovate or cuneiform. ý 
“ 4. The leaves are almost always 3-cleft, or deeply 3-toothed at the summit, in our 
C. spathulata ; the upper and larger ones being however sometimes undivided, but usually 
variously lobed ; whereas in C. Virginica the leaves are very slightly lobed at the summit, 
and often undivided. 
“ Our C. spathulata somewhat resembles C. oxyacantha, with which it is compared 
by Michaux. C. Virginica does not. 
* Lastly, I have before me a sketch of two leaves made by Dr. Torrey from the 
specimens in Michaux's Herbarium, which wholly agree with the ordinary leaves of what 
we have always considered C. spathulata, viz. your C. microcarpa.” 
x To this I answer, that it still appears to me that the synonymy in the Bot. Re- 
gister is correct, for the following reasons:— 
However much Michaux’s character of the leaves may appear more applicable 
to C. microcarpa than to C. virginica, yet it does not disagree with the latter, for 
the terms “ fasciculatim ” and € longissimè angustatis” apply very well to some of 
the leaves of C. virginica ; but the remainder of the specific character of Michaux 
does entirely disagree with C, microcarpa, while it as entirely agrees with C. vir- 
ginica. € Corymbi pauciflori” cannot be said of a plant which often bears 15 
fruits in a cluster, as in wild specimens from Texas now before me; “ pedicelli 
breves” are equally at variance with pedicels half an inch long and slender ; while 
“ calyces tomentosi” have no applicability to a plant which is remarkably smooth 
in its fructification. 
But € corymbi pauciflori," € pedicelli breves," and ** calyces tomentosi," do 
exactly correspond with the 1-3-flowered corymbs, almost sessile fruit, and perma- 
nently downy calyx of C. virginica, It does not appear whether Dr. Torrey 
noticed the glandular border so characteristic of C. virginica, when he examined 
the specimens of C. spathulata in Michaux's herbarium. But, if it really were to 
prove that a specimen of C. microcarpa is labelled C. spathulata in that collection, 
I should still prefer the evidence of Michaux's own words, which cannot misre- 
present him, to that of a specimen which may have been mislabelled. 
