114 



A Bhrul> 45 to 60 dm. high. Collected by Mr. ('. (i. Prinze ;it Ciiernavaca. IS'lii 

 (No. B325). 



Collected here also by Kneohtel. It is new to the National Herbarium. I do not 

 find that the height of the plant has been before mentioned. 

 Bui sera galeottiana Engler in DC. Monogr. Phan. 1:17. 1883. 



The leaflets were originally described as being 6 | 8 pairs. In the specimens 

 before me some have only <» pairs while others have from VZ to 11 pairs. The number 

 of leaflets as in the closely related species B. microphylla is very variable. The nut- 

 lets are strongly 3-augled. Mr, Pringle says that this species is a small tree. 



Collected by Rev. Lucius ('. Smith on the hills at Milta, Oaxaca, altitude 1,969 

 meters, July 18,1894 (No. ill'); and by Mr. ('. (J. Pringle from Monte Al ban near 

 Oaxaca, Oaxaca, same altitude, November 27, 1894 (No. fi071). 



This species was collected in Oaxaca by Galcotti at about the same, altitude as 

 Mr. Pringle's plant. 



Bursera lanuginosa (H. B. K.) Engler in DC. Monogr. Than. 4:58. 1883. fflaphrium 

 lanuginosum K.B.K, Nov. Gen. & Sp. 7:31. 1825. 



Much like />'. cuneata, but with more numerous leaflets. " Curanavica " is the 

 type locality of the species as given by Humboldt. The species has not since been 

 reported. 



Collected by Mr. ('. (J. Pringle on hillsides near Ciiernavaca, Morelos, altitmle 

 1,607 meters, November 9, 1895 (No. 6208). 



Bursera ovalifolia(Schlecht.)Kng]er in DC. Monogr. Phan. 4:40. 1883. Elaphriam 

 ovalifoUum Schlecht. Linuaea, 17: 248. L843. 

 Collected by Dr. Edward Palmer near Acapulco, February, 189j (No. 378), With- 

 out leaves, the determination very uncertain. 

 Bursera palmeri Wats. Proc. Am. Acad. 22:102. 1W7. 



Collected by Dr. Edward Palmer near Acapulco, February, 18!I."> (No. 432), 

 Bursera submoniliformis Engler in DC. Monogr. Phan. 4:55. 1883. Elaphrium 

 submoniliforme Marchand; Engler, loc. cit., as synonym. 



NOTES ON CUCURBITACEAE. 



The Cueurbitaceae here reported are based upon the following col 

 lections: First, those of Mr. 0. G. Pringle during his three trips to 

 Mexico in 1804, 1895, and 1890; second, those of Dr. Edward Palmer in 

 western Mexico, 1891 and 1892, and at Acapulco, 1894 and 1895; third, 

 that of Mr. B. W. Nelson from 1894 to 1896; and fourth, that of Rev! 

 Lucius C. Smith in the State of Oaxaca. I have also made reference 

 to a number of specimens from other collectors as found in the collec- 

 tions at the Gray Herbarium, in those of John Donnell Smith and Mr. 

 T. S. Erandegee, and in the National Herbarium. 



ECHINOPEPON AND ITS ALLIES. 



The genus Echinopepon appears to me to be perfectly distinct from 

 Echinocystis proper. This was the view held by the late Dr. Sereno 

 Watson. It is true that Prof. Alfred Cogniaux, our most eminent au- 

 thority on this order, still retains Echinopepon as a subgenus; yet he 

 now admits' that there is good reason for the separation. But even if 

 Echinopepon is not restored, a strict application of the rules of priority 

 will prevent the use of the name Echinocystis, this having been antici- 



1 Contr. Nat. Kerb. 1 : 100. 



