104 WILSON EXPEDITION TO CHINA 
The specimens agree well with the description given by Diels and Gilg, but I 
have not seen the type of the species. It seems to be only a form of V. Piasezkii 
Maximowicz with undivided or simply lobulate leaves. 
Vitis armata Diels & Gilg in Bot. Jahrb. X XIX. 462 (1900). 
Spinovitis Davidii Romanet du Caillaud in Compt. Rend. Acad. Paris, XCII. 
1096 (nom. nudum) (1881) — Carriére in Rev. Hort. 1881, 239; 1885, 55, 
10; 1891, 102, 24-26. — Planchon in De Candolle, Monogr. Phaner. V. 365 
(quasi synon.) (1887). 
Vitis Davidii Foéx, Cour. Vit. 44 (1886). — Mouillefert, Traité Art. Arbriss. 
II. 803 (1895). — Viala, Ampelogr. I. 437, t. 35 (1910). 
Kiangsi: Kuling, thickets, abundant, alt. 1200 m., June 1907 
(No. 16952); cultivated in plain, Kinkiang, alt. 100 m., June 1907 
(No. 1695). 
Vitis armata, var. cyanocarpa Gagnepain, n. var. 
A typo recedit aculeis rarioribus, interdum fere nullis in ramis 
hornotinis. An planta hybrida inter V. armatam et V. betulifoliam? 
Western Hupeh: north and south of Ichang, thickets, alt. 600- 
1500 m., June and October 1907 (No. 409); Fang Hsien, thickets, alt. 
1500 m., September 1907 (No. 291), alt. 900-1500 m., July 1907 (No. 
2732); Hsing-shan Hsien, alt. 1200-1500 m., June and September 1907 
(No. 603). 
What is possibly the same form has been distributed by Veitch under the name 
Vitis armata, var. Veitchii, mentioned without sufficient description in his Novelties 
for 1908-9, 26 f. 
Vitis Thunbergii Siebold & Zuccarini in Abhand. Akad. Münch. IV. 
pt. ii. 198; (Fl. Jap. Fam. Nat. 90) (1845). — Planchon in De Candolle, 
Monogr. Phaner. V. 333 (1887). 
Vitis bryoniaefolia Hanee in Jour. Bot. XX., 3 (not Bunge) (1882) 
Vitis ficifolia Bunge in Mém. Sav. Étr. Acad. Sci. St. Pétersb. II. 86 (Enum. Pl. 
Chin. Bor. 12) (1833). 
! Les descriptions de Romanet du Caillaud et Carriére concernant le Spinovitis 
Davidii ou Vitis Davidii sont trés insuffisantes au point de vue descaractéres. De 
plus ces auteurs ont hésité entre deux genres Spinovitis et Vitis, ce dernier cité in- 
decidemment. Au contraire Diels et Gilg ont donné une description qui n'admet 
aucune equivoque. C'est la raison pour laquelle j'ai préféré aux autres plus an- 
ciennes, la combinaison plus recente Vitis armata Diels & Gilg. 
F. GaAGNEPAIN. 
The descriptions of this plant by Foéx and by Mouillefert leave no possible 
doubt of its identity and we cannot therefore accept the name proposed by Diels 
& Gilg and now by Monsieur Gagnepain. 
The name therefore of his variety becomes Vitis Davidii, var. cyanocarpa, 
n. comb. C. S. 8. 
