248 WILSON EXPEDITION TO CHINA 



16. Rhamnus purpureus Edgeworth in Trans. Linn. Soc. XX, 44 (1846). — 

 Walpers, Ann. I. 193 (1848). — Lawson in Hooker f., Fl. BriL Ind. I. 639 

 (1875).— Schneider, III. Handh. Laubholzk. III. 271 (1909). 



Western Himalaya. 



This species does not belong to the Subgenus Frangula as indicated by the 

 author. It represents a member of the group suggested by me under R. Sar- 

 gentiamis from which it differs in the shape of the leaves and in the pentamerou3 

 flowers. 



17. Rhamnus hupehensis Schneider. See p. 236. 



18. Rhamnus erythroxylon Pallas, Rdse Euss. Reich. III. App. 722 (1776). 

 — Maximowicz in Mem. Acad, Sci. St. Petershourg, ser. 7, IV. No. XI. 7 (Rhamn. 

 Or.-As.) (1866). — Schneider, III. Handh. Lavhkolzk. II. 278 (1909). 



Eastern Sibiria, northern Mongolia. 



I have not yet seen any Chinese specimens of this species. 



19. Rhamnus Rosthomii Pritzel, See p. 236. 



20. Rhamnus leptacanthus Schneider. See p. 236. 



21. Rhamnus globosus Bunge in Mem. Sav. Sir, Acad. Sci. St. PUersbourg, II. 

 88 {Enum. Fl. Chin. Bor. 14) (1833). — Schneider, III. Handh. Laubholzk. II. 

 284, fig. 195 f-f^ 196 q-r (1909). 



Rhamnus virgatus, var. apricus Maximowicz in Mem. Acad. Sci. St. Peters^ 

 hourgj ser. 7, IV. No. XI. 13 {Rhamn. Or.-As.) (ex parte) (1866). 



Rhamnus tinciorius Hemsley in Jour. Linn. Soc. XXIII. 129 (ex parte, haud 

 Waldstein & Kitaibel) (1886). 



Chili, Shensi, Chekiang. 



In my Handbook I have attempted to interpret this species correctly, but this 

 is difficult as I have not seen the type specimen of Bunge. I cannot agree, how- 

 ever, with Maximowicz, who unites Bunge's species with R. virgatus Roxburgh, 

 and also with R. polymorphus Turczaninow. According to Bunge's description 

 I refer to R. globosus the distinctly pubescent forms, as does Hemsley under the 

 name of R. tinctoriuSj which is certainly a different species. See also the note 

 under R. parvifolius, p. 250. Whether R. chlorophorus Decaisne (in Compt. Rend. 

 Acad. Sci. Paris, XLIV. 1140 [1857]) also belongs to R. glohostiSj as indicated by 

 Hemsley, I cannot decide, as the description of Decaisne is incomplete and I have 

 not yet seen the figure of this species in Rondot, Vert de Chine, t. 2.' 



22. Rhamnus Taquetii L^veill^, Mss. in Herb. Mus. Palat. Vindob. 



Prunus Taqueti L^veHIc m Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. VII. 197 (1909) * 



Frutex spinosus, valde ramosus, ad l-metralis; ramuli initio tenuiter pilosi, 

 deinde glabri, vetustiores crassi, cortice laevi olivaceo v. fere colore corticis cerasi 

 obtecti; gemmae parvae, ovatae. Folia decidua, membranacea, plus minusve altema, 

 plerumque apice ramulorum brevissimorum conferta, perparva, ovata, obovata, 

 obovato-oblonga v. fere rotundata, basi plerumque acuta, sed interdum distincte 

 rotunda, apice rotunda v. obtusa v. saepe subito in acumen breve producta, superne 

 plus minusve distincte pilosa, subtus saepissime glabra, tantum in axillis nervorum 

 utrinsecus iHt satis adscendentium barbata, margine distincte et anguste crenato- 



* After comparing the specimens of R. globosus in the Herbarium of the Arnold 

 Arboretum with the plate in Rondot's work, we believe that R. chlorophorus must 

 be referred to R. globosus as a synonym. A. R. and E. H. W. 



' See also Koehne in Sargent, FL Wilson, I. 276 (1912). 



