OLEACEAE. — JASMINUM 613 



white, fragrant); same locality, A. Henry (No. 3669); without precise 

 locality, June 1900 (Veitch Exped. No. 1018); A, Henry (Nos. 2729, 

 3000, 4562). 



Jasminum urophyllum Hemsley in Jour, Linn. Soc. XXVI. 81 (1889). 

 Western Szech'uan: near Wa-shan, thickets, alt. 1000 m., Octo- 

 ber 1908 (No. 1 122; climber 2 m., flowers white). 



Hemsley describes the flowers of this species as yellow, while Wilson states that 

 they are white; his specimen consists only of fruiting branches. 



There may be added the description of two new varieties not collected during 

 the Arnold Arboretum Expeditions. 



Jasminum urophyllum, var. Wilsonii Rehder, n. var. 



A typo recedit foliis ut videtur fere semper 3-foliolatis, foliolis glabris, termin- 

 alibus anguste oblongo-lanceolatis 3-7 cm. longis et 0.8-1.5 cm. latis, lateralibus 

 minoribus ovato-lanceolatis v. oblongo-lanceolatis 1,5-3.5 longis et 0.5-1 cm. latis, 

 omnibus basi rotundatis et distincte 3-n6rviis, cymis paucifloris, pedicellis graci- 

 libus 1.5-2.5 cm. longis. 



Western Szech'uan: without precise locality, cliffs, July 1903 (Veitch Exped. 

 No. 4075). 



Though Wilson's No. 4075 looks at the first glance very distinct from J. urophyl- 

 lum, I am unable to find any other characters to distinguish it from the 3-foliolate 

 forms of that species except the glabrous, smaller and narrower leaflets^ charac- 

 ters which are of rather slight morphological value. 



Jasminum urophyllum, var. Henryi Rehder, n. var. 



A typo recedit foliis glabris plerumque unifoliolatis longioribus oblongo-lanceola- 

 tis basi rotundatis v. truncatis manifeste trinerviis 6-11 cm. longis et 2-3.8 cm. 

 latis, cymis laxis, pedicellis gracilibus 1-1.5 cm. longis. 



Western Hupeh: without precise locality, A. Henry (No. 5944, type), July 

 1900, E. H. Wilson (Veitch Exped. No. 1499). 



This variety is easily distinguished from the type by its glabrous oblong- 

 lanceolate more distinctly 3-nerved simple leaves which are in J. urophyllum only 

 occasionally unifoliolate toward the end of the branches, generally broader, ovate- 

 lanceolate in outline and somewhat less distinctly 3-nerved or sometimes 5-nerved. 

 Henry^s specimen of his No. 5944 before me has all the leaves unifoliolate, while 

 Wilson's No. 1499 has partly unifoliolate and partly 3-foIiolate leaves, otherwise the 

 two do not differ. 



Though at the first glance the two varieties look very different, one having large 

 simple and the other small 3-foliolate leaves, I am unable to find characters between 

 them and J. urophyllum which would admit of specific separation. 



Jasminum officinale Linnaeus, Spec. 7 (1753). — Curtis in Bot. Mag. 

 I. t. 31 (1787). — De Candolle, Prodr. VIII. 313 (1844). — Brandis, 

 Forest Fl. Brit. Ind. 313 (1874); Ind. Trees, 452 (1906). — Boissier, 

 Fl. Orient. IV. 43 (1879). — Clarke in Hooker f., Fl. Brit. Ind. III. 603 

 (1882). — Dippel, Handb. Lauhholzk. I. 150 (1889). — Collett, Fl. 

 Siml. 307 (1902). — Schneider, III. Handb. Lauhholzk. II. 837, fig. 

 626 i-m, 527 d-e (1911). 



