specimens which Bentham subsequently referred (Pl. Hartw. 
p- 61) to P. mexicanus. Judging from the dried s)ecimens, 
the petals had a large, dark spot or centre. Hartweg also 
introduced a Philadelphus with wholly white flowers from 
Mexico, which Lindley figured (Bot. Reg. vol. xxviii. t. 38*) 
as P. mexicanus; see also B. M. t. 7600. In 1887-8, 8. 
Watson described (Proc. Am. Acad. vol. xxii. p. 472; Garden 
and Forest, vol. i. p. 232, f. 40) P. Coulteri as differing 
from P. mexicanus in its dense pubescence, non-acuminate 
leaves, and the hairy summit of the ovary.. The flowers 
are described as very fragrant and an inch or more across ; 
but the colour is not given. Writing from Dublin in 1891, 
the late F. W. Burbidge sent a Philadelphus to Kew, with 
the following note: ‘‘Can you kindly give me the name of 
the enclosed? I cannot find it in the books. It exists in 
one or two old gardens here, where it is called Rose Syringa. 
Its sweet fragrance and purple-centred flowers are remark- 
able.” Returning to the subject in 1903 (Gard. Chron. 
vol. xxxiv. p. 218), Burbidge says: “There is a variety of 
P. mexicanus, called P. m. Coulteri, introduced, it is said in 
Nicholson’s Supplement, as recently as 1888; but probably 
this is a mistake, as the shrub has existed for many years in 
old Irish gardens..... It rarely flowers except during or 
after very hot summers, and it differs from all other species 
or varieties of Philadelphus inasmuch as each of its four 
white petals has a purplish blotch at its base which contrasts 
well with the central tuft of yellow stamens.” Commenting 
on this, Schneider (Ilustriertes Handbuch der Laubholz- 
kunde, 1906, vol. i. p. 363) states: “There is yet another 
kind in which the petals have a red eye at the base. The 
shrub is of unknown origin, and was to be found in the 
Botanic Garden at Leipzig, where I saw it in June, 1904. 
Prof. Koehne wrote me that this obscure variety, which he 
had provisionally named P. maculiflorus, was quite different 
from P, Coulter.” In answer to our inquiry, Prof. Koehne 
replied that he could not decide from the imperfect specimen 
sent whether P. purpureo-maculatus was the same as his 
P, maculiflorus. 
How, when, or by whom, the name Coulteri was given to 
what we may call the Irish Philadelphus, we have not been 
able to ascertain ; but it is the same as Hartweg’s specimens 
referred to above, and apparently different, as to the colour 
