267 
SYNOPSIS, 
RzVyUNCULACE^. 
1. Clematis dioica, Linn. Amoen. vol. v. p. 398; Spec. Plant. 76o.—C. Acap7ilcemis, Hook, et 
Am. Bot. Beech, p. 411 !— C. Caripemis, H.B.K., Nov. Gen. vol. v. p. 36 !— C. sericea, II.B.K. 1. c. ! 
Acapulco (Lay and Collie ! Sinclair !} ; between Mazatlan and San Sebastian. 
2. Clematis Drummondii, Torr. et Gray, Flor. N. Amer. vol. i. p. 9.— C. nervaia, Benth. PL 
Hartweg. 5 ! Chihuahna (Potts!). 
I have taken considerable pains to discover some specific distinction between the American species of 
Clematis, with climbing fruticose stems, paniculate, generally dioecious flowers, four sepals, and pluraoBe car- 
pels, but I have failed in doing so. The plants vary from an extreme glabrous to a very villous state; the 
leaves from simple to highly pinnatiscct in one and the same individual. ISo characters are to be found in 
the stamens, nor in the fruit. It is in hopes of being yet able to hit upon some character which will not 
break down in being traced through a great number of specimens that I still hesitate to unite C. dioica 
with its present allies. The characters insisted upon by authors as good marks of specific distinctions 
between the various species alluded to are quite useless, and if I were to be guided by the same prin- 
ciples in making new species of Clematis^ as many previous authors have done, I should have no difficidty 
in selecting a considerable number of so-called new ones from the ITookuriau Herbarium. 
3. Clematis reticulata, Walt. Car. p. 156. — C. Pitcherij Torr. et Gray, Fl. N. Amer. vol. i. 
p. 10 \—C.fiUfera, Benth. PL Hartweg. no. 1590! 
Leaves always reticulated; flowers soUtary, vrithout bracts, nodding (like C. Douglasii, Hook.) ; sepals 
4, on the outside either glabrous or more or less velvety ; carpels inflated, either with adpressed hair or plu- 
mose. 
■ 
Geographical distribution : Zinepan (Coulter, no. 642 !), Leon (Hartweg, no. 1590 !), Texas (Gregg, 
nos. 334i and 338 ! Drummond ! Lindheimer ! fasc. i. no. 5 !). 
I may remark here that I have identified C. lasiantha, Nutt., with C. Peruviana, De Cand. (C. sericea ? 
var. ^, Hook, et Am. Bot. Misc. !), and a plant collected by Mathews in Peru, with C hexasepala, Be Cand. 
I am inclined to think that C. paucifora, Nutt., is merely a synonym of the latter ; at least there is nothing 
either in the description or specimens of Nuttall that disagrees with some specimens of C. hexasepaJa, De 
Cand. ; but the flowers of Nuttall's C. paucijlora are uukuown, and until that desideratum is supplied no- 
thing positive can be decided. 
3 L 2 
