5 8 Rhodora [March 



Connecticut near Greenwich, a form with smaller <j;lob()se fruits, V. 

 prunifoliiim^ var. glohosi/m, Nash (Herb. C. H. Bissell). 



Vibnruum piibeu-ens. As this species occurs in Vermont and 

 Connecticut, it may be looked for in western Massachusetts. It has 

 been reported but probably erroneously from New Hampshire (W. S. 

 Harris, Flora of the town of Windham, p. 17). A specimen I 

 received as V. piibescens from New Hampshire (Herb. Dartmouth 

 Coll., Hanover) proved to be V. acerifoliian. 



Viburnum venosum. Under this name Britton has recently sep- 

 arated the northern form of V. mo//c of Gray ( V. scabrellum. Chap- 

 man) from the form of the southern states which he takes for the 

 type. Though the morphological characters by which the two 

 species are distinguished appear rather slight, both are quite distinct 

 in their general appearance and seem really less closely related to 

 each other than V. venosum is to V. dentatum. As regards the name 



/' mollc which has been left to the southern form, a closer study of 

 the matter has led me to the conviction that V. molle of Gray and 

 subsequent authors is not the V. moUe of Michaux, but the V. denta- 

 tum, var. semitomen/osum, Michaux, while the typical V. moUe, 

 Michaux, is identical with the species recently described as V. 

 Demetrionis. Although V. moUc, Gray, if V. venosum is considered 

 a distinct species, is not included in the flora of New England, I 

 suppose it will not seem out of place to insert here the following 

 notes intended to make clear the somewhat confused synonymy of 



V. molle, especially as it will show conclusively that the name V. 

 molle can never be used for the New England plant. 



ViiujRNUM MOLLK, Michaux, Fl. I : 180 (1803). V. Demetrionis, 

 Deane & Robinson, Bot. Gaz. 22 : 167, pi. 8 (1896) ; 24 : 436 (1897); 

 Britton & Brown, 111. Fl. 3:231, fig. 3441 (1898); Britton, Man. 871 



( 190' )• 



This species has been found only in Kentucky and Missouri. 



It had always seemed improbable to me that Michaux really should 

 have considered one and the same species, even if represented by 

 somewhat different forms, as a variety of V. dentatum and also as a 

 distinct species allied to V. Opulus, and as furthermore the descrip- 

 tion of V. fnolle, Michaux, did not ht very well the V. molle of Gray, I 

 concluded to follow the matter up. Mr. Fernald to whom I spoke 

 about it before he left for Europe last summer, kindly promised me 

 to look up the species in Michaux's herbarium. He brought back a 



