204 Rhodora [October 



Filipendula rubra (Hill), n. comb. 



rinmrio rubra Hill, Hort. Kow. ed. 1, 214 (1768). 



Spiraea lohata Gronov. ex Jacq. Hort. Vindob. i. 38, t. SS (1770). 



Spiraea palviata L. Syst. ed. 13, p. 393 (1774). 



Ulmaria lohata Kostel. Ind. Prag. (1844) ex Maxim. Act. Hort. 

 Petrop. iv. 251 (1879). 



Filipendula lohata Maxim. Act. Hort. Petro]). vi. 251 (1879). 



The only question which seems likely to arise in regard to this dis- 

 position of our species, is whether the old genus Ulmaria should be 

 treated as generically separable from Filipendula, but for this there 

 seems no rational ground. Historically the two genera rest upon the 

 European Spiraea Filipendula and S. Ulmaria respectively. These 

 species, familiar in cultivation, exhibit an inflorescence of identical 

 plan and flowers without sufficiently important differences to suggest 

 •even subgeneric or sectional distinctions to the more critical writers 

 who have occupied themselves with the group. It is true that the 

 small very numerous leaflets in the type of Filipendula and their 

 ])innatifid contour give the plant a rather characteristic j\ppearance 

 markedly different from the type of Ulmaria, but when the Asian 

 species with leaflets of intermediate number, size, and form are taken 

 into account, it will be seen that these foliar tlift'erences are by no 

 means distinctions of constancy or moment. It is to be noticed, also, 

 that there is a general consensus among scholarly students of the 

 Rosaceae that these genera should be united; sec for example, Maxi- 

 mowicz, 1. c, Focke in Engl. & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenf. iii. Ab. 3, 40 

 <1888) & Nactr. 187 (1897), Uehder in Bailey, (\cl. Hort. 1878 (1902), 

 Aschers. & Graebn. Syn. mitteleur. Fl. vi. 436 (1902), etc. 



Ghay Herharium. 



Vol. 8, no. 93, inchiding pages 169 to 188 was issued 8 October. 1906. 



