1907] Rehder,— Some Forms of New England Trees 115 
leaves distinctly subcordate at the base, while Drummond's specimen 
has elliptic-oblong leaves, cuneate at the base, and has no fruits, but 
from its range it apparently belongs to the southern and not to the 
northern variety. Whether the type of F. ferruginea from Pennsyl- 
vania is to be referred to f. pubescens or to f. mollis which seems more 
probable, must remain doubtful as long as we do not know the fruits. 
Ruvs ryPHINA L. forma Lactintata Wood, Am. Bot. Flor. pt. 4: 
73. (1870) as var.; Flor. Atlant. 73 (1879). 
Differs from the type by the irregularly incisely dentate or incisely 
lobed leaflets which are ovate-oblong to lanceolate and by the leafy 
panicles. New Hampshire, near Hanover, 1846, Dr. Rickau (erro- 
neously spelled Ricard by Wood). (Herb. Gray.) 
Rhus typhina L. forma dissecta, nom. n.— R. typhina var. laciniata 
Hort. [Manning] ex Rehder, Móller's Deutsch. Gártner-Zeit. 15: 211. 
fig. (1900); Hort. ex Cowell; Bailey’s Cycl. Am. Hort. 4: 1530 (1902). 
— R. hirta var. laciniata C. K. Schneider, Ill. Handb. Laubholzk. 2: 
154 (1907). 
Differs from the type by the bipinnately divided leaves with the 
leaflets of the second order linear to linear-lanceolate and entire or 
dentate or sometimes even pinnatifid. 
MassACHUSETTS, locality unknown; found about 15 years ago 
by J. W. Manning of Reading, Mass. and transplanted into his gar- 
den. 
A very striking form on account of the graceful feathery appearance 
of the large (30-45 cm. long) finely dissected leaves. Its ornamental 
qualities have won for it a place in many American and European 
gardens particularly in more northern latitudes where the similar but 
more tender R. glabra var. laciniata Carr. is not hardy enough. 
A few words may be said on the specific name which this species 
of Rhus has to bear. In 1892 Sudworth (Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 19: 
81) proposed for it the new combination R. hirta (L.), because Linné, 
prior to the publication of his Rhus typhina (Cent. Plant. 2: 14. 
1756; Amoen. Acad. 4:311. 1760) had named the same species 
Datisca hirta (Spec. Plant. 2: 103. 1753) from an abnormal specimen 
with the inflorescence reverting into leaves and with partly confluent 
leaflets (see also Britton, Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 18: 269). This explains 
his placing the plant into an entirely wrong genus. The name R. 
hirta, however, cannot be admitted, according to art. 51, 3 of the 
Vienna rules of nomenclature, as it is based on a monstrosity. 
