1908] Eggleston,— Crataegi 77 
Here the first three paragraphs undoubtedly refer to three distinct 
species, belonging to three sections of the genus. The plant of the 
first paragraph is represented in the British Museum by a small 
fragment of Plukenet's labeled as of t. 46, f. 4, and supposed to have 
come from Virginia. This Plukenet specimen is so incomplete that 
it is impossible to determine the species to which it belongs. See 
Sarg. Bot. Gaz. 31: 12 (1901). My photograph of this type seems 
clearly to represent a form of the group Coccineae Loud. For further 
confirmation of this view, see Miller, Dict. ed. I, no. 8 (1731), ed. 
VII, nos. 7 and 8 (1759), ed. УШ, no. 4 (1768); Aiton, Hort. Kew. 
ed. I, 2: 167 (1789); Watson, Dendr. Brit. 1: t. 62 (1825); Hook. 
Bot. Mag. t. 3432 (1835); Loud. Arb. et Frut. Brit. 2: 816 (1838); 
and T. & G. Fl. N. A. 1: 465 (1840). 
Plate 3432 in the Botanical Magazine represents a flowering speci- 
men with pink anthers and ten stamens, which must have been very 
near either C. pedicillata or C. polita Sarg. This seems good evidence 
for C. coccinea Mill. and for the section Coccineae Loud. But the 
Plukenet type is so incomplete as to be undeterminable and might 
easily belong in the section Molles as Prof. Sargent (Bot. Gaz. 31: 12, 
1901) thinks, and therefore this vague element in the composite should 
be ignored if there is another covered by the Linnaean description 
which we can determine. Happily this is the case and it is possible 
to identify both the other elements included by Linnaeus under the 
composite C. coccinea of the first edition of his Species Plantarum. 
'The second plate cited by Linnaeus, namely, a fine colored one in 
Angl. Hort. 49, t. 13, f. 1 (1730), is unmistakably C. Phaenopyrum 
(L. f.) Medie. This species, under any rule can be eliminated from 
the question if we can determine the species represented by the first 
plate. This first plate, Pluk. Alm. 249, t. 46, f. 4, has been variously 
interpreted. It was, without much doubt, drawn from material 
collected by Banister in Virginia (Chesapeake Bay region). These 
Banister-Plukenet types are preserved in the British Museum, as is 
also the later material collected by Clayton in Virginia. Mr. James 
Britten kindly sent me photographs of these Crataegus types, but the 
one supposed to be the original of t. 46, f. 4 I saw at once could not 
have been used to make this plate. Mr. Britten made another search 
and found an unnumbered specimen of Plukenet’s that he says does 
exactly match the plate. This is fortunately in mature fruit. Mr. 
Britten was so kind as to send me one of the fruits and this at once 
