182 Rhodora [OCTOBER 
to say what it is except that it is from one of the Crus-galli Group of 
species. The specimen labeled Crataegus Crus-galli in Linnaeus’s 
Herbarium is also only a barren shoot. It was collected by Kalm 
and no locality is given. It is: certainly one of the Crus-galli Group, 
and probably represents a different species from the specimen in the 
Plukenet Herbarium. In spite of the doubt which these specimens 
raise on the identity of Crataegus Crus-galli of Linnaeus, it does not 
seem desirable or necessary to abandon his name as no confusion is 
likely to occur by retaining it. 
It is not possible to guess even at the plant described by Linnaeus as 
Crataegus tomentosa. His species was based on the specimen collected 
by Clayton in Virginia and, unfortunately, this is one of the few of 
Clayton's specimens which is not preserved in the British Museum. 
On the sheet labeled Crataegus tomentosa in Linnaeus's Herbarium 
there are two specimens collected by Kalm without locality. One is 
evidently what is now generally called Crataegus tomentosa and the 
other is one of the thick-leaved ''omentosae species. It is of interest, 
perhaps, that there is a thorn on the first of these specimens as Cra- 
laegus tomentosa is usually thornless, although “ramis spinosis" 
appears in Linnaeus's description of his Crataegus tomentosa. As 
no confusion is likely to arise from retaining the name of Crataegus 
tomentosa for the plant now generally considered to be that species, 
there appears to be no good reason for abandoning the name. 
Crataegus coccinea was established by Linnaeus on Plukenet’s 
figure (Alm. Bot. t. 46, f. 4.). The figure well represents one of the 
three specimens so numbered preserved in Plukenet’s Herbarium. 
The numbers published by Plukenet have been written below the 
specimens of his herbarium by some one now unknown and perhaps 
after the collection had become the property of the British Museum. 
Under the specimen which is the type of Linnaeus’s Crataegus coccinea 
there is a note by Robert Brown confirming the determination. Mr. 
Eggleston's statement that the type of Crataegus coccinea was an 
unnumbered specimen found by Mr. Britten is not clear. All the 
specimens in Plukenet's Herbarium are numbered and Mr. Britten 
assures me that he has no recollection of having made such a state- 
ment. It is probable, however, that the fruit that he sent to Mr. 
Eggleston is from the specimen represented on plate 46, f. 4, as one of 
the seven fruits figured by Plukenet is missing. ‘The leaves of this 
specimen are only slightly villose on the upper surface; the fruit is 
