30 Rhodora [FEBRUARY 
in the herbarium of the British Museum, bearing the following label, 
which is the name cited by Linnaeus: ‘Hedysarum foliis ternatis 
subovatis, caule frutescente, Gron. Fl. Virg. 174.’ " A. K. Schindler,! 
on the other hand, refers Clayton 174, on which Gronovius' reference 
is based, to L. violacea on the basis of its elongate keel, which he con- 
siders the only constant distinguishing character of L. violacea.? 
The plant which American authors, following Britton, have called 
Lespedeza frutescens, is considered by Schindler to be merely a variety 
of L. virginica, differing from that plant in its broader obtuse or retuse 
leaflets, looser branching, and fewer leaves, and is listed as L. virginica 
var. sessiliflora (Nutt.) Schindler (l. c. 616). Even if Schindler's 
reduction of the plant to varietal rank were correct, the name chosen 
is unfortunate. Nuttall’s L. sessiliflora is clearly that of Michaux, 
although the latter's name is not cited under it, and the specimens in 
Michaux's herbarium, according to both Britton and Schindler, are 
L. virginica (a typica of Schindler), although his description? includes 
both L. virginica and L. “frutescens.” 
The plants currently called L. virginica and L. frutescens (Schindler's 
L. virginica var. x typica and var. 8 sessiliflora) are certainly very 
closely related, but they are nevertheless almost always readily recog- 
nizable in the field and in the herbarium, and may advantageously be 
retained as species. Lespedeza “ frutescens” is a more freely and loosely 
branched plant, with less leafy stems and broader oval or oblong- 
oval rather than linear or linear-elliptic leaflets, and it frequently 
has longer peduncles. On the whole, the two plants are quite as well 
distinguished as other pairs of closely related species in the genus, 
and it does not seem desirable to follow Schindler in his reduction of 
L. “frutescens” to a variety of L. virginica. 
1 Bot. Jahrb. 49: 591-2. 1913. 
2?“ Das Blütenmerkmal, nämlich die lang hervorstehende Carina, hat er überhaupt 
nicht beachtet, und doch ist dies, nach dem so überaus reichen Material, das ich unter- 
sucht habe, das einzige, weil unter allen Umstünden konstante, Merkmal der L. 
violacea gegenüber den verwandten Arten.” (Schindler, 1. c. 592.) The same char- 
acter was used in Maximowicz's key (Act. Hort. Petrop. 2: 358. 1873) to separate 
L. violacea from related species. 
3 Michx. Fl. Bor. Am. 2: 70. 1803. 
SESSILIFLORA. L. erecta: foliolis oblongis: fasciculis florum sessilibus, numerosis: 
lezuminibus calyce minuto subnudatis, acutis. 
Hepysarum junceum. Warr. 
Mepicaco virginica. LINN. 
Oss. Variat foliolis latiuscule oblongo-ellipticis et sublinearibus tuncque. 
Hepysaro junceo congeneri subsimilis. 
Han. in Virginia et Carolina. 
