504 Hill : Celtis pumila Pursh 



but not Pursh and his copists." He adds: " This is marked in 

 Collins' Herb, as the real pumila var. of Muhlenberg, but it ap- 

 pears that all of our 6 shrubby sp. must have been blended under 

 this name ; I shall now distinguish them properly although the 

 synonyms are difficult to fix, owing to all copying Pursh rather 

 than describe what they saw." It would appear from this that he 

 had seen some of the forms at least. His C. pumila is a small 

 low shrub only two feet high or long, being procumbent ; the 

 leaves were short, " hardly an inch long, hardly acuminate, rather 

 acute, very thin and green with very large teeth." He concludes : 

 41 The large teeth and truncate base [of leaves] will distinguish 

 this from all others besides the procumbent stem." 



Another species is " Celtis teniiifolia Raf. (or parvifolia), C. 

 pumila Pursh, T. B. & C. C. occid. var tenuif. Lam. Pers. 

 Nuttall ? etc. — shrubby erect branches divaricate, branchlets angu- 

 lar smooth leaves uniform ovate acuminate, serrulate in the middle, 

 base acute obliqual unequal entire trinervate, both sides smooth, 

 pedicels axillary uniflore longer than petioles, fruits round oboval 

 brown — shrub 3 to 5 feet high, erect with spreading branches, 

 found by myself in the hills of Maryland, blossoming in May, said 

 to grow also in the Mts. of Virginia and in Louisiana, easily 

 known by the few small teeth, leaves 1 or 2 inches long, rather 

 thin." On the whole this description best accords with those I 

 find in northern Indiana. Under C hcterophylla Raf., sent him 

 from Alabama, he finds "a very singular species offering all kinds 

 of leaves on the same small branches (1 or 2 inches long) yet un- 

 like any of the other shrubby kinds." This variability of the 

 leaves is often shown by the Indiana shrubs. As Darlington 

 lived in the region where Celtis pumila was first observed, Ches- 

 ter County, bordering Lancaster County, the home of Muhlen- 

 berg, on the east, it is well to notice how he treats the form in his 

 Flora Cestrica (i£o. 1837). He observes that C occidentalism as 

 known to him in Chester County at least, is rather a large shrub 

 than a tree, being eight to fifteen feet high. " It very much re- 

 sembles, moreover, some small specimens which I collected on the 

 Potomac above Georgetown, — which Mr. Schweinitz pronounced 

 to be C pumila ; and hence have led me to suppose that Muhlen- 

 berg was correct in making C pumila a variety of C occidentalism 



