56 ARKIV FOR BOTANIK. BAND 13. N:0 15. 



Vernonia borinquensis Urban, 1903, p. 390; 1911, p. 619; Gleason, 

 1906 b, p. 179. 



Pappi setae interiores persistentes, numero 30 35, te- 

 nues, filiformes, pallide brunneae, quam exteriores distinctae 

 circ. 8-plo longiores. Corolla 8 mm longa, tubo gracili, subito 

 in limbum amplifiato, long. 1 / 2 corollas, extus glandulis nun- 

 nullis instructo, limbi laciniis apice papulosis. Antherae 

 2,5 mm longae, ligula long. 1 / 7 antherae, nervo satis perspicuo, 

 auriculis obtusiusculis. 



Hab. in Porto Rico: prope Maricao, ad margines 

 silvarum, 12. 11. 84, Sintenis n. 388 (BB, DC, KU, M); Si- 

 erra de Juncos in graminosis apricis montis Guvuy, 28. 8. 85, 

 Sintenis n. 2659 (KU); Lares, ad margines silvarum ad 

 Anon, 16. 1. 87, Sintenis n. 5884 (KU); Lares, in frutice- 

 tis ad Jobo, 29. 11. 87, Sintenis n. 6079 (KU, P); Utuado, 

 in marginibus silvarum ad Paso-palma, 4. 3. 87, Sintenis 

 n. 6362 (D, KU); prope Mayagiiez, alt. 150 m, 26. 1. 1900, 

 Heller n. 4391 (KU). 



var. Stahlii Urb. 



Vernonia borinquensis Urb. var. (3 Stahlii Urban, 1903, p. 391; 1911, 

 p. 620. 



Pappi setae numero 25 30. Antherae 2,3 mm longa?, 

 ligula long. 7 8 antherae, auriculis acutiusculis; cet. ut in spe- 

 cie. 



Hab. in Porto Rico: prope Bayamon, in fruticetis, 

 Dec. 1883, Stahl n. 238 (KU); prope Baj^amon, alt. 450 

 m, Majo 1887, Stahl n. 667 (KU): prope Aibonito in decli- 

 vibus, 25. 11. 85, Sintenis n. 2862 (B, BB, KU, M). 



Though closely allied to V. arborescens (L.) S\v. and 

 V. albicaulis Pers., V. borinquensis at first sight amply 

 differs in its peculiar habit due to the widely spreading in- 

 florescense with its stiff, zigzag-bent cymes. It recalls some- 

 what V. sericea L. C. Rich., from which it is distinguished, 

 above all, by its nearly glabrous leaves. 



The variety Stahlii Urb. differs invariantly in wanting 

 glandular points on the lower surface of the leaves, and in its 

 nearly glabrous achenes. However, there is no difference in 

 habit between the species and its variety. It seems to me 

 therefore most conformable to the relationship between the 

 two plants to list them as species and variety. 



