X()TF,S (^X ZAI'SCPIXKRIA 



By Gkorce L. Moxley. 



In the most cursory examination of even a small series of 

 specimens of Zaiischiieria, either in the field or herbarium, one 

 cannot help noticini^- the i^reat differences in the foliage, both as 

 to the size and shape of the leaves, and their pubescence or lack 

 of it. The floral differences are not so marked, but even here 

 there are differences that ma)- well be taken into account. 



Xearly thirty years ago. Dr. E. L. Greene said in reference 

 to the genus under consideration, "When 1 look at the strongly 

 markeci f(irms of this genus, as they exist in our herbaria — some 

 of them nearlv glabrous, others heavily villous, some of them 

 hoary with a coarse tomentum, others fairly white with a pubes- 

 cence so minute as to appear like a mere bloom ; some with 

 veinless, others with strongly feather-veined leaves, the margins 

 of which are, in this form entire, in tliat shari)ly toothed — 

 I wonder whether authors in allowing but one species of Zaiisch- 

 iieria, have not been dazzled and then misled by the large 

 Fuchsia-like corollas of these plants : for it is evident they must 

 have been looking to the corollas for specific characters, just as 

 if the genus were an ally of Fnc/isia. rather than of Epilohinui." 

 He further pointed out the fact that Zatisclnicria is most inti- 

 mately related to that part of BpHobiinii in which the corollas 

 present no specific character whatever, and nearly everything is 

 rested upon puliescence taken along \\'ith the insertion, venation 

 and toothing of the leaves. With this in view 1 have made this 

 present studv of such specimens of Zaiischncria as 1 have been 

 able to collect or borrow, in the ho])e that it may incite some one 

 with better facilities than 1 can command to make a proper re- 

 vision of the genus. 



There can hardly be a diff'erence of oi)inion as to the fact 

 that the forms of Zaiischncria naturally fall into two groups; 

 the one having flat. thin, feather-veined leaves, the other narrow, 

 more or less pubescent leaves in which, but for the midrib, the 

 veining is not evident. 



In his Flora of Los Angeles and X'icinity, I'rof. Abrams 

 makes mention of Z. Californica var. microphyUa Gray, and Z. 

 Califoriiica var. hitifolia Hook, making no mention of typical Z. 

 Californica Presl., which, I infer, he does not find within the 

 limits covered by his book. Prof. Jepson. in his Flora of West- 

 ern jMiddle California, describes the forms occurring in his 

 region under Z. Californica Presl.. incidentally mentioning the 

 var. hitifolia Hook. Dr. Greene contends (1. c), with some 

 show of reason, that the plant of the southern coast, which Dr. 

 Gray named var. micro phylla, is without doubt the original plant 

 of Haenke, and, therefore, the typical Z. Californica Presl. 



47 



