324 Rydberg: Notes on Rosaceae 



laevigata Vahl. Under A. agrimonioides HBK., he cited only 

 Humboldt & Bonpland's specimens and hence held the same 

 opinion of this species as I do. 



In the North American Flora I have given my reasons for 

 excluding A. lappacea and A. laevigata from the Mexican flora. 

 There is no question regarding A. laevigata not being found there, 

 neither is there in regard to A. lappacea, unless Bitter is correct 

 in regarding it as a synonym of A. elongata. Against this speaks 

 the fact that the typical A. elongata has not been found in Peru. 

 In giving the distribution of A. elongata, Bitter gave "perhaps 

 also in Peru," which shows that he had seen no specimens from 

 that country. The typical A. elongata he described under the 

 name A. elongata gracilis n. var. (an altogether unnecessary name), 

 and this is limited by him to Mexico. It extends, however, through 

 Central America to Colombia, but is not found as far south as 

 Ecuador. Here it is represented by A. elongata robusta Bitter. 

 If any form extends into Peru, it is this, which may be A . lappacea. 

 My sincere opinion, however, is that A. lappacea was redescribed 

 by Bitter under the name A. torilicarpa n. sp. 



Acaena calif or nica Bitter. The Calif ornian species of Acaena 

 has had a rather varied history. It was first treated by Hooker 

 and Arnott in the Botany of Beechey's Voyage under the name 

 A. pinnatifida, the authors supposing that it was the same as 

 A. pinnatifida R. & P. of Peru. Torrey saw that it was not, but 

 rather closer to A. trifida R. & P. and even listed it as such,* 

 although it was not described under that name until twenty 

 years later, in the Botany of California. For some years I 

 have known that even this identification was erroneous, but 

 have regarded it as the lost Acaena tridactyla Presl.f That author 

 gives as the type locality "Mexico occidentale." As California 

 at the time Haenke visited it was a part of Mexico, this inter- 

 pretation does not seem out of place, and I still think it possible 

 that it is not far from the truth. Bitter, t however, claimed that 

 he had seen the type at Prague and identified it as the South 

 American A. trifida R. & P. It is possible that Haenke, who also 



* Pac. R. Rep. 4: 84. 1856. 

 t Epim. Bot. 201. 1849. 

 % Bibl. Bot. 74: 294. 



