540 



ROSACEAE 



Crataegus 



Jan. 



Feb 



Mar 



Apr. 



May 



June 



July 



Aug 



Sept 



Oct 



Nov. 



Dec. 



Miles 



50 



Map 1108 



Crataegus disperma Ashe 



50 



Map 1109 



Crataegus viridis L 



red; calyx lobes lanceolate, usually glandular-serrate; fruit subglobose, 

 8-14 mm in diameter, dull red, with thin flesh ; nutlets usually 4-5. 



This species has been found in Indiana only in Dearborn County, where 

 it grew on a wooded slope along Laughery Creek, 3 miles west of Aurora. 



Va. to se. Ind., southw. to N. C. and Tenn. 



7. Crataegus grandis Ashe. (Crataegus cuneiformis of Eggleston in 

 part, not Mespilus cuneiformis Marsh.) Map 1107. Leaves obovate, mostly 

 2.5-7 cm long, 2-4 cm wide, rounded or short-pointed at the apex, cuneate 

 and attenuate at the base into slender, winged petioles, coarsely serrate on 

 the upper half to two thirds of the blades, otherwise entire, or sometimes 

 obscurely lobed on shoots, glabrous or with a few scattered hairs above 

 when young, at maturity dark green and shining above, with deeply im- 

 pressed veins; flowers 14-16 mm in diameter; anthers pink or white; calyx 

 lobes narrowly linear, entire or slightly serrate toward the base, slightly 

 pubescent; fruit subglobose, 10-14 mm in diameter, bright crimson, flesh 

 becoming mellow ; nutlets 2-3. 



A small tree 4-6 m high, or sometimes a stout shrub, with ascending, 

 or in old specimens, horizontal, spreading branches and slender, glabrous 

 branchlets usually armed with numerous, slender thorns. 



Found in southern Indiana in thickets or borders of woods. 



This species and the next one may have arisen as hybrids between some 

 form of Crataegus crus-galli and Crataegus punctata or some related 

 species, as suggested by Eggleston, who has grouped a number of such 

 forms under the name Crataegus cuneiformis (Marsh.) Eggl. The de- 

 scription of Mespilus cuneiformis given by Marshall seems scarcely definite 

 enough for positive identification, although it may well have applied to 

 one of these hybrids, but since there is such a wide difference in the foliage 

 and fruit characters between this and the next species as well as between 

 others related to them, it seems best to distinguish them and to retain the 

 names already published. The distribution and association of this species, 



