Rvdberg : Notes on Rosaceae 495 



and shows many affinities to the Concinnae, although it lacks 

 tomentum. 



Potentilla maculata and P. Langeana are closely related. Dr. 

 Wolf adopts the name P. alpestris for the former, claiming that 

 the name P. maculata Pourr. probably belongs to P. pyrenaica 

 Ram. He does not, however, adopt the name P. maculata for 

 the latter, although the name is much older. Dr. Wolf does not 

 admit P. Langeana as a distinct species. 



The rest of my Aureae group are closely related. Potentilla 

 Vreelandii Rydb. was first described in the North American Flora, 

 and was consequently unknown to Dr. Wolf. 



Potentilla diversifolia Lehm. is placed in the Multijugae group 

 by Dr. Wolf, and under it he recognizes four varieties: genuina, 

 decurrens, glaucophylla, and jucnnda. It is true that P. diversi- 

 folia often has at least some of the leaves pinnate, although with 

 closely approximate pairs of leaflets, and that it connects the 

 Multijugae and the Aureae groups. The forms regarded as 

 varieties of it by Dr. Wolf have digitate leaves. 



Concerning Potentilla glaucophylla Lehm., first described as a 

 species and afterwards reduced to a variety of P. diversifolia by 

 the author himself, it may be said that although it is very close 

 to some forms of P. diversifolia, especially when they bear only 

 digitate leaves, it seems to be more different in the living state 

 than in dried material, and Professor Aven Nelson,* who also has 

 had chance to study them in the field agrees with me in regarding 

 them as distinct. 



That Dr. Wolf reduced Potentilla jucunda to a variety is 

 probably due to the fact that he had received unusually large 

 specimens of P. glaucophylla which were labeled P. jucunda. 

 See the remarks in my preceding Notes on Rosaceae. 



What I actually described and figured in my monograph of 

 Potentilla as Potentilla decurrens, was not the same as P. dissecta 

 decurrens of S. Watson. My description was, however, made 

 broad enough to include Watson's plant. In 1905, while collecting 

 in Utah, I collected at several places a plant which I regarded as 

 a new species. A closer comparison with Watson's type of P. 

 dissecta decurrens (which is a rather poor specimen) revealed my 



*See Coult. & Nels. New Man. Cent. Rocky Mts. 257. 



