360 Rydberg: Notes on Rosaceae 



same locality, 1906, N. L. Britton 139; same locality, 1900, 

 W. N. Chile 228. 



Azores: Fayal, 1894, C. S. Brown 77. 



Fragaria Suksdorfii was based on material which I had referred 

 previously to F. cuneifolia, but the broadly lanceolate sepals and 

 the decidedly villous fruit distinguish it from that species. The 

 following specimens belong here: 



Washington: Falcon Valley, June 2 and 28, 1883, Suksdorf 

 486. 



Oregon : Wilkes Expedition 440. 



British Columbia: Meyers Creek, May 5, 1905, Spread- 

 borough 69948, is referred here with some doubt, as there is no 

 fruit. 



Fragaria yukonensis was described from material originally 

 determined as F. chiloensis or F. glauca. The type and some other 

 specimens were referred to F. chiloensis on account of the thick sub- 

 coriaceous leaflets, but the latter lack the fine tomentum mixed 

 with the longer hairs on the lower surface, characteristic of those of 

 F. chiloensis. F. yukonensis could not be referred to F. glauca 

 on account of its thick leaves. In fact it is more closely related 

 to the southern F. ovalis which it resembles very closely. It 

 differs, however, in the distinctly petiolulate instead of subsessile 

 leaflets and in the longer bractlets. Besides, F. yukonensis is not 

 known outside of the Yukon Territory, and F. ovalis not north of 

 Wyoming. The following specimens belong to the former: 



Yukon Territory: Lake Lebarge, June 19, 1899, Tarleton 

 38; Rapid City, Aug. 20, 1899, R. S. Williams; Ranch Creek, 

 June 8, 1899, Gorman ioog; Fifty Miles River, 1899, A. L. Bolton. 



Fragaria Grayana Vilmorin was restored to specific rank in the 

 North American Flora. It was first described as F. virginiana 

 illinoensis A. Gray, under which name it has been best known. 

 It was recognized before Dr. Gray described it, by Price, who 

 recorded it as F. illinoensis but gave no description. I have found 

 no specimens in the herbaria from any place east of Indiana and 

 Alabama, although the type was said to have come from western 

 New York. All specimens so named from the eastern states 

 belonged to either F. virginiana or F. grandiflora, which latter is 

 an escape from cultivation. 



