Rydberg: Notes on Rosaceae 141 



or date. Besides the two numbers of Captain John Donnell 

 Smith's collection, cited by Focke in his letter, I have seen only 

 a fragment, which I refer doubtfully here. 



Guatemala: 1906, Kellerman 5217. (This was determined 

 as Riibus guy an 671 sis, to which it evidently does not belong.) 



Ruhus Smithii Rydb. This was orignally described as R. polio- 

 phyllus by Focke, but there is an older R. poliophyllus O. Kuntze. 

 As it was based on R. coriifoliiis Focke in Enumeratio Plantae 

 Guatemalensis, which appeared without description, John Donnell 

 Smith 2 1 41 must be regarded as the type. Focke also cites Seler 

 8yp from Atlamaltatle, Hidalgo, Mexico, and Smith 2533 and 

 2535 from Guatemala. The last number, at least as represented 

 in Captain Smith's herbarium, docs not belong to the same 

 species as the others, but to R. iraznensis Liebm. Also Kellerman 

 4775, from Guatemala, and Tonduz 11726, from Costa Rica, both 

 named R. poHophylhis belong to R. irasiiensis. Pittier 2281 and 

 Tonduz 7837 both from Costa Rica and both named R. polio- 

 phyllus belong to R. Pittieri. 



Rubus Uhdeanus Focke. In the herbarium of the New York 

 Botanical Garden, there are two photographs of and scraps from 

 the type collection of this species, kindly sent us from the Royal 

 Botanic Garden at Berlin. Besides these I have seen no speci- 

 ment that could be referred to this species except the following: 



Mexico: Sierra de Ajusco, Pringle 827Q. 



Ruhus Pittieri Rydb. This is somewhat related to R. Uhde- 

 anus, having the same pubescence and more or less glandular in- 

 florescence, but the branches and petioles are densely villous and 

 the inflorescence more distinctly prickly. The plant therefore ap- 

 proaches the R. sapidus group, if it should not be included in the 

 same; the plant, however, judging from the specimen seen, does 

 not climb over bushes and rocks but is an erect shrub. In some 

 respects it resembles R. coriifoliiis, but the petals are much 

 smaller, and the drupelets smaller and more numerous. Dr. 

 Focke refers the type number of this species to R. poliophyllus 

 Focke, i. e., R. Smithii Rydb., to which disposition I cannot agree. 

 The following specimens belong here: 



Costa Rica: Paramos de I'Abejonal, May 4, 1890, Pittier 

 2281; same locality, April, 1893, Tonduz 7837. 



