Rydberg: Notes on Rosaceae 123 



free stipules. Greene describes the petals as rose-red, showy. As 

 far as I have been able to find they are white. 



Psychrohatia Greene was based on Riihiis pedahis Smith. This 

 is the best of the genera proposed by Dr. Greene. The pedately 

 compound leaves are a striking character, but known in many 

 blackberries and the black raspberries. The statement made by 

 Dr. Greene, that only tw^o carpels mature, is erroneous, for there 

 are usually more than two, although always few. They are large 

 and as far as I understand substipitate, i. e., tapering at the base, 

 a character not found in any other species; but I have not thought 

 it important enough to give the plant generic rank. 



Comarohatia Greene was based on Ruhiis lasiococcus A. Gray. 

 The habit is that of R. pedatus and other unarmed species, the 

 leaves like those of R. stellatiis for which it had been mistaken. 

 The fruit is that of a dewberry, although the drupelets are few and 

 pubescent; but pubescent fruit we find in the raspberries, in 

 Rubus ursinus and some of its relatives, and in many Mexican 

 species of blackberries. 



Greene also restores the pre-Linnaean genus Chamaemorus 

 Clusius. At first glance this seems a fairly good genus, but the 

 habit is that of the R. arcticus group, especially R. stellatus, which 

 also has simple leaves. Rubus Chamaemorus is a dioecious plant. 

 All the species of the R. arcticus group have a tendency to be 

 polygamo-dioecious. In the structure of the fruit and the stipules, 

 there is little difference. In the broad spreading petals and not 

 dilated filaments it differs, however, but in this respect it agrees 

 with most blackberries. 



Greene admits two species, Chamaemorus anglica and C. 

 norwegica, both credited to Clusius; but Clusius did not have these 

 names in the form given. The first is found only in the margin 

 opposite a fictitious illustration under the name C. anglicana, 

 and the latter is spelled in the heading Chamaemorus norwagica 

 and in the margin as C. Norwagica. Such a way of citation is 

 careless; but Dr. Greene may claim that he intended an improve- 

 ment of form and spelling, as anglica is a better and more common 

 form than anglicana and an e in the second syllable of norwegica 

 is better than an a. But why not make the improvement com- 

 plete and spell the latter with a v instead of a w, as the latter 

 character was unknown to Latin? 



