THE MONTHLY BUIiLETIN. 167 



trees sejit to me, and later, while in ( 'alii'ornia, 1 made; a careful exam- 

 ination of these trees, which at once showed that this species was very 

 distinct from the Chinese sand pear. For this reason 1 collected fruit, 

 leaves and ln"tnehes whieli f took with me while on an extensiv(j trip 

 through the eastern states investigating pears. During this trip I 

 made an exhaustive study of the splendid collection of wild Chinese 

 pears in the herbarium of the Arnold arboretum. I found that the 

 specimens which I had collected at ()i"oville corresponded very closely 

 with herbarium specimens labelled Punts callerymui, Decaisne, which 

 had been collected and identified by Dr. C. S. Sargent while at the 

 Botanic (ilarden, Hongkong, China, in 1903. Pyrns calleryana was 

 described in 1872 by J. Decaisne, the French pomologist, in his "Le 

 Jardin Fruitier du Museum," from herbarium material collected in 

 China by Gallery. Hence this pear could be very appropriately desig- 

 nated the Callery pear. 



Pyrus caHeryana is very widely distributed in China, and, conse- 

 quently, varies considerably, especially in leaf characters. For 

 example, one type from southeastern China, to which the Oroville 

 trees belong, possesses leaves with a strongly wedge-shaped base. 

 C. K. Schneider, the Austrian botanist, studied material of this form, 

 and in 1906 designated it as Pyrus koehnei in his book "Illustriertes 

 Haudbuch der Lauhliolzkunde." I do not believe that this form 

 differs sufficiently from Pyrus calleryana to be designated as a distinct 

 species. Schneider, himself, is not at all certain that this form should 

 be separated from Pyrus calleryana. For instance, in speaking of this 

 and other species of Pyrus in ^'Repertorium novaruni specierum" for 

 October 15, 1906, he states "Perhaps koehnei, kolupana, and calleryana 

 are only geographical varieties of one species." Mr. E. H. Wilson, 

 of the Arnold arboretum, who has spent many years collecting plants 

 in China, and who has given special attention to the wild species of 

 Chinese pears, told me in a personal interview that he regarded Pyrus 

 koehnei as a form of Pyrus calleryana. 



After a careful study of these two types I have concluded that the 

 type at Oroville, California, is simply a form of Pyrus calleryana. 



PYRUS CALLERYANA AND PYRUS SINENSIS. 



Recent studies of the grouj), Pyrus sinensis, show that what has 

 commonly been considered as Pyrus sinensis, Liudl., is in reality a 

 group of several closely related species. This group of species, how- 

 ever, is very distinct from Pyrus calleryana and its related forms, the 

 difference being especially marked in the leaf characters. The leaves 

 of the Chinese sand pear, commonly grown by nurserymen, are long, 

 comparatively narrow, with a truncate or rounded base, and with 

 sharply toothed or bristle-like margins. The leaves of Pyrus calleryana 

 are short, comparatively broad, with a rounded or broad, wedge-shaped 

 base, and with the teeth on the nuirgins markedl}' rounded or crenate. 

 The leaves are generally very glossy and shiny. The fruit is small, 

 about the size of a large garden pea, l)rownish, and with a deciduous 

 calvx. 



