C. sanguinea of Pallas, referred to C. glandulosa by Willdenow, De Candolle, and 



Loudon, is distinct from C. coecinea in its want of glands upon the calyx and petioles, 



as well as in its country and habit. 

 C glandulosa of Aiton, refeiTed by Willdenow, De Candolle, and Loudon to C. coccinea, 



miscalled glandulosa, is a totally different species, and may be the same as C. spa- 



tlmlata. 



With Dr. Asa Gray's note above referred to, 1 received the following criticism 

 upon C. spathulata, fol. 1890: — 



" I am not convinced of the correctness of the view you take respecting the C. 

 spathulata, Michx. and C. Virginica, Loudon. I liave before me specimens of C. Virginica, 

 Loudon, in various states, from North Carolina to Florida; and of the true C. spathulata, 

 as it is considered by N. American botanists (your C. microcarpa), from Georgia, New 

 Orleans, Texas, and Arkansas. Tlie specimens exhibit the various diversities in foliage 

 for wiiich the plant is so remarkable. This species is well known to our botanists, 

 and tiie reason of its being ' altogother omitted from the Floras of Torrey, Hooker, and 

 Beck,' is that the works alluded to are confined to the botany of the Northern States and 

 British America, whereas the above-mentioned species does not grow North of Virginia. 

 The chief reasons for considering the C. microcarpa, Bot. Reg. to be the original C. 

 spathulata are these — 



" 1. The lower leaves of the plant are almost always fascicled on very short spurs, or 

 abortive branches ; corresponding in this particular with the character of Michaux ; 

 which can hardly be said of C. Virginica. 



" 2. The fasciculate leaves are very much smaller than the irregularly-shaped 

 younger ones, wliich terminate the vigorous branches ; smaller, indeed, tlian those of any 

 other species, thus agreeing with the character 'foliis adulla plantte parvulis.' The small, 

 lucid, and coriaceous fasciculate leaves, of such uniform occurrence in our native speci- 

 mens, are not represented in Bot. Reg. t. 1846. 



" 3. The phrase ' foliis longissime deorsum angustatis' is peculiarly applicable to 

 this plant, but by no means strikingly so to C. Virginica. They are decidedly spatnlate, 

 while in C. Virginica they are obovate or cuneiform. 



" 4. The leaves are almost always 3-cleft, or deeply 3-toothed at tlie summit, in our 

 C. spathulata ; the upper and larger ones being however sometimes undivided, but usually 

 variously lobed ; whereas in C. Virginica the leaves are very slightly lobcd at the summit, 

 and often undivided. 



" Our C. spathulata somewhat resembles C. oxyacantha, with which it is compared 

 by Michaux. C. Virginica does not. 



" Lastly, I have before me a sketch of two leaves made by Dr. Torrey from the 

 specimens in Micliaux's Herbarium, which wholly agree with the ordinary leaves of what 

 we have always considered C. spathulata, viz. your C. microcarpa." 



To this I answer, that it still appears to nie that the synonymy i]i the Bot. Re- 

 gister is correct, for the following reasons: — 



However much Micliaux's character of the leaves may appear more applicable 

 to C. microcarpa than to C. virginica, yet it does not disagree with the latter, for 

 the terms " fasciculatim " and " longissim^ angustatis" apply very well to some of 

 the leaves of C. virginica ; but the remainder of the specific character of Michaux 

 does entirely disagree with C. microcarpa, while it as entirely agrees with C. vir- 

 ginica. " Corymbi pauciflori" cannot be said of a plant which often bears 15 

 fruits in a cluster, as in wild specimens from Texas now before me ; " pedicclli 

 breves" are equally at variance with pedicels half an inch long and slender ; while 

 " calyces tomentosi'' have no applicability to a plant which is remarkably smooth 

 in its fructification. 



But " corymbi pauciflori," " pedicelli breves," and " calyces tomentosi," do 

 exactly correspond with the 1-3-flowered corymbs, almost sessile fruit, and perma- 

 nently downy calyx of C. virginica. It does not appear whether Dr. Torrey 

 noticed the glandular border so characteristic of C. virginica, when he examined 

 the specimens of C. spathulata in Micliaux's herbarium. But, if it really were to 

 prove that a specimen of C. microcarpa is labelled C. spathulata in that collection, 

 I should still prefer the evidence of Micliaux's own words, which cannot misre- 

 present him, to that of a specimen which may have been mislabelled. 



