274 PROCEEDINQS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol.51. 



jiiay be properly referred to what Cockerell has separated as Soi^hus 

 diversifolia, only the original of figures 10 ( = 1,651), and 12 ( = 1,650) 

 have been found. It would seem that figure 10 might well be a 

 small leaf of the type represented in figure 6, which appears to be the 

 only one transferred by Cockerell lo Sorhus diversifolia. Figures II 

 and 12 both lack the apical portion, which might well have been similar 

 to that in figure 6, and consequently I have placed them with So7-hus 

 diversifolia. They might have had an apical portion like that shown 

 in figures 7 and 8, but I do not think so, and it seems best to place 

 them as here indicated. 



Perhaps a word of explanation may be given as to certain nomen- 

 clatorial complications that threatened to arise on transferring the 

 names above mentioned. Thus, Myrica diversifolia Lesquereux, 

 1883, can not be transferred to Crataegus on account of the earUer 

 living Crataegus diversifolia Steudel, 1847, or Pyrus diversifolia Bong 

 1864. Crataegus acerifolia Lesquereux, 1883, is not the same as 

 C. acerifolia Moench, 1785. The ineligibility of diversifolia in Cratae- 

 gus was the reason for calUng it lesquereuxi by Cockerell, but this 

 latter name is unnecessary when the species is placed in Sorhus. 



The basal portion of a leaf described and figured by Cockerell * 

 under the name of Onoclea reducta, to judge from the indistinct figm'e, 

 has been properly transferred to Sorbus diversifolia by Cockerell 

 himself. 



Professor Cockerell considers Sorhus diversifolia to be a hybrid 

 between S. 7negaphylla Cockerell, and S. nupta Cockerell, after the 

 manner of certain living forms which are known to produce natural 

 crosses. His reasoning for this belief is set forth at some length in 

 the paper above quoted. 



SORBUS NUPTA Cockerell. 



Sorbus nupta Cockerell, Amer. Jour. Sci., vol. 29, 1910, p. 78, fig. 2. 

 Myrica diversifolia Lesquereux, Rept. U. S. Geol. Surv. Terr., vol. 8 (Cret. and 

 Tert. Fl.), 1883, p. 148, pi. 25, figs. 7, 8, 14. 



The description of this species is given by Cockerell as f oUows : 



Leaf-blade about 67 mm. long, and nearly as broad, with short triangular lobes, the 

 margin also sharply dentate. 



I have not seen the type of this species, but so far as I can determine 

 from the rather indistinct figure and the above description, it appears 

 to be identical with figure 14 of Myrica, diversifolia Lesquereux, nor 

 do I see any reason except size for not including also figures 7 and 8 

 of Lesquereux's plate. These three leaves certainly appear to agree 

 among themselves and also to be different from the other leaves not 

 referred to Sorhus diversifolia. 



1 Cockerell, T. D. A., Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 24, 1908, p. 108, pi. 6, fig. 4. 



