24 JOURNAL OF THE ARNOLD ARBORETUM [vol. i 



ifolia and congcsta. For var. 



Ifol 



type a specimen of E. L. Greene from Yreka, Cal., which is No. 795, ]\Iay 

 18, June 30, August 31 (m., f., fr., st.; C, sheet Nos. 4343 and 4344). I 

 fail to find a good character by \yhich to distinguish it from normal laevi- 

 gata of which, of course, narrow-leaved forms occur, but the type of var. 



ifolia 



For 



var. cungesta Bchh did not cite a type, but merely said: "Ainents short, 

 densely flowered, scarcely exceeding the ample leaves of the peduncle: 

 capsules globose-conical, shortly pediccUed." In Herb. C. (sheet No. 35 L5) 

 and G. I found Bolander's Xo. 4632, from New Castle, Placer County, 

 April, 1865, determined by Bebb himself (1877) as var. congcsta, but I am 

 unable to distinguish this specimen from typical laevigata; Ball (1899) re- 

 ferred to var. congesia Howell's No. 1393, Kt^llogg and Harford's No. 925 

 and Palmer's No. 362. The last I regard as belonging to f. araquipa, 

 while No. 925 (Herb. N.) is rather doubtful and looks to me more like 

 a form of S. lasiandra with stunted aments. Howell (Fl. N.W. Am. 617 

 [1902]) has made S. congcsta a species occurring " along rivulets near 

 the Klamath River and southward," and in his herbarium at Eugene, 

 Oregon, his No. 1393 is designated as the tyix'. It came from Hornbrook, 

 Siskiyou County, northern California, Klamath River region. The ma- 

 terial is young, the leaves are not yet sufficiently matured, and they pos- 

 sess some stomata in the ui)per surface. It looks much like araquipa, but 

 needs further observation. 15ebb's varieties do not seera to possess any 

 taxonomic value. There is however the pubescent form f. araquipa Jei)son 

 (Fl. Cal. 339 [1909]. — ? 5. occidentalis Eastwood, Handb. Trees Cal. 36 

 [1905], pro parte) within the range of the species, and it apparently i)revails 

 in the southern and southwestern parts of the state. The main difference 

 from the type is in the more or less tomentose branchlets of the first and 

 partly also of the second season, and there is hardly another character by 



which it may be distinguished, for it seems to be connected with the type 

 by many intermediates. 



11. S. longipes Shuttleworth apud Andersson in Of v. Svensk. Vetensk. 

 Akad. Forh. xv. 114 (1858). — Glatfelter in Rep. Mo. Bot. Gard. ix. 43, t. 5, 

 fig. 1, t. 6, fig. 1 (Note on S. longipes, 1) (1897), i)ro i)arte. — Small, Fl. 

 S.E. States, 341 (1903). — Sargent, Man. Trees N. Am. 169, fig. 141 (1905), 

 pro parte. — Hough, Handb. Trees 76 (1907), pro parte. — Brilton & 

 Shafer, N. Am. Trees, 180 (1908), pro i>arte. — S. occidentalis Sud worth in 

 Bull. U.S. Dcpt. Agric. Div. For. xiv. 119 (Nomcncl. Arb. Fl.) (1897), non 

 Bosc. — S. occidentalis longipes Sudw., 1. c., excl. synon., pro parte. — For 

 further synonymy and literature see Schneider in Bot. Gaz. Lxv. 21 (1918). 



From the synonymy w^iich I (1918) have given, it may be seen that this 

 species was described first by Bosc apud Koch (1828), as S. occidentalis, 

 from specimens collected by Sieber " in insula Cuba." I have not seen a 



type, but there can be no doubt that Poepplg's specimens from Cuba, Pro v. 



