138 JOURNAL OF THE ARNOLD ARBORETUM [vol. i 



Ulmus procera Salisbury, Prodr. Stirp. Allerton, 301 (1796).— Ulmiis 

 campcdris Linnaeus, Spec. i. 225 (1753), pro parte; Fl. Angl. 11 (1754). 

 Miller, Diet. ed. vin. No. 1 (1708).^ — Weston, Univ. I5ot. i. 314 (1770). — 

 Henry in Ehves & Henry, Trees Gt. Brit. vii. 1903, t. 412, fig. 14 & t. 396 

 (1913). — Moss in Card. Chron. ser. 3, li 199 (1912); Cambridge IJrit. F. 

 II. 94, t. 102 (1914). — U. campestris a. vulgaris Solander apud Aiton, 

 Hort. Ivew. i. 319 (1789). — Flanehon in Ann. Sei. Nat. ser. 3, x. 273 

 (1848); in De Candolle, Prodr. xvii. 156 (1873).— U. suberom Smith, 



Engl. Bot. XXXI. t. 2161 (1810), non Ehrhart, nee Moench. — U. atinia 



Walker, Essays Xat. Hist. 70 (1812). — [7. surculosa var. latifolni Stokes, 

 Mat. Med. II. 37 (1812). — L\ imlgaris Dumortier, Fl. Belg. 25 (1827). — U. 

 suberom var. vulgaris Hooker & Arnott, Brit. Fl. 376 (1850), ex parte. — 

 U. gcrmanica Hartig, ForstL Kulturpfl. 460 (1851).— U, campestris var. 

 major Trautvetter in Bull. Aead. Sei. St. Petersb. xv. 351 (1857), pro parte, 

 non ^^a]pers. — U. campestris a. vnJgatissima Miller apud Buulger in 

 Gard. Chron. n. ser. xii, 298 (1897). — U, glabra b. pillfcra Borbas, Bekes- 

 varnieg. Fl. 55 (1881).— U. pilifera Borbas, Kiizl. Jiekesvarmeg. Fl. in 



Vandorg. :\Iunkal. xxv. (486) (1881), ex Ascherson & Graebuer. — U, 



asperrima Xagl, Varad. Termesz. 124 (1890). — U. campestris /3. gcrmanica 

 f. pubescens Pospichal, Fl. Oester. Kuestenl. i. 347 (1897).— U. glabra 

 Mill. b. pubescens Schneider, 111. Handb. i, 220 (1904). — [7. surculosa Ley 

 in Jour. Bot. xlviii. (1910). — U, campestris a. latifolia 1. pubescens Ascher- 

 son & Graebner, Syn. Mitteleur. Fl. iv. 557 (1911). ^ 



The correct name for this species whicli had been confused by many 

 authors with U. foliacea Gilib, {U. glabra Mill., non Huds., U, nitens 

 Moencli) has been a matter of much dispute. There can be no doubt 

 that like the other European species it formed a i)art of Linnaeus' U. 

 campestris, but to consider It the type of that si)ecies is certainly not 

 correct. If we try to ascertain tlie ty})e of U. campestris L., we should 

 turn for a clue first to the citations of Linnaeus in liis own publications. 

 Tlie first citatioTi in the Si>ecies plantarum is Ilort. Cliffort. 83; where we 

 find under Vhims Jructu niembranaceo three varieties "a, /?, y" enumer- 

 ated; the first whicli must ])e considered the type of this aggregate is " a. 

 Ulmus folio latissimo scabro Tournefort " which is [7. glabra Hudson; also 

 the following citation Fl. Suec. 219 must refer to U. glabra Huds., as this 

 is the only or at least the most widely distributed sjiecies in Sweden; this 

 is confirmed by the figure in Svensk Botanik by Palmstuch & Venus (1802) 

 where the species figured as U, campestris on plate 13 n^presents U. glabra 



^ Henry refers TUmus campestris Miller to U. montana With. (= U. glabra lliuison), but 

 Miller describes that species Tiudcr the name U. scahris to whu^h he ascribes leaves six inches 

 long, while of his V. campestris he says that the leaves are about f? inches long and come out 

 late, which is true of U. jyroccra as compared with U. glabra Hudson. Furthermore it is most 

 likely that Miller's L\ campestris is the same species as the U, campestris of his contemporaries 

 Weston and Solander; this is also the opinion of Moss. 



2 Ascherson & (Jracbner cite as a synonym Ulmus campestris var. pubescens Planchon in 

 De Candolle, Prodr. xvil. 156, but no such combination can be found Lliere; the word pubes- 

 s is the beginning of the description; they also cite Ann. Sei. Nat. 3, s6r. **ni" [ix] where 



cen 



no reference at all to a pubescent form occurs. 



