1919] REHDER, NEW SPECIES, VARIETIES AND COMBINATIONS 139 



Huds., and also by the material in our herbarium. The third citation 

 Mat. Med. 105 refers without doubt to the same species, as he gives Eu- 

 ropae nostrae pagi as the habitat. A further proof that Linnaeus had H. 

 glabra Huds, in mind, is the fact that he places the genus in Pentandria, the 

 native U, glabra being probably the only species of which he had examined 

 the flowers; if he hud examined U. procera, he ought to have placed the 

 genus in Tetrandria. Finally may be added that the specimen of U. cam- 

 pestris in Linnaeus' herbarium represents U. glabra Huds., though this is 

 no conclusive evidence, as the specimen in this case is not the type of his 

 species. All this shows, that if we restrict U. campesiris L. to one of the 

 species now recognized, it must be considered the oldest name for U, glabra 

 Hudson, but it is probably better to take advantage of art. 51. 4 of the 

 International Code and let the name lapse, as it would make the nomen- 

 clature of Ulmus still more confused than it is already. The reason ad- 

 vanced by Moss and by Henry for restricting the name f/. campesfris to 

 U. procera is the fact that Linnaeus in his Flora Anglica (p. 11), published 

 one year after the Species plantarum, cites under U, campestris a reference 

 to Ray's Synopsis 4G8-1; this reads in Ray's work " 1. Ulmus vulgatissima 

 folio lato scabro " which is C7, procera. Whatever the reason may have 

 been to omit Ulmus 2-4 of Ray's Synopsis, it was certainly not the intention 

 of Linnaeus to change his concej^tion of U. campestrisy for in the second 

 edition of his Species i)lantarum he did not make the slightest change in the 

 wording of the diagnosis or of the citations. The tyi>e of a species, more- 

 over, cannot be changed by any subsequent publication, and moreover the 

 Flora anglica is a simple compilation containing only the bare names fol- 

 lowed by a reference to Ray's Synopsis, and is without the slightest taxo- 

 nomic importance. If we follow Henry Ulmus saliva Mill, would be the 

 next oldest name, })ut this view is not shared by ^loss who takes up U. 

 saliva as the oldest name for the species called by Henry U. minor Mill., 

 and I am more inclined to follow Moss. Miller's citation under U. sativus 

 certainly favors the opinion of Moss. Miller in his description says little, 

 but under his U, campestris states that *' the branches do not grow as erect 

 as those of the third sort " (= ?7- sativus), this might point to the Cornish 

 Elm which is not mentioned otherwise by Miller, but according to Weston 

 was in cultivation at that time. Inany case the status of U, sativus ^li\L is 

 rather doubtful, wliile Ulmus procera of Salisbury is based exclusively on 



/< 



Grerard and without doubt the species 



English Elm. 



Ulmus procera f. argenteo-variegata, comb. nov. — U. campestris 2. 

 argenteO'Varicgata Weston,. Bot. Univ. i. 314 (1770). — Z7. campestris var. 

 foliis variegatis Tvoddiges apud Loudon, Arb. Brit. iir. 1376 (1838). 



u. 



(Loud 



ser. XII. 298 (1879). — [/. campestris var. variegata Dippel, Handb. Laubh. 

 II. 95 (1892). 



Weston's U. campestris argenteo-variegata is certainly referable to this 



