198 JOURNAL OF THE ARNOLD ARBORETUM [vol. i 



parte divisus et staminibus subaequilongus, stigmatibus quam anterae 

 minoribus, 



China. North Honan: Hwei Ilsien, Shansi border, June 19, 1919, 

 Joseph Ilers (No. 713). 



This new variety is easily distinguished from the type by the calyx and 

 pedicels being loosely covered with setose slightly appressed nearly straight 

 or sliglitly curled hairs, 



Philadelphus iaxus Schrad. var, strigosus, comb. nov. — P. inodorus 

 strigosus Beadle, Biltniore Bot. Stud. i. 159 (1902). — P. strigosiis Hydberg 

 in N. Am. FI, xxii. 168 (1905). 



Tlie only difference I can see between P. laxus Schrad. and P. strigosus 

 (Beadle) Rydb. of which I have seen the type specimen is the denser pu- 

 bescence of the under side of the leaves. 



The theory has l>een ad^'anced that P. laxns is not an American plant, 

 but of Chinese origin. I have, however, not yet seen a Chinese speci- 

 men referable to this species. Rydbcrg (1. c. 179) apparently misunder- 

 stood Koehne who does not say that he had seen Chinese specimens, but 

 states that lie received from Vilmorin specimens from cultivated plants 

 raised from seed sent from China (see Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. xiii. 79, 

 1904), Specimens from the same plant which I collected myself in 1901 

 in Vilmorin's Fruticetum at Les Barres, France, and sent to Koclme, bear 

 in his own handwTiting the note " Wilde Exemplare dieser Art habe ich 

 nicht geseheu." There is probably a mistake somewhere regarding tlie 

 origin of this plant, Tliat such mistakes are likely to happen is shown by 

 the fact that I collected in 1909 at the same place a Philadelphus inarked 

 P. spec. China No. 4619 which I am unable to distinguish from P. Gor- 

 doniauus var. columhianus. 



Philadelphus laxus is apparently a very rare species, though well known 

 in cultivation for more than ninety years. The only wild specimens I have 

 seen are one collected in Tennessee by Wilkinson (Gray Herb.) and two col- 

 lected near Augusta, Georgia, one by C. S, Sargent, April *28, 1910, and one 

 by T. G, Harbison, April 4, 1914 (No. 1448), while another specimen col- 

 lected by Sargent near the same locality, on the cliffs of the Savannah River 

 at the locks, on March 30, 1904, and one collected by Harbison at Calhoun 

 Falls, Abbeville County, South Carolina, resemble P. laxus in their pu- 

 bescence, but have the larger and broader leaves of P. grandiflorus, 



Philadelphus floridus Beadle, Biltmore Bot. Stud. i. 160 (1902).— P. 

 speciosus Rydberg in N. Am. Fl. xxii. 169 (1905), non Schrader. 



I cannot agree with Rydberg in making P. floridus Beadle a synonym of 

 P. speciosus Schrader. Koehne (in Gartenfl. xlv, 507) refers P. speciosus 

 to P. laxus Schrader, and as the author's citation is followed by an exclama- 

 tion point, I assume that he saw Schrader 's type. I see no reason not to 

 accept Koehne's identification, inasmuch as there is very little difference 

 between Schrader's descriptions of the two species. The figures cited by 

 Rydberg under his P. speciosus do not at all belong here; P. speciosus Bot. 



