1921) REIIDER, NEW SPECIES, VARIETIES AND COMBINATIONS 175 



Parthenocissus is P. heterophylla (Bl.) Merrill. The next oldest name 

 available to take the place of A. heterophylla Sieb. & Zucc. is apparently 

 Cissus brevipedunculata Maxim, of 1859, which, though representing a 

 different form, is undoubtedly conspecific with Vitis heterophylla of Thun- 

 berg. Ampelopsis hrevipedunculata in its wider conception is a very vari- 

 able species and the following varieties and forms may be distinguished. 

 The type occurs in Manchuria, northern China and in Japan. 



Ampelopsis brevipedunculata var. Maximowiczii, Rehder in Bailey, 

 Gent. Herb. I. 36 (1920) — Vitis heterophylla Thunberg, Fl. Jap. 103 



. A hcl^rnrnhiiUn ftJf^VinlH &- 7iipc.nrini in Abh. Akad. Muench. 



(1784.) ~ A. heterophylla Siebold & Zuccarini in Abh. Akad. 

 IV. 197 (Fam. Nat. Fl. Jap. i. 89) (1846), pro parte, excl. var. a \ non 

 Blume. — yl. humulijolia Bge. ^. heterophylla K. Koch, Hort. Dendr. 48 

 (1853). — Cissus hryoniaejolia Kegel in M6m. Acad. Sci. St. P^tersbourg, 

 s^r. 7, IV. No. 4, p. 35, t. 3, fig. 3 (Tent. Fl. Ussur.) (l86l), non Bunge. 

 A. Regeliana Carri^re in Rev. Hort. 1866, 440. — Vitis heterophylla var. 

 humulijolia Hooker in Bot. Mag. xciii. t. 5682 (1867), excl. synon. Bungei. 

 — Vitis heterophylla ^. Maximowiczii Kegel in Gartenfl. xxii. 197, t. 765, 

 fig. 2 (1873). — Vitis humulijolia f. glahra O. Debeaux in Act. Linn. Soc. 

 Bordeaux, xxxi. 132 (Fl. Tch^-fou 37) (1876). —v4. heterophylla var. 

 Bungei subvar. a bis Sieboldii Planchon in De Candolle Monog. Phan. v. 

 456 (1887). 2 — A. heterophylla Maximowiczii Schelle in Beissner, Schelle 

 & Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 333 (1903).— yl. heterophylla Regeliana 

 hort. apud Schelle, 1. c. (1903). — A. aconitijolia Hort. ex Nicholson, Kew 

 Handlist Arb. I. 77 (1894), pro synon. — ^. heterophylla var. humulijolia 

 Merrill in Philipp. Jour. Sci. xi. Bot. 129 (1916), excl. synon. Bungei et 



Planchonii.' 



This is the Vitis heterophylla of Thunberg for which the oldest available 



M 



ijolia B 



is not a valid name being formed against the rules of nomenclature by 

 making the older V. heterophylla a variety of the later A. humulijolia. 

 Also Vitis heterophylla var. humulijolia Hooker is not available, as this 

 combination is based on A. humulijolia Bunge which is different from 

 the plant described and figured by Hooker. 



The variety differs from the type chiefly in the more deeply divided and 

 more glabrous leaves and stems. It is common in Japan and Korea and 

 probably extends into Manchuria and to eastern China and the Philippines. 



> Var. a= A. humilifolia Bunge, which has often been confused with Vitis heterophylla 

 Thunberg, is a very distinct species (see my note in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. xxi. 187 

 [191 i]), apparently restricted to northern China. To this species probably belongs Cissus 

 Davidiana Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1808, 29, fig. 2 {Vitis Davidiana Nicholson, Diet. Card. iv. 

 187, fig. 203 [1889]), but not ^mpeZopsisiDari(iianaMottet which is Ft7i,sPi;osezA;u Maxim., 



nor Spinoviiis Davidii Carri<ire which is Vitis Davidii Foex (F. armaia Diels & Gilg.). 



* Var. Cf Bungei (excl. var. a bis and a ter) = A. humulifolia Bunge (see preceding footnote). 



« Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 36 (1877) quotes Cissus acutiloba, C. pinnata and C. major Carr. 

 as synonyms of A. heterophylla S\eh. & Zucc, but these names are apparently inaccurate 

 citations of Cissus Davidiana acutiloba, C. Davidiana pinnata and C. Davidiana major Car- 

 riere in Rev. Hort. 1868, 39; they may belong, at least partly, to the true A. humulifolia 

 Bunge. 



