250 JOURNAL OF THE ARNOLD ARBORETl M [vol. iv 



Hedera nepalensis K. Koch var. sinensis, comb, now 



H. Helix Hance in Jour. But. xx. 6 (1882) — Hemsley in Jour. Linn. Soc. 

 xxm. 343 (1888), as to the Chinese plant. — Harms in Bot. Jahrb. xxix. 

 487 (1900). — Pavolini in Nuov. Giorn. Bot. Ital. n. ser. xv. 41S 

 Pampanini in Nuov. Giorn. Bot. Ital. n. ser. xvn. 678 (1910); xvm. 130 

 (1911).— Hayata, Fl. Mont. Formos. 110 (1910); Icon. PI. Formos. n. 

 62 (1912).— Diels in Not. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh, vn. 258, 288 (1912). 

 L6veill6, Fl. Kouy-Teheou, 34 (1914). 



//. himalaica var. sinensis Tobler, Gatt. Hedera, 79, figs. 39-42 (1912). 



//. himalaica Harms & Rehder in Sargent, PI. Wilson, n. 555 (1916), in part. 



The difference between the Himalayan and the Chinese plant is quite 



marked in the leaves of the sterile branches which are more or less pin- 

 nately lobed with 2-5 lobes or coarse teeth on each side in the Himalayan 

 plant and only 3-lobed in the Chinese plant, but otherwise the two forms 

 show little difference except that the leaves are generally narrower and 

 longer in the Himalayan plant. In the pinnately lobed leaves of the 

 sterile branches the typical H. nepalensis differs from all other species 

 and forms of Hedera, and none of the numerous specimens of the Chinese 

 form in the Arboretum Herbarium show any tendency toward pinnate 

 lobing, the leaves of the sterile shoots having never more than two small 

 basal lobes. 



When Tobler proposed his //. himalaica he overlooked the fact that in 

 1853 K. Koch (Hort. Dendr. 284) had already given the name H. nepalensis 

 to this species basing it on the H. Helix of Don's Prodromus and Rox- 

 burgh's Flora Indica. 



Rhododendron carolinianum var. album, comb. nov. 



Rhododendron punctatum var. albmn Kelsey, Wholesale Trade List Hardy 

 Am. PL 1895-96, 10 (1895), nornen. — Hort. apud Rehder, in Bailey Cycl. 

 Am. Hort. iv. 1523 (1902).— Rehder apud Schneider, 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 

 ii. 374 (1909). 



Rhododendron carolinianum M argardtac Ashe in Rhodora, xxm. 177 (1921). 



This form differs from typical R. carolinianum Rehd. chiefly in the 

 white color of the flowers and in the leaves which are as a rule larger and 

 narrower and more pointed, even short-acuminate at the apex. According 

 to Ashe (1. c.) it is common in North Carolina along the Blue Ridge at an 

 altitude of between 1500 and 4000 ft. in McDowell and Buncombe Coun- 

 ties, and it has also been found in Rutherford, Polk and Henderson 

 Counties, to which may be added Haywood County according to a specimen 

 in this herbarium collected by II. D. House (No. 4563) on Fork Ridge, at 

 4500 ft. altitude. Ashe states that the white-flowered form has a definite 

 range and is not found together with the typical rose-purple form which 

 occurs at altitudes above 4000 ft. The white-flowered form was first 



introduced into gardens by Harlan P. Kelsey in 1895 and later repeatedly 

 reintroduced from its native habitat. 



Forsythia ovata Nakai in Bot. Mag. xxxi. 104 (1917); Fl. Sylv. Kor. 

 x. 20, t. 3 (1921). 



Descriptioni adde: Ramuli hornotini maturi cinereo-flavidi vel flaves- 

 centes, sparse lenticellati, secundo anno cinerascentes vel cinerei, cortice 



