A STUDY OF RHUS GLABRA 1 77 



applied here unless it be left to fall into synonymy altogether. 

 Philip Miller, as a contemporary of Dillenius and Linnaeus, 

 and as a cultivator of these shrubs, might have been expected 

 to identify correctly the A', glabra of Linnaeus when he adopted 

 the name ; yet to what he so named in his Dictionary, the name 

 glabra does not really apply, for he describes its branches as 

 downy, thus awakening a doubt as to whether his R. glabra was 

 not some possible segregate of Rhus typJiina. 



2. RHUS OREOPHILA, sp. nov. 



Shrub 2-3 m. high : leaves 3-4 dm. long, the petiole 6-8 cm. 

 long : leaflets 19-27, closely approximate, not of the largest, 

 7—9 cm. long, 2.5 cm. wide, narrowly oblong-lanceolate, sessile, 

 rather slenderly acuminate, lightly and almost obsoletely ser- 

 rate, the serratures 10-12 on each side, texture firm, almost 

 subcoriaceous, lower face whitish with a dense bloom, upper 

 face by no means deep or dark green, of a rugulose-roughened 

 rather than smooth surface : fruiting panicle large and much 

 elongated, oblong-fusiform, 18-28 cm. long, only about 5 cm. 

 wide, very compact, the drupelets subglobose, nearly 5 mm. in 

 diameter. 



Mountain districts of Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas and 

 eastern Tennessee ; not in the lower hill country of the Potomac 

 Valley outside the mountains, nor at all northward. The type 

 specimen in the National Herbarium is on sheet No. 327800, 

 from Chapel Hill, North Carolina, by W. W. Ashe, no date of 

 collecting given, nor any specific locality. Two sheets from 

 the Biltmore Herbarium, the material gathered at different dates 

 in 1896 and 1897, without indication of either the collector or 

 special station, except the name Biltmore, represent the species 

 beautifully. So does another, from the mountains of Cocke 

 County, Tenn., by Mr. Thos. H. Kearney, September 14, 1897. 

 Yet another U. S. Herbarium specimen, in good foliage but 

 young fruit, is from near Luray, Va., by Mr. and Mrs. Steele, 

 August 30, 1 901. 



The species is in contrast with R. glabra by smaller leaflets, 

 with denser bloom beneath, and a longer, narrower thyrsus of 

 larger and more closely compacted drupelets. 



