I SO GREENE 



In old fields and low woods of middle North Carolina, col- 

 lected by Ashe, who correctly indicated it as a good new species 

 but under a name long preoccupied. 



6. RHUS PYRAMIDATA, sp. nov. 



Both the shrub and its foliage smaller than in R. glabra, the 

 mature leaves firmer, almost subcoriaceous, equally white with 

 bloom beneath, the whole leaf 3 dm. long or less; leaflets 17- 

 21, sessile, oblong-lanceolate, acuminate, lightly serrate, the 

 serratures 12-16 on each side: fruiting panicle large, notably 

 compound, the primary branches being again widely branched, 

 the whole subpyramidal, 8-12 cm. wide toward the base and 

 only 12-18 cm. high ; drupelets very numerous, smaller than in 

 southern allies, 3 mm. wide, suborbicular inclining to ovate. 



This definition I trust may prove to include a large part of 

 what has been called Rhus glabra in northern New York, New 

 England and adjacent Canada. That which I wish to cite as 

 the type specimen is on sheet 312308 of the National Her- 

 barium, and was collected near Lake Waccabuc, Westchester 

 County, New York, by Mr. C. L. Pollard, August 12, 1894. 

 The locality lies easily within the range of Colden's field studies 

 made in the middle of the eighteenth century or earlier. It 

 might therefore be guessed that R. -pyramidata also entered into, 

 and formed a part, bibliographically speaking, of Linnaeus' 

 aggregate R. glabra. But this cannot be established as a fact ; 

 nor would it alter the situation in the least if it could be ; for 

 Colden did not describe the shrub, and his work is of later date 

 than that of Dillenius, to which we are obliged to resort for any 

 described and definable thing that may bear the appellation 

 Rims glabra Linn. 



The Rhus glabrum of Philip Miller, which he said was from 

 New England, and which he reported as cultivated in his time 

 under the name of New England Sumach, cannot have been the 

 present species ; for he attributes to that " downy " branches, as 

 I have already remarked under R. glabra. 



There is presumptive evidence in the herbaria of the existence 

 in southern New England of at least two more species, the diag- 

 noses of which cannot be safely made for want of fruiting pani- 



