118 The Botanical Gazette. [April, 



after the flowering season is over.— Chas. A. Davis, Alma College, 

 Alma. Mich. 



Coiniia Baileyi C. & F, in Orosron.— In the revision of Cornacese 

 (Coulter and Evans), under the discussion of the relationship of C. 

 stolon if era Michx., C. pubescens Nutt, and C. Baileyi C &* £.* the pre- 

 diction was made that C. Baileyi might be found along the Pacific 

 coast and its ranges, where it had descended from its already known 

 habitat of British America, and that it would be confounded with C. 

 pubescens. Such has since proved to be the case. In a package of 

 plants recently received from Messrs. Drake & Dickson, Portland, 

 Oregon, there was found an undoubted specimen of C. Baileyi from 

 Castle Rock, Columbia River, Oregon, bearing the date June 1889 

 as to flowers, the fruit evidently being of later collection. As in 

 the east, C. Baileyi has been confused with C. stolonifera on account 

 of the presence of some appressed pubescence, so here it had been 

 labeled C. pubescens, evidently on account of the rather loosely pubes- 

 cent under surface of the leaves. But an examination with a lens 

 showed the presence of both appressed and wooly pubescence, such as 

 IS found in C. Baileyi and not in either of the others. The stone in 

 this spec, men is nearly twice as broad as high, is prominently flattened, 

 has the square-shouldered top of typical C. Baileyi, and has its rather 

 deeply furrowed edge. This combination of characters can leave no 



doubt as to the occurrence of C. Baileyi on the west coast. It is highly 



probable that forms may be found not so well denned as this one, and 

 the presence of all three of these nearly related species will give more 

 or less trouble when approaching each other, yet the extreme forms 

 should g.ve no cause for difficulty in determination.-WALTER H- 



I* XT a xt <r« / - . . 7. „# 7* r t — — 



Herbarium Eli Lilly <V 



Note, 



A private letter from E. J. Hill, of Englewood, Ills., makes the fol- 

 Wm g s ,, tements concerning C. Baileyi: - M y first note on it was in Sept. 

 1875, and U was called C. stolonifera. But studying this lake shore shrub in 



t rudd" 5 TkT C . SedCea * bUt the fruU Was not colo -d rightly. It was 

 < ruddy a shrub for C. paniculata, and so has remained a source of doubt till 



your charactenzatton appeared. Noticing them the other day (January) while 

 !£?« ^V 1 " *"' BarreDS ' the Color * *' ca-es of the two contrast con- 



^iderably. When 



tu^o^~* r- 4. 1 •£ & ^uiur to rne Dest advantage 



JriZn h ■ T T "* ^^ red and ^ loss y in **«<*. of a hue almost 



enmson whde hose of C. Baileyi are duller, a little of the brick-red cast 



I hmk_one could be pretty sure of identity in the winter, from this character 



! Bot. Gazette, xv. pp. 38 an d 88. 



J. M. C. 



