142 



A memorandum of this occurrence may be found in the 



Bulletin, vol xv. 176. 



Piniis Jeffreyi. (Gard. Chron. v. '^60, 361 ; figs. 65 and 6%\ 

 Pangenesis, — Intracelhdar, J. W. Moll. (Bot Gaz. xiv, 54-6^)- 

 Protoplasm, — Contiimity of — John M. Coulter. (Bot. Gaz. xiv. 



82, 83, illustrated). 

 Roses Americaines — Nonvelles Remarqiies stir les. (Contin- 

 uation) Franfois Crepin. (Compt Rend. Seance Soc. Roy. 

 Bot. Belg., 1889, 18-33). 



The author gives us a critical treatise upon the species lucida, 

 htimilis^ Caroliniana and Arkansana, based upon the study 

 of a large amount of material from Drs. Best, Porter, Watson, 

 and others. His remarks, especially in regard to the supposed 

 relationship between the first two, are of more than ordinary 

 interest, and he calls upon American botanists to carefully ob- 

 serve and verify certain points during the coming season. The 

 monograph of Dr. Best* Avas a surprise to him, and he ad- 

 mits, has rather shaken his belief in the specific rank of ^. hicida, 

 although previously thinking it a good species. He greatly de- 

 sires complete specimens of the plants identified In America as 

 R. bicida^ as he says he has failed to find a single specimen in all 

 the material thus far sent to him, which he can refer to typical 

 R. lucida. The specimens labelled var. bicida by Drs. Best 

 and Porter were only variations of R. hwnilis. The plant known 

 in cultivation in Europe for more than two centuries as R. bicida 

 is entirely distinct from any of the specimens which he has re- 

 ceived from America, and he now questions whether this plant 

 may not be after all only one whose characteristics have been 

 fixed by cultivation. In speaking of the work of our botanists 

 in this direction M. Crepin is rather severe. He says . "'This 

 confusion of the two species need not surprise us in view of most 

 of the American descriptions of R, bicida. In Watson's recent 

 monograph the descriptions o{ R. bicida and R, humiUs 

 often embarrass the observer in distinguishing one from the other/' 

 The characters relied upon by Dr. Watson he considers too vague 

 and indefinite to separate robust forms of R. humiHs from R^ 

 bicida, as both are liable to and occasionally do have the same char- 



*See Bull. Dec 1887. 



