296 



oile collected by Mociiio and Sesse, and one of C. suhcrenata, his- 

 classification as outlined above mav be passed OA^er. Nine years 



latei 



Mesp 



and his own Crataegus hypolasia with M. mexicana (the latter a 

 new comhination ba>sed on C. mexicana, DC), and Bentham's^ 

 Crataegus suhserrata with M. piibescens, which like M, stipulosa 

 and M. quitensis (a new combination for Crataegus quitensis) he 

 retained as distinct species. The same classification is employed 

 in his '' Dendrologie " (18G9), with the exception of the disappear- 

 ance of M. quitensis. 



Why M. puhescens shonid be distinct from M. viesicana is not 



clear from his description, which moreover hardly fits Humboldt 

 and Bonpland's plant, and was apparently drawn nj) from a 

 *' stipulacea '^ plant w^hich he saw in France. 



The first to recognise the identity of Humboldt and Bonpland's 

 and Mocino and Sesse's plant was E. EegelJ in 1871, but he also 

 extended the conception of species so as to include C\ suhserrata 

 and C- quitensis, and made no attempt to distinguish forms within 

 it. Dippelll adopted the same view with the exclusion of 6'. 

 quitensis. More recently Eggleston§ published a paper on ^' The 

 Crataegi of Mexico and Central America," w^hich is mainly based 

 on the study of an ample American material. Unfortunately only 

 a small portion of the specimens quoted hj him are represented at 

 Kew. He distinguishes (1) C, puhescens (Mespilus pubescens, 

 //. B. /v.). This is certainly not Humboldt and Bonpland's 

 plant, and corresponds more or less to my f. stipulacea* (2) C. 

 puhescens^ Botteri. This again is evidently one of tlie '^ modifica- 

 tions" of f. stipulacea^ if the Kew specimen of Botteri, no. 831^ 

 from Orizaba, can be depended upon as being identical with 

 Botteri, 1121, quoted by Eggleston. (3) C. meTicana (including 

 Lindley's and 1). Don's plants, figured under that name, and C. 

 suhserrata, Benth). This includes representatives of both 

 f. Ilumholdtii and f, stipulacea. (4) C. rnexicana microsperma. 

 The original of this in habit and foliage very much resembles 

 Parry and Palmer, no. 228, which Eggleston enumerates under 

 C. mexicana^ and I have referred to f. Humholdtii; but it consists 

 only of a fruiting branch, and the apparently quite mature 

 fruits are much smaller than those of C, viexicaria. The area 

 from which Eggleston records it includes the states of Jalisco^ 

 Michoacan, Guerrero, and Oaxaca. It is also known as 

 '' Tejocote/' and ^'^ a jelly is made from the fruit, resembling that 

 from the quince. '^ Eggleston adds^ ^^this may prove a good 

 species.'' 



I have referred above to Crataegus suhserrata, Benth., and 

 Mespilus stipulosa, H. B. K. (Crataegus stipulosa, Stead.) as- 

 supposed synonyms of the Mexican Hawthorn. Crataegus 

 suhserrata was described from snecimens collected bv Hartwee^ in 



* K. Koch in Woclienschrift f. Gartnerei u, Pflanzenkunde, vol. v. 



(1862). 



t He extended in this place Mespilus so as to include Crataegus in it as 

 a subgenus. 



X E. Eegel in Act. Hort. Petrop. vol, i. p. 107. 



II Dippel, Handb. d. Laubholzkunde, vol. ii. 426. 



§ W. W. Eggleston in Bull. Torn Bot. Club, vol. xsxvi, pp. 501-5U. . 



