w 



■- 4 



^ ^ w 



Guanajuato (no. 47), in 1836. Eggleston, who saw a specimen of it 

 in the Gray Herbarium, says that it, ^"^ seems to represent a rather 

 entire-leaved form of C. Tne.vicana which . . .is not worthy of even 

 a varietal name." In my opinion, it is one of those slight 

 ** modifications " which I liave, in the absence of better evidence, 

 treated under f. stipulacea. The case of Mespilas stipulosa, is 

 somewhat different. It was described from specimens collected 

 by Humboldt and Bonpland in the valley of Chillo, near Quito, 

 in 1802. "About thirty years later it was collected again in the 

 very same locality by Col. Hall. There are two sheets of his 

 collecting at Kew, representing the plant in flower, and named 

 Me'spilus ^Upulosa. They are labelled : — a " Mespilus, found in 

 the valley of Chillo, near Alangasi, elevation 8400 feet. Fruit 

 pyriform, yellowish-green. A small tree." ^'(7. mespilus — The 

 valley of Chillo, about 8000 ft., corolla white, fruit pyriform, 

 green/' Ten years later it was once more collected there, this 

 time by Hartweg, in 1842, the collector noting that it was ''a shrub 

 or small tree, 10-20 feet high. In the ' quebrada ' (ravine) de San 

 Marcos a Guito; in the valley of Chillo near Puembo.'' This 

 specimen consists of a branch with several gnarled branchlets, one 

 of which bears a ripe fruit, whilst another has a two-flowered 

 inflorescence. It formed the material from which Bentham* 

 described his Crataegus quitensis. There can be no doubt in my 



opinion that it is identical with Humboldt and Bonpland's 

 3Iesptlus stipulosa (Crataegus stipulosa, SteucL). Eggleston 



identified with it a number of specimens from Guatemala and, 

 with some reserve, from the neighbouring State of Chiapas. The 

 corresponding Kew material (J. D. Smith, 2531, from Sacate- 

 pequez, Guatemala; Skinner, coll. 1857, Guatemala; Ghiesbreght, 

 630, Chiapas) fully bears out his determination. It is difficult to 

 distinguish from C, puhescensy as understood here, the j^rincipal 

 difference is seen in the more pubescent upper surface of the leaves 

 and their slightly more numerous (7-8 instead of 4-7) nerves, 

 which are more densely whitish-hairy below, and therefore more 

 conspicuous- The leaves vary a great deal in size and shape, but 

 they are very rarely lanceolate, and show no tendency to lobing. 

 All the fruits with the Kew specimens, whether from Ecuador or 

 Central America, have persistent calyces, not deciduous, as 

 Eggleston says. However, I see no reason why, in the present 

 state of our knowledge, C* stipulosa should be reduced to C. 

 puhescenSy the more so as it inhabits a definite area apart from 

 that of {7. pubesceris. The synonymy of Crataegus puhescens is 



therefore as follows : 



Crataeg 



f. Humholdtii. f- stipulacea, 



1824 Mespilus pubescens, B. B. E, 1826 Crataegus stipulacea, Loihl. 



1825 Crataegus mexicana, DC, 1834 Mespilus stipulacea, Vesf. 

 1909 C- pubescens, EggL p.p. 1834 M. Loddigesiana, Spach. 

 J909 C. mexicana, Eggl. p.p. 1835 Crataegus mexicana, D. Don, 



1843 C. subserrata, Benth, 



1853 C. hypolasia, K. Koch 



1862 Mespilus mexicana, K, Koch 



1909 Crataegus pubescens, Kggh p.p 



1909 C, pubescens var. Botteri, Kggl. 

 1909 C. mexicana^ I^ggh p.p. 



♦ Beptham, Plantae Hartwegianae, p. 173 (1843), 







