﻿Rydberg: Notes on Rosaceae 155 



DuRANGO: City of Durango and vicinity, 1896, Palmer 10. 



Arizona: Santa Rita Mountains, 1881, Pringle; Santa Cata- 

 lina Mountains, 1881, Pringle; 1908, Livingston & Thornher; 

 Huachuca Mountains, 1909, Goodding 4jp. 



San Luis Potosi: Schaffner 105, 474; 1878, Parry & Palmer 

 224. 



Sonora: Nogales, 1893, Mearns 2640. 



Ruhus rhodophyllus Rydb. This is a rare species and might 

 have been taken for a prostrate form or a hybrid of R. argutus, but 

 that species is not found in Mississippi. As it was for years known 

 from only one collection, it might have been considered a freak, if 

 it had not also been collected in Florida. 



Mississippi: Point St. Martin, 1898, Tracy 4107. 



Florida: Duval County, 1894, Fredholm, 458. 



Ruhus invisus Bailey is a rather local and variable species and 

 acts in certain ways as a hybrid. One of the parents might bei?. 

 procumbens or R. Baileyanus, but I know of no species that could 

 be suggested as the other parent, as the coarse rather regular 

 toothing of the leaves is unique. The following specimens belong 



Ontario: Niagara Falls, 1901, Macoun 34777. 



Massachusetts: Northampton, 1904, Andrews 40. 



Virginia: near Luray, 1901, Steele 1Q4. 



North Carolina: Biltmore, 1896, Biltmore herbarium 7994'. 

 (This was originally labeled R. Baileyanus Britt. Later somebody 

 has written in lead pencil, R. Boyntoni Ashe.) 



Ruhus Baileyanus Britton is not a very uncommon species, 

 although its range north and south is rather narrow. It resembles 

 in that respect R. frondosus, which represents it among the erect 

 blackberries. The broad cordate or subcordate terminal leaflets 

 of the new shoots, the thin pubescent leaves, the large unifoliolate 

 leaves of the inflorescence and the more or less glandular pedicels 

 distinguish this from all the dewberries, except R. invisus, from 

 which it dififers in the toothing of the leaves. 



Ruhus arenicola Blanch. This is a rather local species and 

 may be of hybrid origin, but I do not know what parents to sug- 

 gest. It is related to R. Baileyanus and R. procumbens. The 

 former is not found in the region where R. arenicola grows. It 



