﻿470 Rydberg: Notes on Rosaceae 



New York: Hempstead Plains, Long Island, 1910, Bicknell 

 65; Lynbrook, Bicknell 62, 64, 66. 



New Jersey: Highlands, Britton; Ogdensburg, 1910, Macken- 

 zie 4625; South Amboy, 1905, Mackenzie 1376. 

 Virginia: Norfolk, 1898, Kearney 1365. 

 Ruhus argutus X carpinif alius. Both Engelmann and Bailey 

 recognized this as a hybrid, regarding one of the parents as R. 

 trivialis from which R. carpinifolius was not separated at that 

 time. Bailey thought that the other parent was R. argutus. 

 Engelmann gave it as R. villosus, under which name both R. 

 argutus and R. nigrobaccus were then known, 



Missouri: St. Louis, 1863, Engelmann; Cahokia, 1863, 

 Engelmann. 



Ruhus floridus X lucidus. In the description of R. persistens 

 Rydb. two different plants were included. Unfortunately, it 

 happened that the specimen which was assigned as the type evi- 

 dently belongs to a hybrid of R. floridus and a species then un- 

 known. jR. persistens, therefore, must pass into synonymy. 



Rubus carpinifolius X floridus. Dr. Engelmann regarded the 

 original specimen of this hybrid as a variety of R. trivialis. It is 

 more likely that it is a hybrid of R. carpinifolius, which at his 

 time was not distinguished from R. trivialis, and R. floridus, which 

 is also found in Texas. 



Texas: Houston, 1842, Lindheimer. 



Rubus floridus Xfrondosus. Some specimens collected at 

 Bluff Lake, Missouri, by Eggert probably belong to a hybrid 

 between R. floridus and R.frondosus. The only reason for believ- 

 ing so is that they combine characters of both and were found in 

 a region common to both. 



Missouri: Bluff Lake, Eggert. 

 Tennessee: Knoxville, 1896, Ruth. 



Rubus Enslenii X frondosus. This was first recognized by 

 Mr. Bicknell and well described by him. 



New York: Hempstead Plains, Long Island, 1906, Bicknell, 

 4S, 49, 7O' 



Massachusetts: Nantucket Island, 1906, Bicknell 47. 

 Rubus frondosus X procumbens. I have no definite evidence 



