52 JOURNAL OF THE 
hispida in those characters which were usually relied 
upon for segregation has justified it. 
Pursh, in spite of his brief and unsatisfactory technical 
description, in making some general references to the dis- 
tribution, etc. of the plants he had just described, com- 
pares the relative sizes of A. hispida and PR. hispida var. 
rosea in such a manner as to leave no doubt in regard to 
their identity: ‘‘The variety B is less hispid and grows 
to a considerable large upright shrub, whereas the orig- 
inal Aéspida is a low stragline plant.’’ This acurately 
presents the salient features of the habit of the two plants, 
and enables one, familiar with both in the field, to easily 
differentiate the true rosea. 
But while usually a form of 2¢sAzda is referred to rosea, 
in the last edition of Gray’s Manual of Botany* the de- 
scription of Azspzda includes not only all the true forms 
of hispida, but the rosea of Pursh as well, the latitude 
of the description embracing plants with ‘‘less bristly or 
naked branches, smaller flowers etc.’’ than the immedi- 
ately preceding technical description covered. The allu- 
sion to small-flowered forms can only be interpreted asa 
reference to rosea, as a comparison of the description of 
the two plants which follows will show. 
It is probable that Marshall as well included both 
plants in his rosea, which is usually referred only to h7s- 
pida, as he mentions the large size that some specimens 
of his plant attain, whereas the true Azspida is always of 
small size. 
American botanists, when separating the two plants at 
all, have retained the rosea under its original name, and. 
where first placed as a variety of Aésfida but the two 
plants are so different that rosea is eminently worthy of 
specific rank. 
As no additional names have been proposed by Kuro- 
pean botanists there is no tortuous synonomy to be traced. 
4Sixth edition, 134. 
