324 RyDBERG: NOTES ON ROSACEAE 
laevigata Vahl. Under A. agrimonioides HBK., he cited only 
Humboldt & Bonpland’s specimens and hence held the same 
opinion of this species as I do. 
In the North American Flora I have given my reasons for 
excluding A. lappacea and A. laevigata from the Mexican flora. 
There is no question regarding A. laevigata not being found there, 
neither is there in regard to A. lappacea, unless Bitter is correct 
in regarding it as a synonym of A. elongata. Against this speaks 
the fact that the typical A. elongata has not been found in Peru. 
In giving the distribution of A. elongata, Bitter gave ‘‘ perhaps 
also in Peru,” which shows that he had seen no specimens from 
that country. The typical A. elongata he described under the 
name A. elongata gracilis n. var. (an altogether unnecessary name), 
and this is limited by him to Mexico. It extends, however, through 
Central America to Colombia, but is not found as far south as 
Ecuador. Here it is represented by A. elongata robusta Bitter. 
If any form extends into Peru, it is this, which may be A. lappacea. 
My sincere opinion, however, is that A. lappacea was redescribed 
by Bitter under the name A. torilicarpa n. sp. 
Acaena californica Bitter. The Californian species of Acaena 
has had a rather varied history. It was first treated by Hooker 
and Arnott in the Botany of Beechey’s Voyage under the name 
A. pinnatifida, the authors supposing that it was the same as 
A. pinnatifida R. & P. of Peru. Torrey saw that it was not, but 
rather closer to A. trifida R. & P. and even listed it as such,* 
although it was not described under that name until twenty 
years later, in the Botany of California. For some years I 
have known that even this identification was erroneous, but 
have regarded it as the lost Acaena tridactyla Presl.| That author 
gives as the type locality ‘Mexico occidentale.’ As California 
at the time Haenke visited it was a part of Mexico, this inter- 
pretation does not seem out of place, and I still think it possible 
that it is not far from the truth. Bitter,t however, claimed that 
he had seen the type at Prague and identified it as the South 
American A. trifida R. & P. It is possible that Haenke, who also 
* Pac. R. Rep. 4: 84. 1856. 
J Epim. Bot. 201. 1849. 
t Bibl. Bot. 74: 294. 
