RYDBERG: NOTES ON ROSACEAE 497 
Sprengel’s Anleitungen,* 1817. Then comes the question which 
was the earlier, Purshia DC. or Purshia Spreng. Fortunately, 
Sprengel himself when proposing Kuntzia gave under Purshia DC., 
which he replaces, a reference to the Supplement to Lamarck’s 
Encyclopedie Methodique,t where Poiret publishes Purshia for 
De Candolle, the year before its technical publication by De 
Candolle in the Transactions of the Linnean Society. There is, 
therefore, no question concerning Purshia DC. antedating Purshia 
Spreng. But how about Purshia Raf.? I have been unable to 
find it mentioned in any of Rafinesque’s writings of 1813. The 
Kew Index gives the publication of Purshia Raf. as ““Am. Month. 
Mag. (1819) 191.’ At the place referred to we find only the 
following remarks under Onosmodium: “Sprengel has since given 
it the name Purshia, which had already been applied to another 
genus.’’ Nobody can tell if this refers to an earlier Purshia Raf. 
It may just as well refer to the earlier Purshia DC. Apparently 
the first appearance of Purshia Raf. was in Journal de Physiquet 
in 1819. It is evident that Purshia DC. can not be thrown out 
on any other ground than by regarding Burshia Raf. (1808) an 
error in orthography. It was not a misprint, for. Rafinesque 
states that it was named after Mr. Bursh and on the unpublished 
plate of Rafinesque’s, the original spelling is Burshia. 
CHAMAEBATIA 
Chamaebatia australis (Brand.) Abrams has been collected in 
Lower California by Orcutt and Miss Irish and in southern Cali- 
fornia by Pringle in 1882 and by Chandler, zo. 5214. 
CERCOCARPUS 
Cercocarpus macrophyllus C. K. Schneider is the most common 
of the Mexican species of Cercocarpus. Most of the material 
labeled as C. fothergilloides belongs to this species. Some of the 
specimens are cited below. 
VERA Cruz: Orizaba, 1892, J. G. Smith 199; Cuerta de San 
Juan del Estada, Liebman 1710. 
___Hmatco: Pachuca, 1905, Purpus 1139. 
* Ed. 2, 2: 450. 1817. 
Tv. 4: 623. 1816. 
£89: 257.: 1810. 
