Rypgperc: Nores on RosAcEAE 489 
Dr. Wolf regards Potentilla ctenophora as a variety of P. 
flabelliformis, which was also my first idea, before I knew the 
plant better. Dr. Wolf makes some remarks which read in trans- 
lation as follows: ‘The relationship of this variety to var. typica 
seems to me about the same as, for instance, that of P. argentea 
var. decumbens to its var. typica, and its elevation to specific rank 
seems to have been made on slight grounds, as the author himself 
in his monograph says that it should perhaps be regarded as a 
variety of P. flabelliformis, as intermediate forms are not lacking. 
Why has he not let it remain in its original category? It seems 
that he makes the limitations of his idea of a species narrower as 
the years pass by.’” This may be in a certain sense true, but it 
has been brought about by a study of many years and the char- 
acters stand out better and better as the plants become better 
known. In this special case Dr. Wolf's remarks were more or 
less amiss. I do not know what specimens he might have had 
at hand to support his statements. Neither in the original descrip- 
tions of P. flabelliformis ctenophora in the Bulletin of the Torrey 
Botanical Club nor in my monograph, did I cite any specimens. 
Unfortunately, I forgot to do so. The illustration in the mono- 
graph gives only a basal leaf. There is nothing to show the 
differences in general habit and the flowers. Professor Piper has 
directed my attention to the fact that my P. ctenophora is the 
same as P. Blaschkeana Lehm. Later he has also recorded his 
views on this point in his Flora of Washington. I agree fully 
with Professor Piper and have stated before that my conception 
of P. Blaschkeana was a composite one, mainly made up of P. 
grosse-serrata. Dr. Wolf, I think, did not make the same mistake, 
for his description points unmistakably to P. Blaschkeana Turcz., 
as described and illustrated by Lehmann, not as characterized 
in my monograph. After the citation of Lehmann’s plate, Dr. 
Wolf gives in parenthesis “(optima)”. His conception of P. 
Blaschkeana was therefore evidently correct. As my P. cteno- 
phora is evidently the same, why should it not be regarded as 
specifically distinct from P. flabelliformis? 
Professor Aven Nelson in the New Manual of Botany of the 
Central Rocky Mountains makes P. Blaschkeana a synonym of 
P. gracilis and P. ctenophora a synonym of P. flabelliformis. 
