\ B - 



*%* von*' 



CEANOTHUS. >P^ - i%- 



bark, occasionally covered with patches of resinous warts, yoheger 

 branches with a short, appressed pubescence, mixed with longer, scat- 

 tered hairs; leaves short-petiolate, elliptic to ovate, 20-30 mm. in 

 length, 10 mm. broad, much smaller on the secondary branches, smooth 

 above, in the fresh-growing shoots coated with a light varnish, finely 

 ciliate-glandular, rarely in vigorous shoots crenately margined, paler 

 beneath, with ciliate hairs on the veins, distinctly triple-nerved; stipules 

 rather rigid, and often covered with an adhesive resinous varnish; in- 

 rloresence more or less prolonged beyond the leaves, compactly oval 

 or loosely thyrsoid, flowers bright blue; fruit 4 mm. broad, smooth, 

 without crests. In cultivated specimens where the growth is prolonged 

 by irrigation, the dense branches with their deep green, glossy foliage 

 form neat, compact clumps, fully justifying the proposed name of 

 intricatus. 



It was reserved for a quiet closet retreat, 2,000 miles from its place 

 of growth, to determine the true systematic relations of this species, 

 and correct the synonomy. Being particularly desirous to settle 

 definitely the early described species, C. sorediatus, Hook. & Arm, I 

 applied by letter to Professor Watson, at Cambridge, Mass., and also 

 to the Herbarium of the Royal Gardens, at Kew, England, for any 

 fragments that might be spared of the typical Douglasian specimens. 

 With the usual courtesy, I was favored with two leaves from Cambridge, 

 and a somewhat larger fragment from Kew, kindly supplied by Mr. J. 

 G. Baker, of that world-renowned institution. I at once recognized 

 that these specimens were identical with the plant above described, and 

 that the C. intricatus, Parry — fortunately not widely distributed — 

 should be reduced to a synonym of C. sorediatus, Hook. & Am. 



Having thus clearly and satisfactorily defined the true C. sorediatus. 

 Hook. & Arm, also determining its proper geographic range, not 

 apparently extending far south of San Francisco Bay, it became neces- 

 sary to re-examine the various forms which had been erroneously 

 referred to this species. The suggestion of Professor Trelease in his 

 recent notes on Ceanothus, that probably "one or more species may 

 ultimately be separated" from the diverse plants included under C. 

 sorediatus, Hook. & Am., by more recent authors, must here receive 

 verification. 



Thus, the specimens from the Upper Sacramento Valley, at lone, 

 which, in my recent paper, I took to represent the typical C. sorediatus. 

 Hook. & Arm, and sparingly distributed under that name, proves to be 

 the first one calling for separation. As this can be quite satisfactorily 



