SILVA OF NORTH AMERICA. ROSACEZE. 
134 
Crategus coccinea inhabits the slopes of hills and the high banks of salt marshes, growing 
usually in rich well-drained soil from Essex County, Massachusetts, to Newfoundland, usually in the 
neighborhood of the sea, and through the valley of the St. Lawrence to western Quebec. 
A variety of this species, Crategus coccinea rotundifolia,’ often grows with it in the same 
thickets, and can only be distinguished by its glabrous young branches, leaves, and corymbs, while 
connecting these glabrous plants with those which are extremely villose are others which display all 
degrees of variation in the development of their villose covering. Crategus coccinea rotundifolia is 
one of the commonest New England shrubby Thorns, and ranges southward to eastern Pennsylvania.” 
f. 1) were referred by Linneus to his Crategus coccinea. Pluke- 
net’s plant is preserved in the British Museum. It belongs to the 
mollis group, but the specimen is so meagre that I have been 
unable to identify it. Miller’s figure perhaps represents a species 
of the mollis group, but it is certainly not the same plant as the one 
figured by Plukenet, and I am unable to recognize it. The only 
representative of Crategus coccinea in Linneus’s herbarium, a 
specimen so labeled by him, is an entirely different plant from 
either of those represented in Plukenet’s or Miller’s figures which 
Linnzus had referred to his species. Moreover, the specimen is 
not glabrous but villose on the leaves, corymb, and young branches, 
and the leaves can hardly be described as “ repando-angulatis ser- 
ratis.” The Linnean specimen is not dated, and it is therefore 
possible that it was not from this specimen but from Plukenet’s or 
Miller’s figure that Linnzus drew his description of Crategus coc- 
cinea. There seems in this case, therefore, but one of two courses 
to follow in considering this name. Either the specimen in Lin- 
neus’s herbarium must be ignored as not agreeing with his de- 
scription, and the name dropped entirely because it was given to a 
species founded on two distinct plants, neither of which can be sat- 
isfactorily determined, or the specimen in the Linnean herbarium 
labeled Crataegus coccinea by Linneus himself must be accepted as 
his type of this species. In view of the fact that the name Cra- 
teegus coccinea is one of the best known of the names which have 
been applied to American species of the genus, and as the plant 
labeled Crategus coccinea by Linneus is now known to be a com- 
mon and widely distributed species in the north Atlantic coast 
region, it is perhaps best to consider the specimen in the Linnean 
herbarium as the type of Crategus coccinea. 
1 Crategus coccinea rotundifolia, Sargent, Bot. Gazette, xxxi. 14 
(1901). 
Crategus rotundifolia, Moench, Baume Weiss. 29, t. 1 (1785). — 
Poiret, Lamarck Dict.iv. 447. —K. Koch, Verhandl. Preuss. Gart. 
Vereins, 236 (Crataegus und Mespilus). — Koehne, Deutsche Dendr. 
231. — Lange, Rev. Spec. Gen. Crategi, 66. 
Mespilus glandulosa, Ehrhart, Beitr. iii. 20 (1788). — Willde- 
now, Enum. 523. — Schmidt, Oestr. Baumz. iv. 33, t. 213. —Wat- 
son, Dendr. Brit. i. 58, t. 58. — Sprengel, Syst. ii. 507 (excl. syn. 
Crategus sanguinea, Pallas). — Spach, Hist. Vég. ii. 62. — Poiret, 
I. c. Suppl. iv. 69. — K. Koch, Dendr. i. 145 (excl. syn. Crataegus 
sanguinea, Torrey & Gray). 
Crategus glandulosa, Willdenow, Berl. Baumz. 84 (excl. syn. 
Crategus sanguinea). — Pursh, Fl. i. 337 (excl. syn. Crataegus 
sanguinea). — Wendland, Flora, 1823, ii. 700.— Torrey, Fi. 
Northern and Middle States, 475.— De Candolle, Prodr. ii. 627 
(excl. syn. Crategus sanguinea). — Loddiges, Bot. Cab. t. 1012. — 
Hooker, Fl. Bor. Am. i. 201.— Loudon, Arb. Brit. ii. 817 (in 
part). — Regel, Act. Hort. Petrop. i. 120. 
Crategus horrida, Medicus, Gresch. Bot. 84 (1793). 
Mespilus rotundifolia, Du Roi, Harbk. Baumz. ed. 2, ii. 607 (excl. 
syn. Crategus glandulosa, Aiton) (1795). — K. Koch, J. c. 148. 
Crategus coccinea, Lindley, Bot. Reg. xxiii. t. 1957 (not Lin- 
neus) (1837).— Torrey & Gray, Fl. N. Am. i. 465 (in part) 
(not Linnzus). 
? Crategus glandulosa, B rotundifolia, Regel, Act. Hort. Petrop. 
i. 120 (1870). 
Crategus coccinea, var. macracantha, Sargent, Silva N. Am. iv. 
96 (in part) (not Dudley) (1892). 
2 The description of Crategus coccinea in an earlier volume of 
this work (iv. 95) includes a number of forms which are now 
believed to be distinct, although among them is not the plant which 
was called Crategus coccinea by Linneus as shown by his her- 
barium. The description of Crategus coccinea, var. macracantha 
in that volume was partly drawn from the form now called Cra- 
The plate of Crategus coccinea (t. 130) 
represents one of the thin-leaved shrubby species long confounded 
teegus coccinea rotundifolia. 
with Crataegus coccinea, which I have recently described as Cra- 
tegus pastorum (Rhodora, iii. 24 [1901]). 
EXPLANATION OF THE PLATE. 
Puate DCLX XXIII. 
CRATEGUS COCCINEA. 
1. A flowering branch, natural size. 
AID oO FP W bO 
. Vertical section of a flower, enlarged. 
. A calyx-lobe, enlarged. 
. A fruiting branch, natural size. 
. Cross section of a fruit, natural size. 
. A nutlet, side view, enlarged. 
. A nutlet, rear view, enlarged. 
