104 WILSON EXPEDITION TO CHINA 



The specimens agree well with the description given by Diels and Gilg, but I 

 have not seen the type of the species. It seems to be only a form of V. Piasezkii 

 Maximowicz with undivided or simply lobulate leaves. 



Vitis armata Diels & Gilg in Bot. Jahrb. XXIX. 462 (1900). ^ 



Spinovitis Davidii Romanet du Caillaud in Compt. Rend. Acad. Paris, XCII. 



1096 (nom. nudum) (1881) — Carriere in Rev. Hart. 1881, 239; 1885, 55, 



10; 1891, 102, 24-26. — Planchon in De Candolle, Monogr. Phaner. V. 365 



(quasi synon.) (1887). 

 Vitis Davidii Foex, Cour. Vit. 44 (1886). — Mouillefert, Trai(4 Arh Arbriss. 



II. 803 (1895). — Viala, Ampelogr. I. 437, t. 35 (1910). 



Kiangsi: Ruling, thickets, abundant, alt. 1200 m., June 1907 

 (No. 1695*); cultivated in plain, Kinkiang, alt. 100 m., June 1907 

 (No. 1695). 



Vitis armata, var. cyanocarpa Gagnepain, n. var. 



A typo recedit aculeis rarioribus, interdum fere nullis in ramis 

 hornotinis. An planta hybrida inter V. armatam et V. hetulifoliam? 



Western Hupeh: north and south of Ichang, thickets, alt. 600- 

 1500 m., June and October 1907 (No. 409); Fang Hsien, thickets, alt. 

 1500 m., September 1907 (No. 291), alt. 900-1500 m., July 1907 (No. 

 2732); Hsing-shan Hsien, alt. 1200-1500 m., June and September 1907 

 (No. 603). 



What is possibly the same form has been distributed by Veitch under the name 

 Vitis armata, var. Veitchii, mentioned without sufficient description in his Novelties 

 for 1908-9, 26 f. 



Vitis Thunbergii Siebold & Zuccarini in Abhand. Akad. Miinch. IV. 

 pt. ii. 198; {Fl. Jap. Fam. Nat. 90) (1845). — Planchon in De Candolle, 

 Monogr. Phaner. V. 333 (1887). 



Vitis bryoniaefolia Hance in Jour. Bot. XX., 3 (not Bunge) (1882) 

 Vitis ficifolia Bunge in M^. Sav. &tr. Acad. Sci. St. P6tersb. II. 86 {Enum, PI. 

 Chin. Bot. 12) (1833). 



^ Les descriptions de Romanet du Caillaud et Carridre concemant le Spinovitis 

 Davidii ou Vitis Davidii sont tres insuffisantes au point de vue des caracteres. De 

 plus ces auteurs ont h6sit6 entre deux genres Spinovitis et Vitis, ce dernier cit6 in- 

 decidemment. Au contraire Diels et Gilg ont donne une description qui n'admet 

 aucune equivoque. C'est la raison pour laquelle j'ai pref^r4 aux autres plus an- 

 ciennes, la combinaison plus recente Vitis armata Diels & Gilg. 



F. Gagnepain. 



The descriptions of this plant by Foex and by Mouillefert leave no possible 

 doubt of its identity and we cannot therefore accept the name proposed by Diels 

 & Gilg and now by Monsieur Gagnepain. 



The name therefore of his variety becomes Vitis Davidii, var. cyanocarpa, 

 n. comb. C. S. S. 



