CAPRIFOLIACEAE. — LONICERA 129 



Linnaea (Abelia) Spaethiana {biflora X rupestris) Graebner in Bot. Jahrb. 

 XXIX. 144 (1900). 



Linnaea (Abelia) Perringiana (uniflora X chinensis) Graebner, I.e. 145 (1900). 

 This hybrid is not uncommon in cultivation under the name of A. rupestris; 

 five of the specimens before me from different gardens are named thus, while one 

 is named A. uniflora and one A. chinensis. They differ only slightly from each other 

 and are all clearly intermediate between A. chinensis and A. uniflora, and exhibit 

 not the shghtest trace of an influence of A. biflora which, moreover, so far as I 

 know, has never been in cultivation. The hybrid is hardier than either of its 

 parents, which accounts for its wider distribution in our gardens. When and where 

 it originated I have been unable to find out. The oldest specimen I have seen was 

 collected at Kew in 1880 by G. Nicholson under the name of A. rupestris; it may 

 be the form sent out by Veitch as A. rupestris grandiflora alba according to Andr6. 

 The form described by Andre as A. rupestris grandiflora originated in the nurseries 

 of Rovelli Brothers at Pallanza, Italy. I have before me a specimen collected in 

 Lavalle's Arboretum at Segrez in 1887 where it was, according to the label, received 

 from Rovelli under that name. 



SPECIES TO BE EXCLUDED 



Abelia splendens Hort. ex K. Koch, Dendr. II. 1, p. 20 (as synon.) (1872) = 

 Lonicera fragrantissima Lindley & Paxton. 



Abelia adenotricha Hance in Jour. Bot. IX. 132, 1871 {Linnaea adenotricha 

 Graebner in Bot. Jahrb. XXIX. 144 [1900]) = Lonicera Elisae Franchet. 



Though I have not seen Hance's specimen, I accept, after comparing his de- 

 scription with Lonicera Elisae, as correct Franchet's suggestion (Plant. David. 

 I. 152) that Abelia adenotricha is probably the same as Lonicera Elisae. All the 

 characters even including measurements agree with those of L. Elisae, and the 

 peculiar inflorescence which seemed so strange to Maximowicz (Mel. Biol. XII. 

 479) may be explained, if one imagines that Hance had a specimen like the upper 

 part of Franchet's figure of L. Elisae; Hance may have easily taken the sohtary 

 peduncle as originating between the two branchlets. Place and time of collection 

 of the two species also agree. As there is no other plant among the undoubtedly 

 complete set of David's plants sent to Paris and determined by Franchet, which 

 corresponds to A. adenotricha, hardly any doubt seems to be left that Hance's 

 name must be referred as a synonym to L. Elisae. 



LONICERA L. 



Subgen. I. CHAMAECERASUS L. 



Sect. I. ISOXYLOSTEUM Rehd. 



Subsect. MicROSTYLAE Rehd. 



Lonicera tubuliflora Rehder, n. sp. 



Frutex erectus 1-4 m. altus ramulis gracilibus, hornotinis plerumque 

 purpurascentibus breviter et dense villosis interdum glandulis paucis 

 interspersis, annotinis pallide flavido-brunneis, vetustioribus griseis 

 cortice fibrose. Gemmae parvae, griseo-flavescentes, 4 perulis exteriori- 



