250 WILSON EXPEDITION TO CHINA 



28. Rhamnus argutus Maximowicz in Mem. Acad. Sd. St. Petershourg, s^r. 7, 

 IV. No. XI. 6 {Rhamn. Or.-As.) (1866); Schneider, III. Handh. Laubholzk. II. 

 289, fig. 197 1-n, 199 h-h^ (1909). 



Northern China: Weichang, 1910, W. Purdom (No. 32; bush 1-1.25 m. 

 tall). 



This differs from all other known Chinese species in the very small and slender 

 teeth of its orbicular-ovate leaves. 



29. Rhamnus Schneideri L6veille et Vaniot in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. VI. 265 

 (1908). 



Korea: Nai-Piang, July 1901, U. Faurie (No. 234). 



In my III. Handh. Laudholzk. II. 286 (1909) I mentioned this number of 

 Faurie as probably a new species. To this species may belong also No. 501 of the 

 same collector from the " Mont des diamants," June 22, 1906, but the leaves are 

 somewhat pubescent. From R. koraiensis it may be distinguished by the more 

 elongate leaves with a different serration and the longer and glabrous pedicels. 



30. Rhamnus parvifolius Bunge in Mem. Sav. fltr. Acad. Sd. St. Petershourg, 

 II. 88 (Enum. PI. Chin. Bot. 14) (1833). — Hemsley in Jour. Linn. Soc. XXIII. 

 129 (1886). — Schneider, III. Handh. Laubholzk. II. 285, fig. 192 i-1, 196 x-y^ 

 (1909). 



Rhamnus polymorphus Turczaninow in Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc. XV. 713 



(1842). 

 Rhamnus virgatus, var. sylvestris Maximowicz in Mem. Acad. Sci. St. Peters- 

 hourg, s6t. 7, IV. No. XI. 13 {Rhamn. Or.-As.) (1866). 

 Chili: Weichang, 1910, Wm. Purdom (Nos. 298, 299). 



The young flowering branches collected by Purdom probably belong to this 

 species, which I have interpreted differently from Komarov (in Act. Hort. Petrop. 

 XXV. 11 {Fl. Mansh. III.) [1907]). According to a specimen from northern Korea 

 (May 18, 1897) collected and distributed by Komarov under the name of R. glo- 

 bosus, this author takes the glabrous forms for that species. But otherwise Ko- 

 marov unites R. polymorphus Turczaninow with R. parvifolius. Unfortunately 

 I cannot read his remarks in Russian on these two species and so I cannot under- 

 stand his true meaning. 



These two and the allied species need further investigation, because it is very 

 difficult to decide whether the characters on which they are based are constant. 

 The shape of the leaves may often be an unreliable character, but I do not know 

 if characters taken from the^flowers, seeds and branchlets are more stable. 



31. Rhamnus leptophyllus Schneider. See p. 239. 

 Rhamnus leptophyllus, var. milensis Schneider, n. var. 



Arbor ad 3.5 m. alta, spinosus; ramuli hornotini oHvacei v. brunnescentes, 

 puberuH v. fere glaberrimi, satis elongati nondum visi, vetustiores cortice laevi colore 

 corticis cerasi obtecti v. cinerascentes, glabri: ramuli abbreviati laterales distincti. 

 Folia ramulorum abbreviatorum obovato-oblonga, basim versus sensim in petiolum 

 10-20 mm. longum attenuata, apice plus minus subito breviter-acuminata, supra 

 viridia, etiam matura sparse pilosa, subtus pallidiora, pilis sparsis praesertim ad 

 nervos utrinsecus 2-3 elevatos arcuatos obtecta v. glabra et tantum barbulata, 

 margine plus minus distincte crenato-serrata, versus basim Integra, majora 4-8 

 cm. longa, 2-3.5 cm. lata; petioli supra sulcati, pilosi. Flores masculi apice ramu- 

 lorum fasciculati, virides, glabri, tetrameri, circiter 5 mm. longi; pedicelli 5-8 

 mm. longi, glabri; sepala lanceolata, satis acuminata, receptaculo distincte lon- 

 giora; petala ovato-lanceolata, sepalis duplo breviora, staminibus aequilonga, in 

 sicco brunnescentia; ovaria perparva, valde reducta. Fructus niger, subglobosus, 



