ROSACEAE. — MALUS 289 



Of this tree I have seen only cultivated plants and specimens from cultivated 

 plants from various gardens in this country and in Europe. They show some vari- 

 ation in the degree of pubescence; most of them have the pedicels and calyx more 

 or less tomentose as described by Willdenow, while in the plant growing in the 

 Arnold Arboretum they are glabrous, as described bj' De Candolle. The leaves 

 resemble those of M. baccata Desfontaines; they are slightly pubescent on the 

 veins below and glabrous at maturity; the flowers are white and the fruits vary 

 from yellow to red and from globose to ovoid in shape. 



Malus prunifolia has been supposed, like its variety rinki, to be of hybrid origin, 

 but the discovery of the native habitat of var. rinki shows that this theory cannot be 

 accepted; there are, moreover, no two species of Malus in eastern Asia which could 

 produce by hybridizing a plant with the characters of M. prunifolia or its variety. 

 The native country of M. prunifolia will probably be discovered some time in the 

 near future and it is very likely that it will turn out to be Siberia whence the 

 plant is supposed to have been introduced. There is little doubt that M. prunifolia 

 and M. ringo are forms of one species, the first being the northern glabrescent, the 

 second the southern pubescent form, a parallel case to t^hat of M. baccata and its 

 variety mandshurica. Besides in the greater amount of pubescence the variety 

 rinki differs only in the usually somewhat shorter petioles and the more or less 

 pink or pinkish flowers. 



Malus prunifolia, var. rinki Rehder. See p. 279. 

 2. Malus spectabilis Borkhausen, Handb. Forstbot. II. 1279 (1803). — Des- 

 fontaines, Hist. Arb. II. 141 (1809). — Spach, Hist. Veg. II. 134 (1834).— 

 Decaisne in Nouv. Arch.Mus. Paris, X. 155 (Mem. Favi. Pom.) (1874). — Schneider, 

 m. Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 719, fig. 397 g-gS 398 c-d (1906). — Koidzumi in Jour. 

 Coll. Sci. Tokyo, XXXIV. art. 2, 88 (Consp. Rosac. Jap.) (1913), exclud. synon. 

 "P. spectabilis var. Kaido" et " P. Ringo var. Kaido." 



Pyrus spectabilis Aiton, Hort. Kew. II. 175 (1789). — Schneevoogt, Icon. PI. 

 Rar. t. 15 (1793). — Curtis in Bot. Mag. VIII. t. 267 (1794). — Willdenow, 

 Bcrl. Baumz. 263 (1796); Spec. 11. 2, 1018 (1799). — Watson, Dcndr. 

 Brit. I. t. 50 (1825). — De Candolle, Prodr. II. 635 (1825). — Bunge in 

 Mem. Sav. Etr. Acad. Sci. St. Petersbourg, II. 101 {Enum. PI. Chin. Bor. 27) 

 (1835). — Siebold & Zuccarini in Abh. Akad. Miinch. IV. 2, 131 (Fl. Jap. 

 Fam. Nat. I. 23) (1846). — Miquel, in Ann. Mus. Lugd.-Bat. III. 40 (1867); 

 Prol. Fl. Jap. 228 (1867). — K. Koch, Dendr. I. 209 (1869). — Maximo- 

 wicz in Bull. Acad. Sci. St. Petersbourg, XIX. 170 (1873); in Mel. Biol. IX. 

 166 (1873), exclud. synonymo "Malus floribunda." — Wenzig in Linnaea 

 XXXVIII. 42 (1874). — Franchet & Savatier, Enum. PL Jap. 1. 138 

 (1875); II. 349 (1879). — Franchet in Mem. Soc. Sci. Nat. Cherbourg, 

 XXIV. 217 (Cat. PI. Tchefou) (1882); in Nouv. Arch. Mus. Paris, ser. 

 2, V. 271 (PI. David. I. 119) (1883). — Hemsley in Jour. Linn. Soc. XXIII. 

 258 (1887), exclud. synon. " Malus floribunda," " Pyrus floribunda," "Malus 

 microcarpa " et plantas e Kiangsi et Hupeh. — Pahbin in Act. Hort. Petrop. 

 XVII. 75 (Cojisp. Fl. Kor. 1) (1898). — Bailey, Cycl. Am. Hort. III. 1473, 

 fig. 2026 (1901). — Komarov in Act. Hort. Petrop. XXII. 478 (Fl. Mansh. II.) 

 (1904). — Nakai in Jour. Coll. Sci. Tokyo, XXVI. art. 1, 180 (FL Kor.) (1909). 

 Malus sinensis Dumont de Coursct, Bot. Cult. ed. 2, V. 429 (1811). 

 Pyrus spectabilis, var. Riversii Booth apud Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, 



Arb. Muse. 326 (1865). — Bailey, Cycl. Am. HorL III. 1473 (1901). 

 Malus microcarpa spectabilis Cariiere, Etude Pomm. Microcarp. 114 (1883). 

 Pyrus sinensis Dumont do Courset ex Jackson, Ind. Kew. 11. 669 (pro synon.) 

 (1895). 



