208 BOTANICAI GAZETTE [MARCH 
may be misleading. In Jour. Linn. Soc. (35:601) ‘‘a specimen of P. 
Montezumae containing leaves 12-14 inches long and others 5 inches long 
on the same branch” is cited as if it were unusual. It is evidently the 
arrested growth of a summer shoot that bears the shorter leaves. 
In Bull. Torr. Bot. Club (30:108), Pinus cubensis anomala Rowlee, a 
new variety, is described with ‘‘bracts 8™™ long, green on the young shoot,” 
and further on, “the reversion of the scales to what is generally considered 
the primitive form of the primary leaf of the pine is an exceedingly interesting 
phenomenon.”’ This again, as the specimen shows, is the summer shoot in 
- its usual form, and its counterpart has been observed in a great number 
of species. 
P. teocote Sch. and Deppe, is described as a pine with a lateral cone. 
The summer growth, which is quite frequent on this species, as well as 
on other Mexican pines, is responsible for this error, as the species bears 
normally subterminal conelets. 
. contorta is placed in ENGELMANN’S Revision of the genus Pinus 
(Trans. St. Louis Acad. 4:177) in his section PONDEROSAE, though not 
without hesitation (1. c. 182), on account of its subterminal cone. It is 
nevertheless a true multinodal pine, bearing cones on both lateral and 
terminal nodes. 
In his recent work Wald- und Parkbdéume (1906) HEINRICH MaAyR 
makes a distinction between true and false nodes (echte Quirle and 
Scheinquirle), which may be recognized respectively by the presence 
or absence of bud scales; ‘subterminal and lateral cones” are explained 
in terms of these nodes. His sections PrNASTER and JEFFREYA produce 
cones at the true nodes, his section MURRAYA at the false nodes. Appar- 
ently these characters are held to be invariable, and no allowance is made 
for the appearance of cones at both forms of the nodes on the same species. 
Only on this supposition can the anomalies that appear in Mayr’s classi- 
fication of the pitch pines be explained. 
Pinus rigida is in his section MurRaya; while P. serotina, which does 
not differ from P. rigida in the characters under consideration, is in his 
section JEFFREYA. P. halepensis is in PtnasTeEr, while P. Brutia is in MuR- 
RAYA. P. Sabiniana, P. Coulteri, and P. caribaea which, so far as they 
are affected by these characters, belong in MuRRAYA, are all in JEFFREYA. 
These inconsistencies may all be laid to specimens which happen to bear 
subterminal conelets instead of the characteristic lateral ones. P. chihua- 
huana, which requires three years in which to perfect its cone, is found in 
the section Murraya. Here his distinction between true and false nodes, 
if it is reliable, should have prevented Mayr from mistaking the conelet 
