— LLL =— aime 
1907] SCHN EIDER—CONSPECTUS GENERIS AMORPHAE 307 
vel emarginatis, mucronatis; fructibus maturis 5-6™™ longis, dorso rectis, satis 
glanduloso-verrucosi 
Var. PUBESCENS ive Pl. Wright. 49. 1852.—A. jruticosa var. 
subglabra Gray, Jour. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. 6:174 (the first sub- 
glabra on this page!) 1850; A. texana Buckl. Proc. Philad. Acad. 
452. 1861 (sed confer etiam Gray, eod. loco, p. 162. 1862!); 
subglabra Heller, Bot. Explor. South Texas 48. 1895. 
The type of this variety is the same as Lindheimer specimen vi. 47, on a creek 
near Fredricksburg, Texas; according to my view this is only a variety of 
A. laevigata, if the latter is rightly interpreted above. Gray (I. c.) and HELLER 
(1. c.) state that the true A. fexana in no wa ay differs from var. pubescens (=var. 
Texas, can be best taken as such a variety. There are some more pubescent 
forms which I name f. mollis (=A. texana var. mollis Boynt. Biltm. Bot. Stud. 
I:139. 1902). To this form belongs a sterile specimen in Herb. Mo. Bot. Gard., 
with the printed statement ‘remnants of Buckley’s Texas Herb.,” and named in 
Boynton’s hand “‘laevigata pubescens Gray.” 
14. A. PANICULATA Torr. et Gray, Fl. N. Am. 1:306. 1838.— 
A. Roemeriana Scheele, Linnaea 21:461. 1848. 
Texas.—Lynchburg, Lindheimer, vii. 42 et (loco non indicato) no. 37. 
(anno 1843); Gladewater, Reverchon, no. 2665; Brazos, Lindheimer, no. 18 
(anno 1843); Anderson Co., Eggert, 11. vi. 99; loco non indicato, Pammel, 
vil. 88; Drummond, no. 461 deel, 261), anno 1835; Marshall, Bush, no. 991. 
I conclude this account with the words of SCHLECHTENDAHL, 
which seem to me as true today as they were some fifty years ago: 
“Quae omnia fusius exposimus, ut inde pateat, quanta sit confusio 
in hoc genere et quam insufficiens status cognitionis nostrae.”’ 
VIENNA, AUSTRIA 
