70 ARKIV FÖR BOTANIK. BAND 13. N:0 15. 



prov. Barahona, anno 1911, Miguel Fuertes sine num. 

 (KU) 



Another Vernonia, the history of which begins with 

 Plumier and Surian. Like V. arhorescens (L.) Sw., it was 

 figured in Pltjm. ed. Burm., and on this figure Linn je us based 

 his Conyza jruticosa. Since there was no specimen of it preserved, 

 its identity remained mysterious to botanists, and the name 

 V. jruticosa (L. ) Sw. has been applied to many West Indian 

 species, recently to F. rigida Sw, (Gleason, 1906 b, p. 182), 

 SwARTZ himself comparing this species with F. jruticosa. It 

 was not until Picarda recollected it about the year 1889 

 that Prof. Urban was able to identify the species, as shown 

 by the remarks on the labels of the specimens in the Krug- 

 -Urban Herbarium. In fact, there can be no doubt that 

 this identification is correct. Especially Miguel Fuertes 

 n. 655 agrees perfectly with the figure in Plum. ed. Burm. 

 There is moreover not a word in the description to that figure. 

 Plum. ed. Burm. p. 83, that does not appty to our plant. Its 

 phrase name »Conyza jrutescens, Cydonice jolio» is singularly 

 apposite, the leaves resembling throughout those of Cy- 

 donia vulgaris L., their pubescense being nearly the same. 

 Burmann's particular phrase name (or diagnosis?) of the 

 plant: »Conyza foliis ovatis, caule fruticoso, floribus axilla- 

 ribus solitariis, sessilibus» and his description: »Planta fruti- 

 cosa, ramulis flexuosis, a folio ad folium eleganter inclinatis. 

 Folia alterna, obtusa, undulata, venosa. Flores solitarii 

 in quavis ala sessiles» are apparently made from Plumier's 

 figure, giving no character beyond this, and consequently agre- 

 eing perfectly with our plant. 



F. jruticosa is hitherto only found in the south-western 

 part of Hispaniola, where it appears to be rather frequent. 

 Its nearest allies are the Vernoniae of Jamaica, as also some 

 species of eastern Cuba, especially F. calophylla Gleason. 



Though the material at hand is not abundant, it indicates 

 a certain variability of the species. Two fairly distinct forms 

 can be distinguished. One is represented by the plants 

 collected by Miguel Fuertes. It has long, leafy cymes not 

 forming a distinct inflorescence; the scales of the involucres 

 are acute and elongated. The second form has smaller leaves, 

 shorter cymes with more approximated heads and bluntish 

 scales. It appears to be the common one. Possibly the two 



