POMACEAE 207 



seems to have been largely concentrated in the northeastern quar- 

 ter of the state; and the results might be different if every county 

 was explored by Crataegus specialists ; but the following figures 

 are at least suggestive. Twelve species are pretty widely distrib- 

 uted in the state, 22 are chiefly northeastern. 4 northern, 11 cen- 

 tral, "i southeastern, 5 southwestern, and 2 southern. 



In the second editions of Sargent's ]\Ianual (1922) and Sud- 

 worth's Check List (192T) only about 25 species of Crataegus are 

 assigned to Alaljama, G of which are supposed to be confined to 

 the state. The difference between these figures and Small's C3 

 is due partly to the omission of the shrubby species, but mostly to 

 a more conservative view of what constitutes a species. Nine of 

 the 25 are pretty widely distributed in the state. 5 are northeastern. 

 4 northern, 4 central, and 3 southern. 



If we assume that the arrangement of species by Beadle in 

 Small's Flora is a fair indication of relationship, there is a marked 

 tendency for related forms to inhabit the same neighljorhoods (in 

 Alabama and elsewhere). Taking the tribes in the order of the 

 book, it appears that the Alabama species of the Tomentosae. Cor- 

 datae, Aestivales and Virides are widely distributed within and 

 without the state, the Sargentianae are mostly northeastern, the 

 Pulcherrimae mostly southwestern, the Euflavae mostly northeast- 

 ern, the Msendae. Integrae. Dentatae. Attritae. Aniso])hvllae and 

 Recurvae mostly southeastern, and so on. Of course further ex- 

 ploration and study might necessitate some modification of these 

 statements, but the tendencies shown are worth bearing in mind. 

 It happens that the first four tribes here named consist largely 

 of long known and easily recognized species ; but it is possible that 

 the splitting process simply has not been carried as far in those 

 groups as in the others, and at some future time they too may 

 be divided into many ill-defined '"species" of limited range. On 

 the other hand a conservative person might claim that the tribes 

 are the real species, and the alleged species in them nothing but 

 varieties, caused by slight differences in habitat; in which case 

 there would be nothing surprising about similar forms occurring 

 in the same regions. 



The enormous multiplication of Crataegus species calls for 

 some comment. Very likely those who first described them be- 



