426 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [DECEMBER 
cerasifera; and the fact that it grows from cuttings and its use 
as a stock may be held to strengthen this view. However, it is 
perfectly plain that in the view of early botanists the St. Julians 
were more closely allied to the Damsons, from which they were 
distinguished by their more ellipsoid fruit. 
PRUNUS DOMESTICA CEREA.— The St. Catherine plums form a 
considerable pomological group, and are fairly well represented 
at the present day. St. Catherine, still cultivated in some 
parts of America, is probably the same variety figured and 
described by Duhamel in 1768, and taken by Seringe as the type 
of his botanical variety Catherinea. Linnzeus’ var. Brignola per- 
haps also belongs in this group. 
PRUNUS DOMESTICA AUBERTIANA.—It seems impossible to 
refer any one of Linnzus’ varieties to this group of Seringe. 
Nor do any of the descriptions of Tournefort, Bauhin, or other 
early writers seem to suit. This is so very odd as to raise a fair 
doubt of our understanding, at this point, of the Linnean classifi- 
cation. The plum, Dame Aubert, figured and described by 
Duhamel and (doubtfully) taken by Seringe for his type, was 
certainly old enough to have been known by Linneus, and was 
altogether too conspicuous a thing to have been overlooked. 
The type is preserved to us in Magnum Bonum. 
PRUNUS DOMESTICA GALATENSIS.— This group was evidently 
intended to include the prunes, a class of plums which has often 
been felt, especially in Europe, to stand by itself. The frints 
are usually pyriform, with free stones, and are suitable for drying: 
Considerable confusion exists as regards the reference of many 
cultivated varieties to this group, but the type is fairly clear, 
permanent, and well understood. The common prunes of the 
Pacific states and the ordinary Italian Prune of eastern orchards 
may be taken as the modern representatives of the group. 
I ought now to hasten to say that, in recalling the early views 
of these varietal types, I do not wish for a moment to recom 
mend that they be revived for future use. Perhaps it would be 
worth while to resurrect the variety Damascena, but certainly 
botany has no use for the other variety names now, and hortt- 
