424 - BOTANICAL GAZETTE [ DECEMBER 
education at the Royal Gymnasium at Skara, Sweden. As a boy, I 
used to pick and eat the fruit of what there is known as Prunus insititia, 
and as a young botanist I made herbarium specimens theréof. I know 
that the tree which goes under that name is more distinct from P. 
domestica, as well as from P. spinosa, than P. hortulana, or P. nigra, or 
even P. angustifolia is from P. Americana. I know that there are at 
least three species of plums in Sweden, for I have seen them myself. 
The latest catalogue of the plants of Scandinavia, published in 1897, 
also gives the following plums: “ Prunus spinosa L., P. spinosa coata- 
nea W. &. Gr., P. insititia L., P. insititia rustica Hn., and P. domestica 
L.” Of these the first three are recognized as being natives of Sweden, 
while P. domestica and P. insititia rustica are regarded as only escaped 
from cultivation. So far as I know, P. cnsititia L. has always been 
regarded as a good species in Sweden; but let us see how botanists of 
other countries have treated it. 
As Linnzus in the original description stated that P. cusititia is a 
native of England and Germany, it will suffice to see how the botanists 
of those countries have treated the species. In almost every German 
flora P. insititia is regarded as a good species. Koch, the acknowl- 
edged authority in Germany, recognized it, and in Thomé’s elaborate 
work there is an excellent description. 
It is true that Bentham put P. domestica, P. insititia, and P. spinosa 
into P. communis Huds.; but Hooker, who has always been known for 
his conservatism, recognized all three as distinct species, not to men- 
tion other less important English botanists. It is figured in Sowerby’s 
English Botany 12 : 841. 
With these facts in view, it is surprising that one who has not studied 
the native plums of Europe in the field, with the few specimens found 
in the American herbaria, undertakes to settle the existence or non- 
existence of P. ¢nsititia, and can state positively ‘that there is no such 
species as P. insititia.”’ 
If Professor Waugh had said that P. insititia is the same as P. domes- 
“ica Damascena, or that P. insititia is not found in America, I should 
have been the last to criticise. I have not the means to disprove the 
former, and I am more than willing to accept the latter. /?. domestica 
Damascena \. was based upon “ Pruna majora dulcia et parva cain 
caerulea, Bauh. pin. 443, 0.23,” and P. insititia L. on “ Pruna sylvestria 
praccocta, Bauh. pin. 444.” Apparently, therefore, they seem to 
two different things. For that matter they might well belong to 
