^ 



29 



Of about 45 species collected that afternoon, the most 

 notable were the little white-flowered Sednm Nevii growing- 



men are ovate-acuminate, coriaceous in texture, glabrous above, slightly 

 hairy beneath and strongly reticulated on both surfaces. On the whole it 

 more nearly approaches your specimens of C. ochroleiica. Ait., than it does 

 those which you send as C. ovata^ and we should be consequently inclined to 

 refer it to C. ockroletica^ Ait. It certainly is not your C, ovata. In this con- 

 clusion we agree with Dr. Gray's note in the Bot. Mag. to which you refer. 



"There is another specimen of Clematis— wy^ — in the Sherardian col- 

 lection, which is labelled as follows : 



" * Clematis erecta, humilis non ramosa, foliis subrotundis flore unico ochro- 

 leuco. Banist. Cat. Pluk. Mant. 51, T. 379, 65.' 



''On this label is written in pencil, ' C ochroleuca^'' and there is no doubt 



[ that the determination is correct. 



)> 



■J 



It will be seen that this examination setrles conclusively that ourplant is not 

 C ovata^ Pursh, and therefore must receive another name. The question next 

 arises, What is C, ovata^ Pursh? There seems still to be question as to its 

 equivalency with C ochroleiua^ from which Pursh distinguished xi^ for he re- ,- 



published C ochroleuca^ Ait., as C. sericea. It was collected on Negroe's Head, ^ '•' "- ^ ' 

 which is a mountain of the southern Blue Ridge, while C. ochrolenca is, to my 

 knowledge, not a mountain species at all, but grows in sandy or gravelly soil 

 from southern New York to North Carolina, On the western side of Staten 

 Island it occurs in almost pure sand on a dune. 



In August of the present year I collected a numberof specimens of a Clematis 

 in fruit, high up on Kate's Mountain, at White Sulphur Springs, W. Va., which 

 I supposed was C ochrolcuca^ although quite surprised to find it in such a 

 place. The soil was rocky and the plants smaller than those of C ochroieuca 

 generally are. On examining this critically, I find that it differs from the low- 

 land plant in being almost glabrous, the lower-leaf surfaces and twigs of C, 

 ochroieuca retaining their somewhat dense pubesence to the last. But the most 

 striking difference is in the color of the plumose styles ; they are grayish 

 white, while those of C. ^r^ri^/c^wra are always brown; besides this, they are 

 proportionately shorter. Judge Brown had previously called my attention to 

 the great difference in color of the plumes in various species of Clematis, and 

 it certainly seems to be a valuable character. After receiving the information 

 above quoted from Professor Vines, I sent off specimens of this plant to 

 Oxford, and have the following note from that gentleman, to whom I would 

 express my sincere gratitude for the considerable trouble he has taken in the 

 matter; ''In reply toyour^ of November 10, referring to the Clematis ^w^^Won, 

 I hasten to inform you that Mr. Druce and I have carefully compared the 

 specimens of Clematis collected by you at White Sulphur Springs, West 

 Virginia, with our specimen of C. ovata, Pursh. We have come to the con- 

 clusion that the two plants are identical. The texture and venation of the 

 leaves and the fruit are remarkably similar ixv the two, but in our specimen 

 the leaves are slightly more acuminate than in yours/' 



