124 



lected as many specimens of B. sphaerocarpa (no. 3475) and 

 the intermediate (no. 3476) as I could manage, leaving B. 

 leucophaea because that was well known and my portfolio was 

 already too full. Photographs of all three were attempted, but 

 turned out poorly on account of the clouds, wind, and a little 

 camera trouble. 



As the intermediate form was found only in close proximity 

 to the other two, and not where B. sphaerocarpa was abundant 

 and B. leucophaea absent, it is a reasonable assumption that it 

 is a hybrid. Apparently there are few if any definite records of 

 hybrids in Baptisia, though Prof. Hitchcock found a plant in 

 the vicinity of Manhattan, Kansas, which he believed to be a 

 hybrid between B. australis and B. leucophaea;^ and B. micro- 

 phylla Nutt. {B. stipulacea Ravenel), found near Aiken, South 

 Carolina, by several 19th century collectors, but apparently not 

 by any one now living, is strongly suspected to be a hybrid be- 

 tween B. perfoliata and some other species. Hybrids have often 

 been given specific names, but there seems to be no advantage 

 in doing so when the parentage is reasonably certain. And it is 

 not even necessary to describe this plant, for an average of the 

 existing descriptions of the two parents should suffice. 



The simple leaves of many specimens of B. sphaerocarpa 

 have been mentioned above. That characteristic did not seem 

 to be passed on to the hybrid, for all the leaves I saw on it were 

 trifoliate. But, as already noted, the simple leaves are more 

 characteristic of juvenile plants, and perhaps B. sphaerocarpa 

 does not produce hybrid progeny until it has outgrown that 

 stage. (That is something for the geneticists to work on, if they 

 are interested.) 



From the description of SmaW's Baptisia Bushii, from Texas, 

 I guessed that that might be the same as my hybrid, for B. 

 leucophaea and B. sphaerocarpa are both known from Texas, and 

 may grow in proximity and hybridize there. But Miss Maxine 

 Larisey, who is studying Baptisia at the Missouri Botanical 

 Garden, has compared my plant with authentic specimens of 

 B. Bushii, and thinks they are not the same. Perhaps this note 

 will stimulate some trans-Mississippi botanist to investigate it, 

 and some of the other problems outlined here. 



University, Ala. 



« A. S. Hitchcock, Bot. Gaz. 19: 42. 1894. Also referred to incidentally in 

 Robinson & Fernald's ("Gray's") Manual (1908), page 506. 



