24 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [JANUARY 
specimen collected by Wilkinson, April 4, 1885 (m.; W.), the exact locality of 
which I cannot discover, shows rather large elliptic anthers. 
The varieties distinguished by ANDERSSON as var. lejocarpa and var. 
sericocarpa (sericocoma) with glabrescent or densely hairy capsules I cannot 
identify because he does not cite any specimens. The young ovaries are 
always pubescent, and even the ripe fruits seem to be never wholly glabrous. 
See also my remarks under the following variety. 
gb. S. TAXIFOLIA, var. microphylla Schn., nov. var.—S. micro- 
phylla Schl. and Cham. in Linnaea 6:354. 1831; Hooker and 
Arn., Bot. Beech. Voy. 310. #/. 70. 1840; Mart. and Gal. in Bull. 
Acad. R. Brux. 107:345 (Enum. Pl. Gal. Mex. 5). 1843; Rowlee 
in Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 27:249. 1900, pro parte; S. taxifolia And., 
l.c. and Hemsl., 1. c. (sub taxifolia) pro parte, non Kunth; Loes. in 
Bull. Herb. Boiss. 7:545 (Pl. Seler. 67). 1899.—A typo praecipue 
recedit: pubescentia ramulorum novellorum magis villosa vel 
fere subhirsuta, foliis ut videtur minus crassis subtus magis dis- 
coloribus distinctius sericeis interdum oblanceolatis et pro longi- 
tudine satis latis distinctius denticulatis, stipulis ovato-lanceolatis 
vel lanceolatis petiolo brevissimo sublongioribus, floribus masculis 
fere semper glandula tantum ventrali praeditis, amentis fructiferis 
subcrassioribus 2:1.2 cm. magnis. 
YPE LOCALITY.—Mexico, state of Vera Cruz, ‘“‘ad ripam arenosam 
fluminis Sys sies prope San Pablo 
G ntral Mexico to Guatemala and Porto Rico. I have seen 
specimens ea the states of Vera Cruz, San Luis Potosi, Coahuila, Terr. 
Tepic, apes Michoacan, Morelos, Puebla, Oaxaca, and from Guatemala 
and Porto Ri 
aoe “EXAMINED.—The numerous Mexican specimens I have seen 
will be enumerated in my final book. Guatemala: on the river Pinula, on the 
road from Guatemala to Amatillan, 1845, Skinner (f., ex Herb. Bentham in 
Herb. N.).—Porto Rico: “Lago San José, prés San Juan, October 1909,” 
Hiorémi (m.; G.; an indigena ?). 
This variety is undoubtedly very closely related to the typical taxifolia 
and can hardly be regarded as a good species. The principal characters have 
already been stated. In S. taxifolia the leaves are somewhat longer, narrower, 
and more entire, the stipules are wanting or scarcely developed, the male flowers 
always possess a dorsal gland, and the fruiting aments are, usually, more 
slender. 
The form regarded by RowLex as S. microphylla does not in my opinion 
fully agree with the typical one collected by Schiede and Deppe of which I have 
