8 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [JANUARY 
SPECIMENS EXAMINED.—I have seen what I believe may be specimens 
from wild plants from the following states of Mexico: Hidalgo, Colima, Vera 
Cruz, Oaxaca, Tabasco, and Chiapas, and from the following Departments of 
Guatemala: Alta Verapaz, Izabal, Jalapa, Guatemala, Solol4, Amatitlan; and 
Zacatepequez. 
The var. stipulacea is certainly very closely related to the typical S. Hum- 
boldtiana, but from the material before me I judge it to be a good geographical 
form which in some respect approaches S. nigra. The main difference between 
S. Humboldtiana and S. nigra, in my opinion, is the shape of the mature fruits 
which are ovoid-elliptical with a rather blunt apex in the first; while those of 
S. nigra and its varieties are more distinctly elongated and pointed at the apex, 
with mostly comparatively longer pedicels. Regarding the shape of the fruit, 
var. stipulacea has to be referred to S. Humboldtiana; the leaves, however, 
resemble more those of S. nigra var. Lindheimerii. There are indeed several 
forms in Hidalgo (namely, the specimens of C. S. PRINGLE from Tula, March 23, 
1906) that need further observation in the field. They possess the glandular 
stipules of var. Lindheimerii and the fruits of var. stipulacea. In the state of 
Hidalgo the most southern forms of S. migra seem to meet the most northern 
ones of S. Humboldtiana. 
As to the nomenclature of the variety, the following may be said. Most 
of the authors used to refer it to S. oxyphylla Kth. in Humb. and Bonpl., Nov. 
Gen. Pl. 2:19. 1817; Syn. Pl. Aequ. 1:365. 1822, the type of which was col- 
lected by Humboldt and Bonpland “prope Chilpantzingo” (Chilpanzingo, in 
the state of Guerrero). Not-having been able to compare a type specimen, 
nor haying seen any specimen from near the type locality, I refrain from using 
the name oxyphylla, because in the description Kunru makes the following 
statement: “‘semina minuta, oblonga, lanata; stipite dimidiam vix lineam 
longo, pubescente.” The whole seed being hardly half a line long and having 
no “stipes,” the statement seems to indicate a pubescent pedicel of the ovary, 
but I have not met with such a form. I regard S. oxyphylla as an uncertain 
name, therefore, and I accept the name stipulacea given by Martens and 
GALEOTTI to a form that differs from S$. Humboldtiana by its persistent stipules 
and its more sharply acuminate leaves. 
1c. S. HUMBOLDTIANA, var. MArRTIANA And. in DC. Prodr. 
167:199. 1868.—S. Martiana Leybold in Martius, Fl. Bras. 4':228. 
pl. 72. 1855; in Walp. Ann. Bot. 5:757. 1858; Huber in Bull. 
Herb. Boiss. I. 6:253. 1906, in adnot.; S. Humboldtiana *S. 
Martiana And. in K. Sv. Vet—Akad. Handl. 6:18 (Mon. Salic.). 
1867. 
Varietas porro observanda a typo praecipue differre videtur 
floribus femineis glandula etiam dorsali (an semper ?) instructis, 
fructibus ellipticis utrinque pl. m. obtusis paullo majoribus. 
