146 THE AZALEAS OF NORTH AMERICA 



Rhododendron canescens var. candidum Render, var. nov. 

 Azalea Candida Small in Bull. Torr. Bot. Club XXVIII. 360 (1901); Fl. S. E. 

 U. S. 883 (1903); Shrubs of Fla. 93 (1913); in N. Am. Fl. XXIX. 43 (1914). 

 Rhododendron candidum Render in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. V. 2945 (1916); 

 VI. 3574 (1917). — Millais, Rhodod. 136 (1917). 



This variety differs from the typical form in the glaucous or glaucescent, densely 

 pubescent under side of the leaves and in the mostly denser pubescence of the 

 branchlets usually interspersed with numerous short gland-tipped setae. The 

 white or whitish color of the under side is not caused by the dense tomentum, as 

 one might suppose, but by the glaucous or glaucescent epidermis, which is coated 

 with a waxy exudation as in glaucous forms of R. viscosum. 



Georgia. Decatur County: Climax, Nov. 6, 1917, T. G. Harbi- 

 son (No. 14). Brooks County: Quitman, April 2, 1918, T. G. 

 Harbison (No.3). Lowndes County: near Valdosta along the With- 

 lacoochee River, June 6-12, 1895, J. K. Small (type) ; in low sandy soil 

 along the Withlacoochee River, April 2, 1918, T. G. Harbison (Nos. 1, 

 2); near Ousley, Oct. 21, 1910, T. G. Harbison (Nos. 247, 250). 

 Charlton County : Folkston, July 16, 1918, T. G. Harbison (No. 76). 

 Tattnall County: rock outcrop near Choopee River, June 24, 1903, 

 R. M. Harper (No. 1858). 



Florida. Hamilton County: White Springs, May 11, 1901, 

 H. H. Blume. 



This variety is restricted to southern Georgia and northern Florida and I have 

 seen no specimen farther north or south than about twenty miles from the border line 

 except a specimen from Tattnal County about one hundred miles north of Florida, 

 but that specimen is not a typical var. candidum, as it lacks the glandular pubescence 

 of the branchlets, and the under side of the leaves though densely villous or almost 

 whitish tomentose, is not very glaucous. Besides the character already mentioned 

 I can find no difference between this variety and R. canescens and I therefore pre- 

 fer to consider it only a variety of that species. I do not understand why Small 

 places it among the species with the flowers appearing after the leaves; the flower- 

 ing specimens before me, collected April 2, differ in no way as regards the de- 

 velopment of leaves from typical R. canescens. 



The variety seems to have been first observed and collected in 1895 by Dr. 

 Small on the Withlacoochee River. It is doubtful whether it is in cultivation; the 

 plant introduced under this name a few years ago raised from seed collected near 

 Folkston, Georgia, is possibly typical R. canescens. 



Rhododendron austrinum Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. VI. 



3571, 3574 (1917). — Millais, Rhodod. 125 (1917). 



Rhododendron nudiflorum var. luteum Curtiss in herb, sub No. 1718. 

 Azalea austrina Small, Fl. S. E. V. S. ed. 2, 1356 (1913); Shrubs Fla. 94 

 (1913); in N. Am. Fl. XXIX. 42 (1914). 



Slender branched shrub to 3 m. tall; young branchlets covered with a short 

 soft pubescence interspersed with usually copious gland-tipped hairs and spar- 

 ingly strigose, particularly toward the apex, becoming red-brown in autumn and 

 grayish brown the second year; floral winter-buds with ovate scales, rounded to 



