ENUMERATION OF THE SPECIES 161 



Lackawanna & Wyoming Valleys, 38 (1892). — Voss, Vilmorin's 

 Blumengart. I. 588 (1894), as forma. — Deane, Fl. Metrop. Park, 

 Mass. 53 (1896); in Rhodora, I. 94 (1899). —Robinson & Fernald, 

 Gray's New Man. ed. 7, 631 (1908). —J. Jackson, Cat. PI. Worcester 

 Co. Mass. 75 (1909). — Graves & others, Cat. Flow. PI. Conn. 308 

 (1910). — Stone, List PI. Franklin, Hampshire, Hampden Cos. Mass. 

 48 (1913). 



Azalea viseosa var. S. floribunda Aiton, Hort. Kew. I. 203 (1789). — Willde- 

 now, Spec. I. 832 (1798). 



Azalea viseosa var. e. glauca Aiton, Hort. Kew. I. 203 (1789). — Willdenow, 

 Spec. I. 832 (1798). — Michaux, Fl. Bar. -Am. I. 151 (1803). — Gray, Man. 

 268 (1848). — M. A. Curtis, Descript. Trees & Shrubs (in Geol. Nat. Hist. 

 Surv.N.Car. III.Bot.98 (I860).— Britton& Brown, 7ii.FMI.560 (1897).— 

 Jelliffe, Fl. Long Island, 124 (1899). — Britton, Man. 699 (1901).— 

 Porter, Fl. Pennsyh. 239 (1903). — Keller & Brown, Handb. Fl. Phila. 246 

 (1905). — Shreve & others, PI. Life Maryland, 466 (1910). — Stone in 

 Ann. Rep. N. Jersey State Mus. 1910, 614 (1911). — Millspaugh, Liv. Fl. 

 W. Virginia, 322 (in W. Va. Geol. Sun.) (1913). 



Azalea glauca Lamarck, Tab. Encycl. Meth. I. 493, t. 110, fig. 2 (1791). — 

 Pursh, Fl. Am. Sept. I. 154 (1814). — De Candolle, Prodr. VII. 716 (1839). 



Azalea scabra Hort. ex Michaux, Fl. Bor.-Am. I. 151 (1803), as synonym. 



Azalea floribunda Dumont de Courset, Bot. Cult. ed. 2, III. 334 (1811), as 

 var. of A. viseosa. 



Rhododendron glaucum Sweet, Hort. Brit. ed. 2, 344 (1830). — G. Don, Gen. 

 Syst. III. 848 (1834) .i 



This variety differs from the type in its glaucous leaves, which may be glaucous 

 only below and green or more or less glaucescent above. Sometimes, particularly 

 at the end of the shoots, the leaves are strigose above; the latter form was distin- 

 guished by Aiton as var. glauca from his var. floribunda with the leaves glaucous 

 beneath and smooth above, but these two forms can hardly be kept distinct and 

 in uniting them I follow Torrey (Fl. U. S. I. 425 [1824]) in giving preference to 

 the name glauca which has been used for this form by all subsequent authors, 

 though var. floribunda precedes it on the page. The flowers are either white or 

 more or less suffused with carmine outside, often very intensely so before opening; 

 the form with the more intensely pink or carmine flowers may be distinguished as 

 f. rubescens, comb. nov. (? Azalea viseosa pubescens 2 Loddiges, Bot. Cab. V. t. 441 

 [1820]). — A. viseosa i;. rubescens Sweet, Hort. Brit. 266 (1826), name. — Loddiges, 

 I. c. XVI. t. 1518 (1829). — Rhododendron viscosum ij. rubescens Sweet, Hort. Brit. 

 ed. 2, 344 (1830).— G. Don, Gen. Syst. III. 847 (1834). — 1R. viscosum e. pubescens 

 Sweet, Hort. Brit. ed. 2, 344 (1830). — Azalea glauca var. purpurascens Jager, 

 Ziergeh. 118 (1865). — Azalea glauca var. rosea Jager, I. c. (1865). — Rhododen- 

 dron viscosum f. roseum Hollick in Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, XVIII. 256 (1891). 



The var. glaucum both with white and red flowers is found frequently growing 

 together with the typical form throughout its range, at least in the coastal plain 



1 Additional Illustrations. Colored Plates: Meerburgh, PI. Select. Icon. 

 t. 6 (1798). — Schmidt, Oester. Baumz. III. 1. 172 (1800). —Watson, Dendr. Brit. I. 

 t. 5 (1825). 



' This is probably a mistake for rubescens; there is apparently nothing pubescent 

 about this plant and the red color is the chief character by which it is distinguished. 



