12 ROBINSON. 



























cs E Anti are not very numerous. Finding a al of 
nature among the specimens collected by Mr. H. H. Smi 
Marta, Colombia, the writer (Proc. Am. Acad. liv. 315) ventured: 
place it doubtfully in E. Dombeyanum with which it appeared 
‘many points in common. However, further study of this and 
related plants from Peru renders it decidedly unlikely that the 
bian plant can have anything to do with the original E. Dombeyam 
It is accordingly characterized below as a new species under the 
E. psilodorum. 
Similar efforts to identify with E. Dombeyanum DC. certam certain P 
vian plants, notably Weberbauer’s nos. 860, 2766 66, and 25, | 
likewise failed. No. 860 (described below as E. i 
while possessing rather closely the leaf-contour of E. Dor 
has considerably denser and corymbiform inflorescences, ‘the young 
stems, branches, and pedicels are pulv -erulent-puberulent to 
that DeCandolle would scarcely have described as “Gla 
the achenes are covered with sessile glands and the 
muriculate, which is clearly not the case in the type of E. 
of which there is a photograph in the Gray Herbarium; 
leaves are rather conspicuously dark-punctate beneath — 
which had it been equally manifest in the type of E. De 
would almost certainly have been mentioned by so careful zi 
as DeCandolle. by 
Weberbauer’s nearly related nos. 2766 and 3253 es , 
as E. simulans) differ from E. Dombeyanum in 
(rather than ovate) leaves, which are pinnately veal - 
3-nerved from above ue base; the stems are much more le 
are all perceptibly granular-puberulent, and the inv = 
more xX— than is indicated by DeCandolle in hae chara 
E. Dombeyan ane 
After seckinged effort to take into-account all characters ® 
reasonable allowance for individual variation, it has seemed 
to refer any of these specimens to E. D 
hand, they are so close as to give added s 
species will ultimately be found in Peru, sched: ay 
Dombey’s South American collecting was accomplis “ysque 
E. (§ Subimbricata) drepanoides, spec. NOV» ed z 
