166 
5. VERONICA RUDERALIS Vahl, Enum. Pl.1:66. 1805. ‘‘ Habi- 
tat in ruderatis versuris et humidis locis frigidis Peruviae.”’ 
- Type not seen nor verified, but specimens from Ecuador 
and those collected by the writer in Colombia show the 
identity of this with the plant here considered. 
This is the plant identified in the seventh edition of Grays 
Manual as Veronica humifusa Dickson. This species, published 
in Trans. Linn. Soc. 2: 288. 1794, and found by James Dickson 
on “‘very high mountains of Scotland,’’ was described by him 
as a plant wholly prostrate, with cordate-subrotund minutely 
scabrous leaves which often occur in threes or fours, and with 
a short raceme of a few crowded flowers. Whatever this may 
be, it surely cannot be our plant. 
Veronica ruderalis appears to be the most cosmopolitan species 
of the genus, and doubtless V. serpyllifolia must be considered 
as a Palaearctic derivative from it. It is a boreal or mountain 
species through Eurasia and the Americas. One European 
description which I have had no opportunity to see, that of 
Veronica neglecta F. W. Schmidt, Fl. Boem. 1: 12. 1794, may 
give a name which possibly must supersede ours. This is identi- 
fied by Koch, Syn. Fl. Germ. & Helv. 529. 1837, as a larger 
ovate-leaved form of V. serpyllifolia. However in the fifth 
(Hallier’s) edition of the Flora von Deutschland of Schlechten- 
dahl and Others, 17: 150, while this is similarly characterized, 
the glandular-pubescent plant is distinguished as var. borealis 
Laestad. So it would appear safer to consider neglecta as but 
a robust state of the appressed-pubescent serpyllifolia. 
I agree with Prof. Fernald, in Rhodora 4: 194. 1902, that 
“the evidence at hand indicates that this large-flowered variety 
is the only indigenous form of V. serpyllifolia in Northeastern 
America.’”’ I follow his later judgment as expressed in the Grays 
New Manual, and in Rhodora 13: 124. 1911, in according this 
specific rank. However I see no basis for the decision of the 
new Gray that serpyllifolia is likewise indigenous. Its occur- 
rence in North America is south of the region normally occupied 
by species common to both this continent and Europe. 
Apparently this has been collected in our range by C. F. 
