1054 General Notes, [ December, 
an appearance quite different from that which it bears when grow- 
ing. The mode of detachment is the usual one of the formation 
of a joint at one of the lower internodes. In some cases two 
such joints were observed. The break at the joint is smooth and 
even, and reminds one of the separation of a leaf from its twig. 
It may be well to say that the plant under consideration is 
densely silky woolly in every part excepting its principal stems. 
It is certainly not “ minutely hoary pubescent when young,” as 
described in the manuals (Gray, Man., p. 129; Coulter, Man., p. 
56). On account of the loss of leaves it is impossible to deter- 
mine whether this may not be the variety odtuscloba of Watson 
(Bib. Index N. A. Bot; p. 255). If so this is a much more 
northerly range than this variety of the species was supposed to 
possess. In all cases but one the variety is said to be a native of 
Texas. Creutzfeldt collected it in “ Kansas” in 1853 (Pacific 
Railroad Report, 2, p. 126), and from the date of its collection 
(June) it must have been found in Eastern Kansas. Carruth, 
however, does not record it in his catalogue of Kansas plants 
(Trans. Kan. Academy of Sciences, Vol. v)— Charles E. Bessey. 
BotanitcaL News.—The October Journal of Botany contains 
a paper, by Baron F. von Mueller, on “New Vacciniacee from 
New Guinea.” A new genus is described under the name Catan- 
thera. It contains one species, C. /ysifetala Mueller, which ap- 
pears to have affinities with Oxycoccus, though strangely it shows 
relationship alwish the toClethrez and Pyrolacee. It is an epi- 
phyte. In the same journal James Britten contributes an arti- 
cle on “The nomenclature of some Proteacez,” in which the 
question of priority of Salisbury’s names in the Proteads and 
other groups of plants is discussed. He says: “I am of opinion 
that there was a tacit understanding on the part of the botanical 
leaders of the period, including Brown, Banks and Smith, that 
Salisbury’s work and names should, as far as possible, be ignored, 
not only on account of their strong antipathy to the man himsell, 
but also, in Smith’s case at least, to the views of classification 
which Salisbury promulgated ;” an outrageous proceeding if true, 
as it appears to be. Dr. Newberry gives additional reasons, 1n 
the October Torrey Bulletin, for regarding Pinus monophylla as 
but a variety of P. edulis. He says: “In the Rocky mountains 
all are two-leaved ; in some arid portions of Nevada the tree, > 
dwarfed to half its normal size, and all the leaves are single. Mi 
‘way between these districts, in Southern Utah, may be found thou- 
sands of trees in which the leaves are half double, half single. —— 
Dr. Gray’s Memorandum of a revision of the N. A. violets, 1n the 
Botanical Gazette, indicates certain interesting changes of eh 
ment and nomenclature. Viola delphinifolia Nutt. becomes ae 
datifera Don.; V, cucullata Ait. var. palmata becomes y. par- 
mata L., while V. cucullata Ait. is considered to be “an ak 
cleaved variety of the Linnean V. palmata.” The suggestion t 
