Index to this volume
Jepson Field Book Transcriptions · Jepson Herbarium
Index to all books
|
30_192 Berkeley - Arctostaphylos. I have been having a high session with Miss Eastwood's species. They are not to be lightly thrown aside. One who knows them realizes that he is afraid to accept them or to reject them! A. glandulosa seems to me to be the best and will form the basis for a new growing aggregate! A. manzanita Parry is hard to delimit. A. nevadensis Gray has nothing to rest on except its prostration (!!). It will one day be put into A. hookeri I think. "A. Santa Helenae" Eastwood is exactly my A. elegans, altho' its young rachises are canescent. My spms. are only mature ones. What a task we have here to straighten out & describe properly the forms, - only half-begun!! - W.L.J. |
30_193 July 2, 1914. - Symphoricarpos. I have been trying to segregate our Cal. material into the described species, rotundifolius, oreophilus, & longiflorus. I am satisfied there isnt any way by which flowering spms. of the first two can be distinguished. The leaves are the same shape, the pubescence is identical and the flowers are very uniform. Cf. Tangier-Smith's Tahoe spm. of rotunifolius (det. Hall) with [Chestnut?] Drew's Dana fork (S. oreophilus). They cannot be distinguished. Only the fruits serve to indicate the species. Therefore it is a question whether specimens which are alike so uniformly are not are species in spite of a slight variation in nutlet. Or compare the first named smp. with Purpus 1835, Whitney Ck (det. as oreophilus by K. Brandgee) - exactly the same! the depth of lobing of calyx rim is nothing - deeply lobed or shallowly lobed may be found on spms. not otherwise different. I agree with Watson in Bot. King. as for S. parishii, canescens, glaucus, parvifolius, austinae - they are inexcusable. |
ms. | Copyright © 2007 Regents of the University of California | Credits: |
ms.