Gentes Herbarum Volume 1 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1920 Excerpt: ...reperimus" "Specimen possidemus unicum, rami scilicet floriferi partem superiorem, apicalem, octopollicarem." From such material a full diagnosis could not be drawn; but it is not a fomentose plant and the leaves are noted as 3-lobed rather than compound; both stamens and pistils are included: "calycis laciniae semipollicares, longiores quam petala olwvata basi attenuata, quae longitudine staminum filiformium. Germina villosa, styli glabri." Fruit is not mentioned. Rydberg considers the species to be Californian, but it apparently occurs also in Oregon. I have not been able to identify any of the named cultivated dewberries with this species as here understood, although I suppose that the Aughinbaugh, once considerably planted in California, belongs here (or possibly to R. ursinut). 18. Rubus Helleri, Rydb. N. Amer. Fl. xxii, 460 (1913). Stems sparingly pilose becoming glabrous, with very small and weak straight prickles: leaves of fruiting branches ternate; leaflets thin, pale beneath, sparingly short-hirsute both surfaces, coarsely double-serrate, the terminal one broad-ovate or cordate: flowers few together, the pedicels and calyx finely pilose and glandular: fruit ovoid, black, finely pilose. British Columbia to Oregon west of the Cascades, according to Rydberg. I have not seen it in cultivation. 19. Rubus ursinus, Cham. & Schlecht. Linmra, ii, 11 (1827). Founded on material "In dumetis ad sinum St. Francisci Californiae novae una cum R. vitifolio legimus." Nothing is said as to the affinity of this plant with R. vitifolius but rather, "An R. fruticoso, an potius R. idaeo affinis?." It must have looked very distinct. The stems are described as fomentose, leaves "(ramorum fertilium) simplicibus terna...