&8BBJ& E#QQQ#4Jfi --»BflBliH IP iils& JQgihQoiMRxO PRKS ^kSSSvitmm^ 88S mis m 9HSSt v-^'to. &&. Q0, hbl, stxf 3 T1S3 DDSa^Mflb 5 OK 495.L65M3 Lilac; VJ1 THE LILAC A MONOGRAPH ^9 ~* ■ o ■■ THE MACMILLAN COMPANY MIW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO • DALLAS ATLANTA • SAN FRANCISCO MACMILLAN & CO.. Limited LONDON • BOMBAY • CALCUTTA MELBOURNE THE MACMILLAN CO. OP CANADA, Ltd. TORONTO < •J I— I ►J W H THE LILAC A MONOGRAPH BY SUSAN DELANO McKELVEY ILLUSTRATED WITH ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-TWO HALF-TONE PLATES AND WITH FOUR COLOR CHARTS Jleto fiorfe THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1928 All rights reserved Copyright, 1928, By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. Set up and printed. Published Deecmber, 1928. Printed in the United States of America by THE FERRIS PRINTING COMPANY, NEW YORK TO "THE PROFESSOR' PREFACE The subject of this monograph was suggested some years ago by Professor Charles Sprague Sargent and during his lifetime he did everything possible to further its completion. All who knew him can realize what his assistance meant and how great was the value of his advice. While the work was principally done at the Arnold Arboretum where the library, herbarium and collection of living plants offered unusual advantages for study, many similar sources of information have been utilized elsewhere. The author has visited the collections of Lilacs at Rochester, New York, at the Dominion of Canada Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, at Mr. Theodore A. Havemeyer's, Glen Head, New York, and, although at a poor season of the year, has seen the plants growing at Mr. Emile Lemoine's, Nancy, France; at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; and at the Jardin des Plantes, Paris; numerous nurseries have also been visited. She has examined the herbarium material at Kew, at the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, and at the Gray Herbarium of Harvard University. Specimens of unusual interest have been forwarded for examination from Kew, the British Museum, the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, and from the Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum, Budapest. From the Museo Botanico, Florence, Italy, Dr. Pampanini contributed fragments and photographs of all the Pere Giraldi collec- tions. Certain doubtful plants have been examined on her behalf by such author- ities as Mr. C. K. Schneider, Mr. C. E. C. Fischer, and others. The Lilac is first mentioned, so far as the author has been able to ascertain, in 1554 by Pierre Belon in his " Observations." From this starting point the herbals and early botanical literature have been searched and the more important mono- graphs, botanies, floras, horticultural and botanical journals existing in the litera- ture of England, the United States, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Russia and Japan, examined; catalogues of well-known nurserymen in many of these countries have, where available, been studied, and of these a valuable collection exists in the library of the Massachusetts Horticultural Society; cor- respondence with such growers as, in the United States, the late Mr. John Dunbar; in France, Mr. Emile Lemoine (Nancy) and Mr. A. Gouchault (Orleans) ; in Ger- many the firms of L. Spath (Berlin), Wilhelm Pfitzer (Stuttgart) and Victor Teschendorf! (Dresden); in Switzerland, Otto Froebels Erben (Zurich); and in Holland, Felix and Dykhuis, M. Koster and Sons and C. B . van Nes (all of Boskoop) , as well as with many others, has served to verify the origin and description of numerous garden forms. Information in regard to living specimens of peculiar interest has been sought and where possible the plant has been visited. Much literature has been searched, fruitlessly alas, in an effort to discover when the vii viii PREFACE Lilac was first introduced into the United States. A great amount of information has been obtained from various persons of experience in growing the Lilac both in this country and abroad in regard to the conditions considered favorable or un- favorable to the plant's success, as well as to the best methods of propagation.. While from the point of view of conciseness a certain amount of the information obtained from the aforementioned and other sources might have been deleted, it has been felt that by its retention the task of some future monographer of the genus might be considerably lessened. No radical departure has been made from the classification of the species adopted by recent writers. The author believes variability in pubescence to be characteristic of the genus. In most species, to a greater or lesser degree, pubes- cence is present, the amount varying, sometimes on the same plant, with the season of the year or with the age of the specimen. In certain species, represented by a number of examples, pubescent and glabrous forms connected by intermediate plants impossible to classify strictly speaking as either glabrous or pubescent have been found. Acting upon this evidence some new combinations have been neces- sary. Certain species here retained are little known and when better understood their number may be reduced. Certain others, while differing greatly in appear- ance as cultivated plants, are not easily distinguishable in herbarium material and the greater the number of examples studied, the more pronounced appears to be their botanical similarity. Here again more familiarity both with cultivated and spontaneous examples may permit of some reductions. The Common Lilac (Syringa vulgaris) has been cultivated for so many years that from it many garden forms have been evolved. For the grower to obtain in- formation in regard to these it has been necessary, as inquiry of the Arnold Arbore- tum has abundantly demonstrated, to apply to some botanical institution or per- sonally to search through catalogues and periodicals. To many persons such literature was not available, and furthermore no book of reference existed from which one might learn, certainly in so far as a majority of these plants were con- cerned, where such search should be made. Outside of large collections it is rare to find in cultivation more than a few Lilac species and a couple of the hybrids. The popular Lilac is the garden form. The species and hybrids have been well treated in such recent German writings as those of Mr. C. K. Schneider (191 1- 191 2) and of Mr. A. Lingelsheim (1920) but these authors have made no attempt to do more than touch upon a few of the better-known garden forms. If the author of the present monograph has anything of especial value to offer to the nurseryman and garden owner it is, she believes, the information obtained in regard to these popular Lilacs. The difficulty of presenting the material assembled in regard to these has been noted in the introductory words to the garden forms of S. vulgaris and need not be repeated here. Where garden Lilacs of other species and hybrids exist the same obstacles have been encountered. PREFACE ix Descriptions of the color of the Lilac flower throughout this book have been based upon Mr. Robert Ridgway's "Color Standards and Color Nomenclature" (A. Hoen and Company, Baltimore, Maryland). Since the color terminology used was meaningless apart from Mr. Ridgway's plates it was felt that by the inclusion of charts conforming to the colors cited, the descriptions would be readily under- standable. Great appreciation must be expressed to Mr. Ridgway for permission to include these colors, and to Messrs. A. Hoen and Company for their careful work in making the charts. In the descriptions of the Lilac flower the number of Mr. Ridgway's plate, in Roman numerals and between parentheses, follows the capitalized name or names appearing on that plate. The original numbering is followed in the charts. As noted in the introductory words to the forms of S. vulgaris the difficulty of describing the color of a Lilac flower has been great because of a rapid change in color after the flower has been expanded for only a short time. The flower should be compared with the charts when only a few flowers on a cluster are opened for it is then that their color is freshest. The descriptions of the flower-bud and of the newly ex- panded flower were taken at this stage of development and comparison with the plates was made in shade, not in sunlight. All the photographs reproduced in this book with the exception of four were taken by Mr. George W. Root of West Roxbury, Massachusetts. Where detail is desired a time exposure is necessary and for the length of the exposure no motion should take place in the object. What to the ordinary observer may appear to be a quiet day, to the photographer may prove quite otherwise. To Mr. Root's skill — and patience — is due their excellence. The author wishes to thank those persons whose chapters have contributed to the value of this book, all who have permitted her to examine herbarium material and living collections or have loaned specimens and books, as well as the many correspondents who have replied, often in longhand and at great length, to her inquiries. She welcomes this opportunity to express to Professor Oakes Ames her appre- ciation of the privilege of working at the Arnold Arboretum where from each member of the staff she has received help in some form. In especial measure is she indebted to two persons, — Mr. Ernest H. Wilson and Mr. Alfred Rehder. Mr. Wilson has read the manuscript, contributed to its content and on innumerable occasions given valuable advice. Mr. Rehder has prepared the key, read the manuscript, corrected the proof-sheets and assisted with the index; his help has been unfailingly given for more than six years and to him the author and any who may find this monograph of value are in great measure obligated. 1 60 Riverway Susan Delano McKelvey Boston, Massachusetts July, 1928 CONTENTS PAGE Preface vii List of Plates xiii History and Distribution. By Ernest H. Wilson, A.M i Description of the Genus and Its Sections with a Key to the Species. By- Alfred Render, A.M 7 Enumeration and Description of Species and Varieties 15 Excluded and Doubtful Names 509 Culture. By Theodore A. Havemeyer 517 Propagation and Pruning 522 Forcing 535 Diseases and Insect PESTS.^By William T. Councilman, M.D 549 Additions 557 Index of Names 565 XI LIST OF PLATES i. ii. in. IV. v. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXV. XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. XXX. XXXI. XXXII. XXXIII. XXXIV. XXXV. XXXVI. XXXVII. XXXVIII. XXXIX. "The Lilac" Frontispiece Syringa emodi Preceding page S. emodi S. emodi S. emodi S. emodi S. yunnanensis 29 S. yunnanensis 29 S. yunnanensis 29 S. yunnanensis 29 S. yunnanensis 29 S. Josikaea 33 S. Josikaea 33 S. Josikaea 33 S. Josikaea 33 S. Josikaea 33 S. Wolfi 63 S. Wolfi 63 S. Wolfi 63 S. Wolfi 63 S. Wolfi 63 S. reflexa 71 S. reflexa 71 S. reflexa 71 S. reflexa 71 S. reflexa 71 S. reflexa 71 S. reflexa 71 S. reflexa 71 S. Komarowi 75 S. Komarowi 75 S. Komarowi 75 S. Komarowi S. Komarowi S. villosa S. villosa S. villosa S. villosa S. villosa S. villosa 75 75 81 81 81 81 81 81 XUl XIV LIST OF PLATES XL. XLI. XLII. XLIII. XLIV. XLV. XLVI. XLVII. XLVIII. XLIX. L. LI. LIL Lin. LIV. LV. LVL LVII. LVIII. LIX. LX. LXI. LXII. LXIII. LXIV. LXV. LXVI. LXVIL LXVIII. LXIX. LXX. LXXI. LXXII. LXXIII. LXXIV. LXXV. LXXVI. LXXVII. LXXVIII. LXXIX. LXXX. LXXXI. LXXXII. LXXXIII. LXXXIV. LXXXV. S. Henryi "Lutece" Preceding page S. Henryi "Lutece" S. Henryi "Lutece" S. Henryi "Lutece" S. Henryi "Lutece" S. Prestoniae "Isabella" S. Prestoniae "W. T. Macoun" S. Prestoniae S. tomentella S. tomentella S. tomentella S. tomentella S. tomentella S. tomentella S. tomentella S. Sweginzowii S. Sweginzowii S. Sweginzowii S. Sweginzowii S. Sweginzowii S. Sweginzowii S. Julianae S. Julianae S. Julianae • S. Julianae S. Julianae S. Julianae S. velutina S. velutina S. velutina S. velutina S. velutina S. velutina S. velutina S. microphylla . S. microphylla S. microphylla S. microphylla S. microphylla S. microphylla S. pubescens S. pubescens S. pubescens S. pubescens S. pubescens S. pubescens 99 99 99 99 99 109 109 109 115 "5 115 115 "5 "5 "5 123 123 123 123 123 123 131 131 131 J31 131 J3i *35 135 i35 135 i35 i35 135 151 iSi 151 151 151 iSi i59 i59 159 159 i59 159 LIST OF PLATES XV LXXXVI. s. LXXXVII. s. LXXXVIIL s. LXXXIX. s. XC. s. XCI. s. XCII. s. XCIII. s. XCIV. s. XCV. s. XCVI. s. XCVII. s. XCVIII. s. XCIX. s. c. s. CI. s. en. s. cm. s. CIV. s. cv. s. CVI. s. CVII. s. CVIII. s. CIX. s. ex. s. CXI. s. CXII. s. CXIII. s. CXIV. s. cxv. s. CXVI. s. CXVII. s. CXVIII. s. CXIX. s. cxx. s. CXXI. s. CXXII. s. CXXIII. s. CXXIV. s. exxv. s. CXXVI. s. CXXVII. s. CXXVIII. s. CXXIX. s. CXXX. s. CXXXI. s. Meyeri Preceding page 169 Meyeri 169 Meyeri 169 Meyeri 169 Meyeri 169 Meyeri 169 oblata 175 oblata 175 oblata 175 oblata var. Giraldii 175 oblata var. Giraldii 175 oblata var. Giraldii 175 oblata var. Giraldii 175 oblata var. Giraldii 175 oblata var. dilatata 175 oblata var. dilatata 175 oblata var. dilatata 175 oblata var. dilatata 175 oblata var. dilatata 175 oblata var. dilatata 175 oblata var. dilatata 175 hyacinthiflora 193 hyacinthiflora 193 hyacinthiflora 193 hyacinthiflora 193 hyacinthiflora 193 hyacinthiflora "Lamartine" 193 hyacinthiflora "Lamartine" 193 hyacinthiflora "Vauban" 193 hyacinthiflora "Mirabeau" 193 hyacinthiflora "Descartes" 193 hyacinthiflora "Lamartine" 193 hyacinthiflora "Lamartine" 193 vulgaris 201 vulgaris 201 vulgaris 201 vulgaris 201 vulgaris 201 vulgaris "Amethyst" 201 vulgaris "Diderot" 201 vulgaris "Mme. F. Morel" 201 vulgaris "Mme. F. Morel" 201 vulgaris "Vestale" 201 vulgaris "Christophe Colomb" 201 vulgaris "Lemoinei" 201 vulgaris "Due de Massa" 201 XVI LIST OF PLATES CXXXII. S. vulgaris "Marlyensis pallida" Preceding page 201 CXXXIII. S. vulgaris "Christophe Colomb" 2oi CXXXIV. S. chinensis f. Saugeana 4OI CXXXV. S. chinensis f. Saugeana 40I CXXXVI. S. chinensis f. Saugeana 401 CXXXVII. S. chinensis f. alba 40I CXXXVIII. S. chinensis . .' 401 CXXXIX. S. chinensis f. alba 4OI CXL. S. persica var. laciniata 433 CXLI. S. persica var. laciniata 433 CXLIL S. persica var. laciniata 433 CXLIII. S. persica 433 CXLIV. S. persica var. laciniata 433 CXLV. S. persica var. laciniata 433 CXL VI. S. persica 433 CXL VII. S. persica var. laciniata 433 CXL VIII. S. persica 433 CXLIX. S. pinnatifolia 469 CL. S. pinnatifolia 469 CLI. S. pinnatifolia 469 CLII. S. pinnatifolia 469 CLIII. S. pinnatifolia 469 CLIV. S. pinnatifolia 469 CLV. S. amurensis 473 CLVI. S. amurensis 473 CLVII. S. amurensis 473 CLVIII. S. amurensis 473 CLLX. S. amurensis 473 CLX. S. amurensis var. japonica 473 CLXI. S. amurensis var. japonica 473 CLXII. S. amurensis var. japonica 473 CLXIII. S. amurensis var. japonica 473 CLXIV. S. amurensis var. japonica 473 CLXV. S. amurensis var. japonica 473 CLXVI. S. pekinensis 491 CLXVII. S. pekinensis 491 CLXVIII. S. pekinensis 491 CLXIX. S. pekinensis 491 CLXX. S. pekinensis 491 CLXXI. S. pekinensis 491 Note. None of the plates here given appeared previously with eight exceptions. Plates XXXI., LI., LXIIL, LXXXIL, LXXXVIIL, and CLII., through a misunderstanding on the part of the Editor, were published without permission in Gartenschdnheit (vm. 141, 1927); the explanation for their reproduction in this periodical is given by Mr. Schneider (Garten- schonheit, viii. 332, 1927). Plate XXXVI. appeared, also without permission, in Breck's cata- logue, "Trees, Plants, Planting" (1927, 14); the explanation for its reproduction is similar to that given by Mr. Schneider. Plate XLVII. I published in Horticulture in 1927. HISTORY AND DISTRIBUTION BY Ernest H. Wilson, A.M. Lilacs are an Old World group of shrubs and small trees confined with two ex- ceptions to Asia and have no representative in the New World. All the species are continental but one variety of the Tree Lilac (Syringa amurensis var. japonica) is found on the islands of Japan, and 5. velutina occurs on Dagelet Island in the Japan Sea. Their distribution is very similar to that of the closely related genus Ligustrum (Privet) which, however, is represented in Japan by a number of species. Of the twenty-eight species of Lilac recognized in this work, two (S. vulgaris and S. Josikaea) are found in central and southeastern Europe; two (S. emodi and S. afghanica) occur on the Himalayas; two species (S. velutina and 5. Wolfi) of true Lilacs, together with the variety dilatata of S. oblata and two Tree Lilacs (S. amurensis and S. Fauriei) are indigenous in Korea and six species of true Lilacs together with two varieties and the Tree Lilac (S. pekinensis) are found in northern China. The remaining fourteen are peculiar to western China. From this analysis it would appear that western China is the headquarters of the genus but in this connection it must be remembered that a number of the species from that region are little known and when properly understood it may be necessary to reduce the number. A few species have a wide distribution but the greater number are very local. The most widely distributed species are the Tree Lilacs, S. amurensis and 5. pekinensis. The first-named is found as a large bush or small tree throughout the greater part of the Korean peninsula, adjacent Manchuria and in the region bordering the Amur River to the northward. It reappears on the mountains of Japan in the variety japonica, being found from Shinano province in central Hondo northward, and is abundant in Hokkaido where trees forty-five feet tall are not un- common. The typical S. amurensis was the first of the Tree Lilacs introduced into cultivation, being sent by R. Maack about 1857 to St. Petersburg. Seeds of the var. japonica were sent from Sapporo by William S. Clark to the Massachusetts Agricul- tural College and to the Arnold Arboretum in 1876. The other species (S. pekinensis) appears to grow wild on the mountains in the vicinity of Peking and westward to the Kansu-Tibetan borderland. This was introduced into cultivation in 1880 by seeds which Dr. Bretschneider sent to the Jardin des Plantes, Paris. The most widely distributed of the true Lilacs is the north China S. oblata, which is found from the provinces of Shensi and northern Hupeh eastward to Korea. The plant which bears the name of S. oblata was brought in 1856 from a garden in Shanghai to England by Robert Fortune. Its exact counterpart has not been found wild but its only slightly different variety Giraldii was discovered in 189 1 in the province of Shensi and was brought into cultivation before 1903. The white-flowered variety affinis has been cultivated in Peking gardens for we know not how long. Seeds were received at the Jardin des Plantes, Paris, in 1880 and the plant flowered 4 THE LILAC there for the first time in 189 1. In America its introduction would appear to have been through seeds sent in 1904 to the Arnold Arboretum by Mr. E. T. Williams. Yet a third variety, dilatata, is found on the Palaeozoic shales and mud-slates in central Korea. This was introduced into cultivation in 191 7 through seeds which E. H. Wilson sent to the Arnold Arboretum. The species which appear to be most local in their distribution are S. Fauriei, a mysterious plant known only from the Diamond Mountains in northeastern Korea, and the little known 5. buxifolia reported from one locality in Kansu, northwestern China. Neither of these are in cultivation. The tiny principality of Mupin and the adjacent forested regions is the home of the anomalous S. pinnatifolia, which was introduced into cultivation in 1904 by E. H. Wilson. In northern China, S. oblata in one or other of its varieties has been cultivated from immemorial time. We know not when the Common Lilac (S. vulgaris) was first brought into cultivation in Europe, but it was taken from Constantinople probably to Vienna not later than 1563 and in 1629 both the white and lilac-colored forms were cultivated in England. Another Lilac, long a favorite among Asiatic peoples and which must have been known from early times, is the so-called Persian Lilac (S. persica). The fact that its name is a geographical misnomer indicates the long period of time in which it has been cultivated. For a couple of centuries and more it was assumed to be native to Persia. It was not until 191 5 that the true home of this Lilac was made known. This proved to be on mountain slopes of southern and southeastern Kansu. It is interesting to note that the region is traversed by one of the two great highways which the ancients used to journey across the heart of Asia. It was over this road that merchandise to and from Persia was carried in the earliest days. It was over this road that the Walnut, Grapevine and Muskmelon were brought into China. It was over this same road that the Peach and the Apricot, with silk, musk and rhubarb were carried to Persia and the shores of the Caspian Sea. It is probable also that the Persian Lilac was carried over this highway from Kansu to the flower-loving people of Persia. It is now naturalized on the hillslopes in Persia but no botanist has found it wild in that land. In 1620 the cut-leafed form of the species was known to be in cultivation in gardens at Venice. In 1672 the two forms, that with cut leaves and that with entire leaves, were separated and given distinct names. The Persian Lilac is then the greatest wanderer of all the species. It is interesting also as being, with the Common Lilac, parent of the first hybrid Lilac, S. chinensis, better known as S. rothomagensis, which appeared in the Botanical Garden at Rouen about 1777. Today this remains the handsomest of all the hybrid Lilacs. It may at first seem strange that the home of such a popular and well-known plant as the Persian Lilac has only just become known, but in this connection it must be remembered that China is a vast country and one in which travel is difficult and slow. It is only since the dawn of the twentieth century that our gardens have begun to enjoy the wealth of flowers which have their home in central and western China. HISTORY AND DISTRIBUTION 5 Those surprised to learn that the home of the Persian Lilac has only recently become known will be equally astonished to learn that the native land of the Com- mon Lilac was unknown before 1828 when it was reported from Banat in western Rumania. In 1841 it was found on the mountains of Bulgaria. In the autumn of 1905 Monsieur Maurice de Vilmorin received seeds collected from wild plants in Bulgaria which he divided with the Arnold Arboretum, where plants raised from them are growing to this day. From the evidence that has been collected on the geo- graphical distribution of the Common Lilac it would appear to be confined to the mountains of the Balkan Peninsula. The second European species known as the Hungarian Lilac (S. Josikaed) is widely distributed on the Carpathian Mountains and on the mountains of Transyl- vania. This has been in cultivation since about 1827 or 1828 but has never been a very popular species. Its chief fame rests on it being part parent of the 5. Henryi race of hybrids. These hybrids, which resulted from the crossing of this Hungarian species with the Chinese S. villosa, are best represented by the form Lutece. The west Himalayan S. afghanica is little known and appears to be confined to the arid slopes and the valleys of Afghanistan. It so singularly resembles the entire-leafed variety of the Persian Lilac that it has been mistaken for that plant. Indeed, it may be merely a naturalized condition of the Persian Lilac with thicker leaves induced by the dryer ecological conditions obtaining in Afghanistan. It could easily have been carried across the mountains from Persia. The other Himalayan species, 5. emodi, is more widely distributed along the mountain range* Like its near relatives, S. villosa, S. Wolfi and 5. Josikaea, this is a woodland plant enjoying the cool of forest glades and margin of woodland streams. In central and western China, Lilacs, while not exactly common plants, are fairly frequent by the side of streams, in thickets and on the margins of woodland, always in regions where they enjoy an abundance of moisture. Under such con- ditions S. Julianae, introduced into cultivation in 1901, and S. reflexa, introduced in the same year, occur on the mountains of Hupeh and eastern Szechuan. In western Szechuan S. Komarowi and S. tomentella are locally quite common shrubs- being found in the mountains from 5000 to 10,000 feet above sea-level. S. tomen- tella, which delights in the more upland thickets, was introduced into cultivation in 1905. S. Komarowi, introduced in 1910, like its very close relative, S. reflexa, frequents margins of woodland or the border of woodland streams. Gardens owe the above four Lilacs to E. H. Wilson, who collected the seeds in the years men- tioned. On the uplands around Sungpan ting, a physiologically dry region, S. Sweginzowii occurs but is not common. It was discovered and introduced about 1894 either by G. N. Potanin or M. M. Berezovski to St. Petersburg. In south- western Kansu and in the arid and subarid valleys of northwestern Szechuan, S. Potanini has its home. This was discovered in 1893 by Potanin and introduced into cultivation by E. H. Wilson in 1905. The Yunnan species, S. pinetorum, S. Wardii and S. rugulosa, from their general 6 THE LILAC appearance, probably enjoy similar climatic conditions to 5. Potanini, whereas S. yunnanensis, from its relationship to S. emodi, is evidently a woodland plant. Western Yunnan is largely limestone and its four Lilacs, like the majority of its plants, are local in their distribution. In 1906, 5. yunnanensis was introduced into cultivation by G. Forrest but it was discovered by Pere Delavay in 1886 in the neighborhood of Tali fu. In 1913, F. Kingdon Ward discovered 5. Wardii and the following year S. pinetorum. The fourth species, S. rugulosa, has not yet been introduced into cultivation. I am not sure that the real S. pinetorum is in cultivation. All the living material I have seen bearing this name is referable to S. yunnanensis. Of the seven species that are found in northern China, S. buxifolia has been reported only from Kansu and is not in cultivation. S. Giraldiana has been found only in Shensi and this, too, has not been introduced. S. Meyeri is based on material sent from a Chinese garden at Peking and has not yet been reported in a wild state. It was introduced into gardens in 1908 by the late F. N. Meyer. S. microphylla appears to be widely distributed in the north central province of Shensi, adjacent Kansu and southward to northern Honan, apparently keeping to the valley of the Yellow River. This pleasing plant was introduced into cultivation by William Purdom who sent seeds to Messrs. Veitch in 1910 and from whom the Arnold Arboretum received plants in 191 3. S. pubescens is native of the mountains beyond Peking whence seeds were sent by Dr. Bretschneider to the Jardin des Plantes in 1880; from the same source the Arnold Arboretum received seeds in 1882. Of S. oblata and its varieties we have already spoken. The remaining species, 5. villosa, is the oldest known of the Chinese Lilacs, having been collected about the middle of the eighteenth century by Pere d'Incarville on Po hua shan, a mountain immediately to the west of Peking. It was, however, not introduced into cultivation until sometime between 1879 and 1882 when Dr. Bretschneider sent seeds to Europe and to the Arnold Arboretum. A fairly common plant in the woodlands and forest glades of central and northern Korea is S. Wolfi and it probably occurs also in adjacent forests of Manchuria. It was introduced into the Botanic Gardens at St. Petersburg, presumably by seeds collected by Komarov in northern Korea. The same botanist, in all prob- ability, introduced S. velutina, a species even more widely distributed in Korea, being abundant in open woods and thickets on the Diamond Mountains and elsewhere. It has been grown in the Arnold Arboretum since 1902. A pleasing plant in many ways, its sweetly fragrant blossoms in early summer fill the woods with a delightful odor. It is remarkable as being the only true Lilac found outside of continental areas. As mentioned earlier it grows on Dagelet Island, a small islet in the Japan Sea, where occur a curious admixture of Korean and Japanese plants. Since the Lilac is so widely spread in the Orient it is very remarkable that no true Lilac grows wild in Japan. DESCRIPTION OF THE GENUS AND ITS SECTIONS WITH A KEY TO THE SPECIES BY Alfred Rehder, A.M. SYRINGA Syringa Linnaeus [Syst. (1735) ; ed. n. 16 (1740) ; Hort. Cliff. 6 (1737) ; Gen. PL 3 (1737) ;] Spec. PI. 9 (17 53). — Murray, Syst. Veg. 55 (1774). — Gaertner, Fruct. 1. 229, t. 49(1788). — Necker, El. Bot. n. 5 (1790). — Willdenow, Spec. PI. 1. 48 (1797). — Roemer and Schultes, Syst. Veg. 1. 76 (1817). — Reichenbach, Consp. 134 (1828). — Koch, Syn. Fl. Germ. 482 (1837). — G. Don,»Gen. Syst. iv. 51 (1837). — Endlicher, Gen. PI. 1. 573 (1838). — Spach, Hist. Nat. Veg. vrn. 279 (1839). — De Candolle, Prodr. vni. 282 (1844). — K. Koch, Dendr. n. pt. 1. 264 (1872). — Bentham and Hooker, Gen. PI. n. 675 (1873). — Boissier, Fl. Orient, rv. 38 (1879). — Baillon, Hist. PI. xi. 249 (1892). — Knoblauch in Engler and Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. rv. pt. n. 7 (1892), exclud. sect. Sarcocarpion. — Schneider, HI. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 771 (191 1). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11, 74 (1920). — Bailey, Man. Cult. PI. 597 (1924). — Rehder, Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 751 (1927). — Hegi, Fl. Mittel-Eur. v. pt. m. 1908 (1927). Lilac [Tournefort, Inst. 601, pi. 372 (1700). — ] Adanson, Fam. Nat. PI. n. 223 (1763). — Lamarck, Fl. Franc. 11. 305 (1778). — Jussieu, Gen. PI. 105 (1789). — Moench, Meth. 430 (1794). — Grenier and Godron, Fl. France, 11. 473 (1850). Liliacum Renault, Fl. Dep. Orne, 100 (1800). Ligustrina Ruprecht, Beitr. Prlanzenk. Russ. Reich, xi. 55 (1859). — Maximowicz in Bull. Acad. Sci. St. Petersb. xx. 432 (Diagn. PI. Nov. xix.) (1875); in Mel. Biol. ix. 395 (1875)- Pre-Linnean literature and synonyms see under Syringa vulgaris. Homonym Syringa [Tournefort, Inst. 617, pi. 389 (1700). — ] Adanson, Fam. Nat. PI. n. 244 (1763). — Moench, Meth. 678 (1794) = Philadelphus Linnaeus. Deciduous shrubs or small trees; branchlets terete to four-angled, with solid pith; winter-buds with several pairs of outer imbricate scales, glabrous or pubescent, the terminal bud often wanting; leaf scars with a compound transverse bun die- trace. Leaves opposite, petioled, rarely subsessile, orbicular-ovate to lanceolate, rarely nearly linear, undivided, rarely lobed or pinnate, entire, with 3-7 pairs of veins. Flowers perfect, sessile or pedicelled, in terminal or lateral panicles, with or after the leaves; calyx small, campanulate, 4-toothed or nearly truncate, persistent; corolla salver-shaped with cylin- dric or narrowly funnel-shaped tube and 4 valvate more or less spreading lobes; stamens 2, inserted on the tube of the corolla near or above the middle; ovary 2-celled, with 2 pendulous ovules in each cell; style filiform, included, shorter than stamens, with 2-lobed stigma. Fruit an oblong or ovoid- to obovoid-oblong capsule, leathery, compressed, 2- celled, loculicidal; seeds in each cell 2, oblong, compressed, narrowly winged, albuminous. The genus belongs to the family of Oleaceae and forms with the genera Forsythia Vahl and Schrebera Roxburgh the tribe Syringeae differing from all other Oleaceae 10 THE LILAC in its capsular loculicidal fruit with winged seeds; the genus Forsythia is easily distinguished from Syringa by the yellow, axillary and fascicled precocious flowers with imbricate corolla-lobes and by the lamellate or evanescent pith of the branch- lets, while the genus Schrebera differs in the 4-8-merous flowers with the valvate corolla-lobes bearded inside and in its exalbuminous seeds. All three genera have the peculiarity that they contain species with undivided and with lobed or pinnate leaves, the latter being the exception in Syringa, but in Schrebera pinnate leaves are the rule, while in Forsythia some species have only part of the leaves lobed or sometimes 3-parted. The flowers of the section Ligustrina bear a strong resem- blance to those of Ligustrum, but that genus is easily distinguished by its berry- like fruit. The species of Syringa are all closely related to each other and very similar in their general appearance. The most distinct group is the section Ligustrina established in 1857 by Ruprecht and distinguished by the very short corolla- tube. No subdivision of Eusyringa, the typical group, was attempted until Schneider in 1910 distinguished the groups Villosae and Vulgares the latter with lateral, the former with terminal inflorescences, a character to which the writer had drawn attention about eight years earlier in the key to the species of Syringa in Bailey's Cyclopedia of American Horticulture (rv. 1762). The Vulgares group was again subdivided by Schneider into Euvulgares and Pubescentes. A third section, Sar- cocarpion, established by Franchet in 1886 and based on his new species Syringa sempervirens, was separated in 1916 by W. W. Smith as a distinct genus, Parasy- ringa, but Lingelsheim in 1920 referred the species to Ligustrum and four years later Mattfeld (in Bot. Jahrb. ldc. Beibl. 123, p. 69) made Sarcocarpion a section of Ligustrum with L. sempervirens as the only species, characterized by the tardily dehiscent endocarp of the berry-like fruit. Twenty-eight species of Syringa are recognized in this work; the last mono- grapher of the genus, Lingelsheim, described thirty species, but of these eight have been reduced here to synonymy, while six species not known to Lingelsheim have been added. The majority of the species is Chinese; in western China the genus reaches its greatest development and spreads from there to central and northeastern China, but it is not found in eastern China south of Honan. From northern China the genus extends eastward through Manchuria to Korea and northern Japan, west- ward into Tibet and southward to Afghanistan and the northwestern Himalaya. It appears again in the mountains of the Balkan peninsula. Judging from its dis- tribution the genus must have originated in Tertiary or pre-Tertiary times, but no fossil remains referable to it have been so far recorded. Also the distribution of its tropical counterpart, Schrebera, which is found in southern Asia, Africa and on the Andes of South America, speaks for a circumpolar area of the tribe during Tertiary times. DESCRIPTION OF THE GENUS 11 THE SUBDIVISIONS OF SYRINGA Sect. i. Eusyringa K. Koch, Dendr. n. pt. i. 265 (1872), as subgen. — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 112 (1889), as subgen. — Knoblauch in Engler and Prantl, Pflanzenfam. iv. pt. 11. 8 (1892). — Koehne, Deutsch. Dendr. 499 (1893), as subgen. — Schneider, 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 771 (191 1), as subgen. — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartnr- Zeit. xtv. 206 (1899), as subgen.; in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vr. 3300 (1917), as sect.; Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 751 (1927), as subgen. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 74 (1920). Corolla-tube exceeding the calyx, much longer than lobes; anthers included or ex- serted, only Yi longer than filaments; flowers lilac, purple, pink, or whitish to white. Series 1. vlllosae Schneider in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. ix. 80 (1910); HI. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 778 (1911), as sect. — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vr. 3300 (1917), as group; Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 751 (1927), as sect. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 75 (1920), as subsect. Inflorescence terminal on leafy branchlets, from the terminal bud of last year's branches; anthers yellow; odor of flowers usually not agreeable; fruit smooth or slightly warty. Nine species from the northwest Himalaya to northern China and east to Korea, also in southeastern Europe. Species 1-9. Series 2. vulgares Schneider in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. ix. 79 (1910); HI. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 772 (1911), as sect. — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. rv. 3300 (1917), as group; Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 751 (1927), as sect. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. i-h. 75 (1920), as subsect. Inflorescence without leaves at base, from lateral buds on last year's branches, the terminal bud normally wanting and replaced by two axillary buds; flowers usually very fragrant. Subseries A. Pubescentes Schneider in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. rx. 80 (1910); 111. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 772 (191 1), as subsect. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 87 (1920), as series. Leaves more or less pubescent, often densely so beneath, rarely nearly or quite gla- brous, without stomata on upper surface; inflorescence usually more or less pilose; flowers rather small, limb about x/i in. across; anthers yellow to bluish or violet; fruit warty or sometimes nearly smooth. Ten species from western China to central and through northern China east to Korea and the Dagelet Island. (Species 10-19.) Subseries B. Euvulgares Schneider, in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. ix. 80 (1910); 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 772 (191 1), as subsect. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. i-n. 87 (1920), as series. Leaves glabrous or sometimes on sterile shoots finely puberulous and ciliolate, with stomata on both sides, sometimes lobed or pinnate; inflorescence puberulous or glabrous; flowers rather large, limb about Y2 in. across; anthers yellow; fruit smooth. Six species from eastern Tibet through northern China east to Korea and also extend- ing into central China, in Afghanistan and in southeastern Europe. Species 20-25. 12 THE LILAC Sect. II. Ligustrina Ruprecht in Bull. Phys. - Math. St. Petersb. xv. 371 (1857); in Mel. Biol. n. 551 (1857). — Maximowicz in Mem. Sav. Etr. Acad. Sci. St. Petersb. DC. 193 (Prim. Fl. Amur.) (1859). — K. Koch Dendr. n. pt. 1. 271 (1872), as subgen. — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 117 (1889), as subgen. — Knoblauch in Engler and Prantl, Pflanzenfam. rv. pt. 11. 8 (1892). — Koehne, Deutsch. Dendr. 499 (1893), as subgen. — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit xiv. 207 (1899), as subgen.; in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 751 (1927), as subgen. — Schneider in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. rx. 82 (1910) ; HI. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 783 (1911), as subgen. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 92 (1920). Ligustrina Ruprecht in Beitr. Pflanzenk. Russ. Reich, xi. 55 (1859). — Maximowicz in Bull. Acad. Sci. St. Petersb. xx. 432 (Diagn. PI. Nov. xix.) (1875); in Mel. Biol, ix. 395 (1875). Corolla-tube short, scarcely longer than calyx, shorter than lobes; anthers exserted on filaments longer than anthers, yellow; flowers white or creamy- white, their odor not agreeable; inflorescences from lateral buds, without leaves at base; fruit smooth. Three species from northwestern China to Korea and northern Japan. Species 26-28. KEY TO THE SPECIES A. Corolla-tube much longer than calyx; anthers subsessile, wholly or partly included. B. Panicles from terminal buds, leafy at base. C. Leaves papillose and glaucous and glabrous beneath. D. Anthers protruding half their length; leaves elliptic to oblong, 2-9 in. long, 1-5 in. broad. 1. S. emodi, p. 17 DD. Anthers not or slightly protruding; leaves elliptic-oblong to elliptic-lanceolate, 1^-3 in. long, 3^-1 in. broad. 2. S. yunnanensis, p. 29 CC. Leaves not papillose, green or glaucescent and usually pilose beneath at least along the midrib, rarely glabrous. D. Corolla-tube funnelform, gradually widened from about the middle, lobes more or less upright; anthers inserted below the mouth. E. Panicles upright. F. Leaves broad-elliptic to elliptic-oblong, 2-5 H in. long, glaucescent be- neath; anthers just above the middle of the tube; inflorescence pu- bescent. (See also X S. Henryi,p. 99 and X S. nanceiana, p. 107.) 3. S. Josikaea, p. 33 FF. Leaves elliptic-oblong to elliptic-lanceolate, 3-7 in. long, grayish green beneath; anthers inserted in the upper third of the tube; inflores- cence often pilose, sometimes glabrous. 4. S. Wolfi, p. 63 EE. Panicles pendulous or nodding, dense. F. Flowers whitish or light buff inside, pink outside, carmine in bud, in usually pendulous slender panicles, 5-12 in. long. (See also X S. Prestoniae, p. 109.) 5. S. reflexa, p. 71 FF. Flowers purple-pink, paler outside, in nodding compact cylindric panicles 2-6 in. long. 6. S. Komarowi, p. 75 DD. Corolla- tube cylindric or nearly so, lobes spreading. E. Anthers reaching the mouth, slightly protruding; inflorescence with two pairs of leaves below. KEY TO THE SPECIES 13 F. Inflorescence compact; flowers short-stalked; leaves acute at ends, iK-2H hi. broad, glaucescent beneath and pilose only along the veins or nearly glabrous. (See also X 5. Eenryi, p. 99, X S. nan- ceiana, p. 107 and X S. Prestoniae, p. 109.) 7. S. villosa, p. 81 FF. Inflorescence loose; flowers subsessile; leaves acute to acuminate, %-2 in. broad, soft-pubescent beneath, sometimes only on veins. 8. S. tomentella, p. 115 EE. Anthers below the mouth, not at all protruding; inflorescence loose, usu- ally with only one pair of small leaves below or none, often with addi- tional lateral inflorescences; leaves acuminate, pilose on veins near base beneath or glabrous. (See also X S. nanceiana, p. 107.) 9. S. Sweginzowii, p. 123 BB. Panicles from lateral buds, the terminal bud normally wanting. C. Leaves entire or sometimes partly lobed. D. Corolla about x/i in. in diameter; leaves pubescent at least on or near midrib beneath (glabrous in nos. 18 and 19); fruit warty or sometimes nearly smooth; winter-buds pubescent or puberulous (glabrous in no. 19). E. Anthers slightly below the mouth, equalling about H~H 0I> tube; branch- lets usually short-pubescent; leaves usually rather densely pubescent beneath and less so above. F. Anthers purple or grayish blue (unknown in no. 10); leaves up to 4 in. long, acuminate; petiole TWA in. long. G. Leaves glaucescent beneath, pilose on veins; flowers unknown. 10. S. Giraldiana, p. 129 GG. Leaves densely gray-pubescent beneath, rarely glabrescent and pilose only on veins. H. Inflorescence short-pilose; pedicels short-pilose. 11. S. Julianae, p. 131 HH. Inflorescence puberulous; pedicels glabrescent. 12. S. velutina, p. 135 FF. Anthers yellow ; leaves not more than 2 Yi in. long; petiole xl\trxA m- long. G. Leaves densely pubescent beneath. H. Leaves smooth above, thin; calyx glabrescent or pilose. 13. S. Potanini, p. 144 HH. Leaves wrinkled above, thickish; inflorescence including calyx densely gray-pilose. 14. S. rugulosa, p. 148 GG. Leaves pilose only on veins beneath. 15. S. pinetorum, p. 149 EE. Anthers above the middle of tube, much below the mouth, equalling about y4 or y5 of tube; branchlets glabrous to pubescent when young. F. Anthers purple or bluish; leaves K-2/^ m. long, usually acuminate or acute, rarely obtuse. G. Corolla less than % in. long; flowers pale lilac; leaves pubescent beneath at least on veins near base. 16. S. microphylla, p. 151 GG. Corolla H~iHs hi- long. H. Leaves pubescent beneath at least on veins near base; the two lower pairs of veins distant; flowers pale lilac; scales of winter-buds pubescent. 17. S. pubescens, p. 159 14 THE LILAC HH. Leaves glabrous; the two lower pairs of veins close; flowers purple-lilac ; scales of winter-buds only ciliate. 18. S. Meyeri, p. 169 FF. Anthers yellow; leaves rotundate, Y%-\ in. long, obtuse or rarely short-acuminate, glabrous. 19. S. Wardii, p. 173 DD. Corolla about J^ in. in diameter; anthers yellow; leaves glabrous or sometimes on sterile shoots ciliate or finely puberulous; branchlets glabrous; fruit smooth; winter-buds glabrous, rarely minutely puberulous. E. Leaves ovate or orbicular-ovate, acuminate, subcordate or truncate, rarely broad-cuneate at base. F. Leaves broad-ovate, coloring orange to purple in autumn; anthers slightly above the middle of tube. (See also X S. hyacinthiflora, p. 193.) 20. S. oblata, p. 175 FF. Leaves ovate, remaining green in autumn; anthers just below throat. (See also X S. hyacinthiflora, p. 193 and X S. chinensis, p. 401.) 21. S. vulgaris, p. 201 EE. Leaves oblong-ovate to oblong-lanceolate, rarely elliptic or linear-oblong. F. Petiole V24-V5 in. long; leaves Yi-\XA m- long) thickish, entire; inflo- rescence xA~iYi in. long. G. Leaves acute, rarely obtuse, ovate-lanceolate to linear-oblong. 22. S. afghanica, p. 428 GG. Leaves obtuse, elliptic to oblong-obovate. 23. S. buxifolia, p. 432 FF. Petiole 1/5-I/2in. long; leaves 1-23^ in. long, often partly lobed; inflo- rescence 2-3^ in. long. (See also X S. chinensis, p. 401.) 24. S. persica, p. 433 CC. Leaves pinnate, with 7-9 leaflets; panicles small. 25. S. pinnatifolia, p. 469 AA. Corolla-tube not or little longer than calyx; anthers on slender filaments, exserted; fruit smooth or sometimes warty. B. Leaves ovate to ovate-lanceolate, rounded or rarely subcordate to broad-cuneate at base. C. Petiole M~/4 hi. long; leaves membranous, glabrous to pubescent beneath, veins elevated. 26. S. amurensis, p. 473 CC. Petioles 3/5-iV4 hi. long, slender, drooping; leaves thickish, glabrous, veins not or slightly elevated. 27. S. pekinensis, p. 491 BB. Leaves oblong-lanceolate, attenuate at base, pubescent along midrib and veins, thin. 28. S. Fauriei, p. 507 ENUMERATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES AND VARIETIES Plate I SYRINGA EMOD1 \rnold Arboretum no. 6628s) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1025. Plate II SYRINGA EMODI (Arnold Arboretum no. 6628) Expanding buds, enlarged. May 17, 1926. Plate III SYRINGA EMODI (Arnold Arboretum no. 6628) Flower cluster. June 24, 1924. Plate IV (Arnold Arboretum no. 6628) Fruit, enlarged. Picked August, 1924. Plate V SYRINGA EMODI (Arnold Arboretum no. 6628) Bark. November, 1925. SYRINGA EMODI Syringa emodi Wallich, Cat. no. 2831 (1831), name only. — G. Don, Gen. Syst. iv. 51 (1838). — Loudon, Arb. Brit. 11. 1212, fig. 1041 (1838). — Royle, 111. Bot. Himal. 1. 267; 11. t. 65, fig. 2 (1839). — Bosse, Handb. Blumengartn. 111. 462 (1842). — De Can- dolle, Prodr. vm. 283 (1844). — Lindley in Bot. Reg. xxxi. t. 6 (1845). — Hort. Univ. vi. 288 (1845). — Morren in Ann. Soc. Agric. Bot. Gand, 1. 107 (1845). — Rev. Hort. 1845-1846, 27 (extract from Bot. Reg., 1. c.). — Paxton's Mag. Bot. xii. 22 (1846) (extract from Bot. Reg., 1. c). — Pepin in Rev. Hort. 1846, 123; 1856, 285. — Jacques and Herincq, Fl. Jard. Europ. in. 54 (1847-1857). — Bon Jard. 1849, 737- — Decaisne and Naudin, Man. Amateur Jard. in. 89 (1862-1866). — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 492 (1864). — Jager, Ziergeholze, 529 (1865). — [K. Koch] in Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xii. 44 (1869) ; Dendr. 11. pt. 1. 270 (1872). — Brandis, Forest Fl. N. W. Centr. India, 306 (1874); Indian Trees, 445, 713 (1906). — Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1876, 367, fig. 79. — DeVosinNederl.Fl.Pom.il. 201 (1876). — Sieboldia, 111. 18 (1877). — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 564, fig. (1875). — Hemsley, Handb. Hardy Trees, 296 (1877). — ' Gordon in Garden, xii. 419, fig. (1877). — Decaisne in Nouv. Arch. Mus. Paris, ser. 2, 11. 40 (1879), in part, excluding David specimen no. 2239. — Lauche, Deutsch. Dendr. 173 (1880). — Aitchison in Jour. Linn. Soc. London, xviii. 78 (Flora Kuram Valley, etc., Afghan.) (1880). — C. B. Clarke in J. D. Hooker, Fl. Brit. India, in. 605 (1882). — Franchet in Bull. Soc. Philom. Paris, ser. 7, ix. 121-127 (1885); Observations sur les Syringa du nord de la Chine, reprint, 2 (1885). — Borbas in Erdesz. Lap. 1887, 251. — Flatt in Erdesz. Lap. 1887, 568; in Verh. Mitt. Siebenbiirg. Ver. Naturw. Hermannstadt, xl. 114 (1890); in Nagyvarad, March 29, 1891; A Josika- Farol, reprint, 16 pp. (1891). — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. in. 536, fig. 562 (1887). — Boissier, Fl. Orient. Suppl. 342 (1888). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 46, June 20 (1913); n. s. in. 41 (1917). — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 115 (1889). — H. Christ in Verh. Mitt. Siebenbiirg. Ver. Naturw. Hermannstadt, xl. 116 (1890). — E. Lemoine in Garden, xxxix. 92, fig. (p. 106) (1891). — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 378, fig. (1892). — Mou- illefert, Traite Arb. Arbris. 11. 1000 (1892-1898). — Koehne, Deutsch. Dendr. 500 (1893). — L. Henry in Jardin, vm. 88, 102 (1894); xv. 280 (1901); in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 728, 752 (1901), in part, excluding David specimens. — Gourlot in Jar- din, xi. 150 (1897). — Bean in Garden, liii. 276 (1898); Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, 11. 566, fig. (1914). — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 207 (1899); in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3300 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 752 (1927). — Keissler in Oesterr. Bot. Zeit. xlix. 213 (1899). — Grosdemange in Rev. Hort. 1902, 178.— Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 415 (1903). — Schneider in Wien. 111. Gartenz. xxvin. 100 (1903); in Bot. Jahrb. xxxvi. Beibl. 82, p. 89 (1905); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 226, 230 (1911); 111. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 783 (1911); in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 361 (1913). — Zabel in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. 17 18 THE LILAC Ges. no. 13, 66 (1904). — Dunbar in Gard. Mag. 1. 234 (1905). — Antal Guylas in Muzeum Fiizetek (Kolosvar), 11. 35-66 [Hungarian]; 67-104 [German], t. in. figs. 3, s, t. rv. figs. 8, 9, 14, 17 (1907); A Syringa Josikaea Jacq. fil. es a Syringa Emodi Wal- lich; Syringa Josikaea Jacq. fil., und Syringa Emodi Wallich, reprint, 38 pp., t. in. figs. 3, 5, t. iv. figs. 8, 9, 14, 17 (1909). — Mottet, Arbust. Orn. 243, fig. 55 (1908); Arb. Arbust. Orn. 338 (1925). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxm. 155 (1916); Aristocrats of the Garden, 215, 225 (1917). — Goeze in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 25, 172 (1916). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 75, fig. 3 a, b (1920). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922). — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 485 (1923). — A. 0[sborn] in Garden, lxxxvii. 301 (1923). — Stipp in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xl. 398 (1925); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 37, 148 (1926). — Stares, Cerines {Syringa L.), 4, 27 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). — G. Hegi, HI. Fl. Mittel-Eur. v. pt. 111. 1910, 1912 (1927). Syringa indica Royle according to Lindley in Bot. Reg. xxxi. t. 6 (1845), as a synonym. Syringa vulgaris var. Emodi De Jaubert, Invent. Cult. Trianon, 25 (1876). S[yringa] Josikaea Franchet in Rev. Hort. 1 891, 332, in part, as to the synonym S. Emodi Wallich. Syringa villosa var. Emodi Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 207 (1899), as a synonym; in Bailey, Cycl. Amer. Hort. iv. 1762 (1902). S[yringa] Emodi fi[ore] albo Hort. according to Zabel in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 13, 66 (1904), as a synonym. A broad shrub up to 15 ft. tall; branches and branchlets upright or ascending, robust, gray or olive-brown, with conspicuous, long, pale lenticels and prominent fissures in the bark, glabrous. Winter-buds ovoid with acute apex, flower bud 7/ie in- long more or less, dark to reddish brown, scales acute, glabrous, lower pair prominently keeled. Leaf- scar much raised, semicircular, not conspicuous, medium size; bundle-trace semicircular. Leaves elliptic to oblong, 2-9 in. long, 1-5 in. broad, acute, base acute or tapering, dull dark green, glabrous above, pale, glaucous, glabrous or rarely pubescent on midrib beneath; midrib, primary veins and veinlets conspicuous, midrib tinged above Indian Purple (xxxvni.) for }/2 the length of leaf; petiole Y^A in- !<>ng> slender, glabrous, rarely pubescent, tinged Indian Purple (xxxvin.). Inflorescence borne on leafy shoots, terminal, upright, 3-5 in. long, 1-3 in. broad; rhachis frequently quadrangular, glabrous, rarely pubescent, lenticellate ; pedicel short, glabrous, rarely pubescent; calyx short, glabrous, rarely pubescent, with shallow, rounded teeth; corolla-tube cylindric, slender, % in. long; corolla-lobes spreading at right angles to corolla- tube, narrow, cucullate; corolla 3/io in. in, diameter; color in bud Pale Chalcedony Yellow (xvn.) tinged with Rhodonite Pink (xxxvin.); when expanded white; anthers Chalcedony Yellow (xvn.), inserted in mouth of corolla-tube, protruding half their length. Capsule oblong, smooth, glabrous, brown, % in. long, each valve terminating in a slender tip. (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant (no. 6628) growing in the Arnold Arboretum.) Habitat: Western Himalayas to Kumaon; Afghanistan. Syringa emodi is first mentioned in 183 1 by Nathaniel Wallich, without descrip- tion, in his voluminous catalogue, written in long-hand, and entitled "A numerical SYRINGA EMODI 19 list of dried specimens of plants in the East India Company's botanic garden at Calcutta." Wallich notes: "Kamaon versus Himalayam. R.B." The plants given in the Numerical List, it is stated, were collected under the superintendence of Dr. Wallich. Under plant no. 4, Grammatis caudata Wallich, three specimens are cited, the second of which was gathered by Robert Blinkworth and a footnote identifies him as a plant-collector under Dr. Wallich. The "R.B." mentioned above is undoubtedly the same collector. Britten and Boulger (Biographical Index of British and Irish Botanists, 18, 1893) mentions a "Blinkworth, Richard (fl[ourished] 1830). Collected at Kumaon. Correspondent of Wallich. Blink- worthia Choisy." It seems probable that there was but one Blinkworth who collected for Wallich, but whether his Christian name was incorrectly cited by Wallich or by Britten and Boulger has been impossible to determine. Blinkworth was evidently the first to collect S. emodi. The number of the plant is given as 2831. Wallich's catalogue was issued from 1828-1849, and in citing the year 1831 I have followed De Candolle's notes given in the Kew "Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information" (1913, 260) which states: "In Wallich's list, or catalogue, as it is usually cited, the following dates may be found: — Preface, December 1, 1828; after no. 2159, December, 1829; after no. 4361, 1830. . . I was not clear as to the earlier numbers till I found in an unpublished dictionary by de Candolle the following valuable note: — Nos. 1-2 153, 1829; nos. 2154-2603, 1830; nos. 2604-4877, 1831; nos. 6225-7683, 1832." The first description of the plant is found in G. Don's "General History . . ." in 1838, and reads: "leaves elliptic-oblong, glaucous beneath, attenuated at the base, and acuminated at the apex. . . . Branches warted. Thyrse terminal, panicled. Capsules almost cylindrical. Bud scales permanent at the base of the year's shoots. Flowers apparently purple;" Don notes it as a "Shrub 8 to 10 feet?." In the same year this description appears, slightly changed in form only, in Loudon's "Arboretum et Fruticetum Britannicum. . . ." Loudon mentions it among "Species of Syringa not yet introduced" and his figure is of little value. A colored plate appears in J. Forbes Royle's "Illustrations of the Botany and other branches of the Natural History of the Himalayan Mountains and of the Flora of Cashmere" published in 1839. A second was published in "The Botanical Register" of 1845 with a description by John Lindley. These two illustrations differ considerably, as is noted by Lindley: "It is not however quite certain that the plant intended by this eminent Botanist Dr. Royle is the same as that of Dr. Wallich's distributions, for the leaves have, in Dr. Royle's Indian figure, a very different form, tapering much to the foot-stalk, and the flowers are lilac, not white, in a long leafy panicle; moreover the segments of the corolla are without the singular inflexed point which is so striking a feature of the plant before us, and which we find equally in the dried specimens distributed by the East India Company. We however observe that a part of these specimens, not in flower, more resemble Dr. Royle's figure, and it may be that they are mere forms of each other." The 20 THE LILAC flowers of Royle's plate are purplish while those of Lindley's are greenish white; moreover the lenticels on the bark, which Lindley calls "pale pustule-like callos- ities," and which are a conspicuous character of this species, are lacking from Royle's plant, while the inflorescence is more open and the leaves are narrower and more tapering. One important character of this species, the protruding anthers, is, however, present in the flowers of both illustrations. Later figures of 5. emodi more nearly resemble the Lilac figured in "The Botanical Register." The plant of S. emodi growing in the Arnold Arboretum produces flowers similar in general appearance and in color to those of the Lindley plate. Burvenich (Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. xxvin. 193, t. 1902) writes of S. emodi in some detail and gives a full page colored figure of the plant but although he mentions the Lilac as coming from the Himalayas he describes the flowers as "blanc came" and his illustration indicates that he is writing of 5. villosa Vahl. I have, with a question, referred his plant to the latter species. Royle tells us that "the Himalayan Lilac is found in Kemaon, and in Sirmore on £he Suen range and the banks of the Giree and Jumna rivers." Sir Dietrich Brandis (Forest Fl. N. W. Centr. India, 1. c.) reports its habitat as: "Safedkoh, trans-Indus, 9000 feet. Abundant in many parts of N. W. Himalaya, from the Indus to the Sarda, ascending to 11,000 feet, in the outer moister ranges as well as in the inner more arid tracts (Lahoul)"; he adds, "the leaves used as fodder for goats." Brandis here describes the flowers as "purplish lilac, scented." Later (Indian Trees, I.e.) he mentions them as "white or purplish," and, in an addenda (p. 713) states that the plant "ascends to 12,000 ft." Major J. E. T. Aitchison in his work "On the Flora of the Kuram valley, etc., Afghanistan" describes 5. emodi as a "common shrub from nearly 8000 to 9000 feet; never occurs as low down as S. persica so as to mix with it. The flowers are always pure or greenish white never purple." In writing of the "Vegetation of the Valleys of the Safed Koh" (p. n) he notes: "As the valley widens largish trees of the walnut in a wild state occur, and with it Euonymus fimbriatus, Rhamnus purpureus and R. dahuricus, Fothergilla, Staphylea emodi and Syringa emodi, with pure white flowers. It is curious to note that the last-named plant always occupies a higher position than its congener 5. persica, and that the two never seem to mingle." The S. persica to which Aitchison refers is now considered to be a distinct species, 5. afghanica Schneider. C. B. Clarke, in Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker's "Flora of British India," notes that 5. emodi occurs in "sub-alpine Himalaya, alt. 9-12,000 feet, from Kashmir to Kumaon, frequent;" he mentions the corolla as "purplish or white." L. Henry states in his monograph (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, n. 752, 1901) that this Lilac was found by Victor Jacquemont on his voyage to Kashmir and Nepal in 1829-1832. The specimen (no. 2239) found by the Pere Armand David in the environs of Peking which was determined as S. emodi by Decaisne in his mono- graph (Nouv. Arch. Mus. Paris, ser. 2, 11. 40, 1879) *s now believed to be S. villosa, of which species S. emodi was once thought to be a variety. L. Henry also SYRINGA EMODI 21 wrongly classifies this species when he states that it was noted by David about 1871. A flowering specimen of S. emodi in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum, collected on July 2, 19 17, by R. R. Stewart (Plants of Punjab, no. 2544) at Sach Pass, Chamba, at an altitude of 9000 feet and described as a large shrub, is note- worthy because of the pubescent character of the leaves and inflorescence; else- where, without exception, I have found these to be glabrous. Other spontaneous specimens are in the same herbarium; among them is one (no. 2899^) collected at Ashdari-Sol, upper Chenab, at 7000 ft., July 14, 1917, by R. R. Stewart; two others (no. 184) from Mawar basin, Jhelum Valley, at 6500 ft., (no. 1034) from Khurhama forests, Lolah, Jhelum, at 8000 ft.; both of these are from Kashmir and were collected in 1906 and 1908 by Keshavanand; another from the Langera Reserve, Bhandal Valley, Chamba State, 8800 ft., collected October 5, 1919, by R. N. Parker; still another from Chhao forest, Chamba, at «)ooo ft., collected August 26, 1899, by Harsuhk. All these specimens came from the western Himalaya Mountains; the border of Sikkim and Nepal forms the dividing line between the eastern and western sections. The specimens in the herbarium of Kew Gardens, classified by W. B. Hemsley (Jour. Linn. Soc. London, xxvi. 83, 1889-1902) in the "Index Florae Sinensis" (vol. in. 83) as S. emodi, I refer as follows: the [Ernst] Faber plant [no. 203], collected at Mt. Omei in Szechuan, at 10,000 feet, to S. Komarowi Schneider; the Tatarinov and David specimens collected in Chihli, the former on the hills near Peking, the latter from Po hua shan, as well as the Mollendorf specimen from the Hsiao wu tai shan in Chihli, to S. villosa Vahl. For the 5. emodi of Diels see S. Komarowi. Through the courtesy of Dr. A. W. Hill, two of the specimens (no. 722) showing fruit and foliage, which were collected by Dr. J. E. T. Aitchison in December, 1879, were forwarded from Kew for examination. In the Gray Herbarium, Cam- bridge, Massachusetts, are two specimens collected by Schlagintweit in the western Himalayas; one (gen. no. of cat. 4050), dated June 14, 1856, from the province of Lahol, on the "left shore of the Bhaga (later Tsinab) at Kardong" (this specimen came from the Hooker herbarium) ; the second (gen. no. of cat. 12,032) came from Kashmir, at "Gures across the Ulli Plain and two small Passes to Bandipur (north- west of Srinagar)." Also in the Gray Herbarium is a specimen, collected at an elevation of 10,000 feet by R. Strachey and J. E. Winterbottom, from Singjari, Kumaon. Syringa emodi is cited by Franchet in 1891 (Rev. Hort.,1. c.) as a synonym of S. Josikaea Jacquin fil. Franchet had earlier, in his "Observations sur les Syringa du nord de la Chine" published in 1885, stated, but without indicating to which species he gave precedence, that he considered the two to be identical. The Hun- garian botanists, Flatt and Guylas in particular (as is noted under S. Josikaea), disagreed with Franchet's determination. Professor Sargent (Garden and Forest, I. 222, 1888) notes that to S. villosa 22 THE LILAC "should perhaps be referred, as Mr. Franchet hints ... 5. Josikaea and 5. Emodi ..." Mr. Rehder in 1899 called S. emodi S. villosa var. Emodi. De Jaubert called the Himalayan Lilac S. vulgaris var. Emodi. Barral (Rev. Hort. i860, 88, 255) quotes a controversy between Carriere and Baltet as to whether S. emodi was a Lilac at all; Baltet states that it is not a Troene, the French for Privet or Ligustrum; he suggests, "Ne serait-ce pas plutot un Chionanthe ?" Carriere points out that the fruit of the Chionanthus is a drupe and not a dry capsule, as in the Lilac. He adds: "Le Syringa Emodi est peut-etre de tous les vegetaux celui qui 'mime' le mieux le Quinquina" [ = Cinchona Linnaeus]. Lindley (Bot. Reg., 1. c.) had noted its resemblance to the Privet: "Its blossoms have much the look of Privet, and are wholly destitute of the sweet perfume of other Lilacs, instead of which they have a heavy unpleasant smell." W. J. Bean (Garden, 1. c.) states: "The credit of first raising and cultivating this Lilac in Britain belongs to the (then) Horticultural Society, to whose garden seeds collected in the Himalayas were sent by Dr. Royle, the Indian botanist." Pepin in 1846 (Rev. Hort., 1. c.) tells us that three years earlier [1843] it was sent from England to France. He names it as growing on the continent in the collections of Messrs. Pele and Chauviere. He also states (Rev. Hort. 1856, 285) that it first flowered at the [Jardin des Plantes] Museum of Natural History, Paris, in 1849, and abundantly in 1856. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 25, 1883) mentions S. emodi as "Ziemlich hart, soil bei starker Kalte zuriickfrieren. Im Bot. G., junge aus Samen gezogene Straucher, welche noch nicht gebluht haben, aber bisher gut ausgehalten haben." He notes it as cultivated at Riga in the garden of Wagner and according to Hoff. [?] winter-killed, — "(Hoff.: erfriert)." It appears in French nursery catalogues as follows: as Syringa Emodi (nouveau Lilas de l'Himalaya) (Oudin, 1845-1846, 13); as Lilas de l'Himalaya {Emodi) (Oudin, 1846-1847, 11); as Syringa (lilas) emodi (de l'Himalaya) ou species de Sanghai (Oudin, 1846-1847, 17); as Lilas, Syringa, Emodi, de l'Hymalaya (Sen6clauze, 1846-1847, n); as Syringa Emundii (A. Leroy, 1851,48); as Syringa (lilac) emundi (L. Leroy, 1858-1859, 94); as S. Emodi Wall., Lilas d'Emodii (A. Leroy, 1865, 100). In nursery catalogues of the United States we find it: as Syringa emodi, Lilac emodi (William R. Prince, 1847, 36); as Syringa Emodi, Lilac Emods, A Nepal species (Ellwanger and Barry, no. 2, 9, 1855-1856); as Syringa Emodii, Nepal Lilac (William R. Prince, 1856-1857, 44). In Great Britain the plant is not entirely hardy. William Jackson Hooker (Gard. Chron. 1854, 287; Rev. Hort. 1854, 356) states that he has observed winter killing of its young shoots in the garden of the then Horticultural Society at Chiswick. In his "Aristocrats of the Garden," E. H. Wilson writes of S. emodi in the United States: "it is less hardy than any other species" and is one of the few Lilacs "which thrive better in Great Britain than in New England." SYRINGA EMODI 23 Carriere (Rev. Hort., 1. c.) writes of the plant's fruiting ability in France: "Les fruits, qui rappellent ceux du S. Josikaea, sont dresses comme ceux de ce dernier, mais tou jours tres-peu nombreux dans nos cultures." In a footnote he writes that at Brest (Finistere) at the military hospital it fruits abundantly: "La, en effet, le Syringa Emodi fructifie en telle abondance, que notre collegue et ami, M. Blanchard, jardinier en chef de cet etablissement, coupe avec soin chaque annee, aussitot qu'elles sont passees, toutes les inflorescences qui, sans cela, se chargent de graines et bientot tombent sur le sol, ou elles germent promptement et donnent naissance a des plantes qui encombrent les allees." Fruit is not uncommon on the plant in the Arnold Arboretum. L. Henry (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, 1. c), writes of S. emodi and of its varieties with variegated foliage: "Les Lilas Emodi n'ont guere de valeur ornementale que par leur beau feuillage et leur bonne tenue; la floraison en est mediocre. lis sont tout a fait rustiques sous le climat de Paris et se plaisent surtout en sols sains et s'echauffant facilement. On les multiplie de semis; les varietes se greffent sur franc, ou sur Lilas de Bretschneider, ou encore sur Lilas commun." Grosdemange (Rev. Hort., 1. c.) discusses its method of flowering. Lindley (Bot. Reg., 1. c.) tells us "It is easily increased by seeds or by cutting off the smaller side-shoots when half-ripe." S. emodi (no. 6628 Am. Arb.) was received at the Arnold Arboretum in the form of cuttings, from the Harvard Botanic Garden, Cambridge, Massachusetts, m July, 1 88 1, and, following the botanical classification adopted at various times, Hs name was changed from S. emodi to 5. villosa var. emodi, to S. villosa, and finally back to iS. emodi. Its flower buds are apt to be injured by late frosts. The plant blooms sparingly and the fragrance of its rather inconspicuous, greenish white flower-clusters, is not especially pleasing. It is a broad, round- topped shrub, heavily foliaged, with large leaves which unfold late in the spring, and only fall in late autumn. Its blooming season comes after that of the Common Lilac and later even than that of such tardy species as S. villosa and S. Julianae or near the middle or end of June. It is an erratic bloomer, some clusters only opening after others have faded. The individual blossom shrivels with- out falling from the flower-cluster which is rarely therefore in a state of per- fection. A distinguishing character of the plant is its extremely lenticellate bark, marked, on the branchlets, with long, pale, vertical fissures, which on the older and grayer branches become dark and net-like in appearance. John Lindley notes that seed was received at the garden of the Horticultural Society of London from Dr. Royle under "the names of Syringa Emodi and Syringa indica." It is commonly called the Himalayan Lilac and this has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names." The name has been translated into the French Lilas de l'Himalaya, and into the German Himalaya- Flieder. Pepin (Rev. Hort. 1846, 1. c.) calls it the Lilas des monts Emodi, and L. Henry (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, 1. c.) Lilas Emodi. Kirchner and others call it v 24 THE LILAC Emodi-Flieder. William R. Prince, as noted among the catalogue references, calls it the Nepal Lilac. Brandis, in 1874 and in 1906, mentions numerous vernacular names used in India. Four plants named by Wallich bear the specific name emodi, a Staphylea, a Paeonia, a Podophyllum and a Syringa. Neither Royle (111. Bot. Himal., 1. c.) nor Hooker (Fl. Brit. India, 1. c.) refer to the origin of the name. Charles Flatt in 1891 (see bibliography of S. Josikaed) refers to "S. emodi ... a plant that grows on the Himalayas (Mons Emodus, Kardong)" and Dr. Gustav Hegi in 1927 states in a footnote to S. emodi: "Benannt nach dem 'Mons Emodus' bei dem Dorfe Kordong in Ostindien." (I suppose that Kordong refers to Kardong in the province of Lahol where, as noted, the species had been collected by Schlangintweit.) Dr. J. G. Th. Graesse (Orbis latinus, 83, 1861) on the other hand notes: "Emodi montes, das Himalaya-gebirge in Indien." To ascertain which definition of the word was the correct one I wrote to Dr. George F. Moore of Harvard University and received on November 25, 1927, the following very inter- esting reply : "I suppose that emodi as a specific name is meant to be a Latin genitive singular, e.g. Syringa emodi, 'S. of the Himalaya,' though the more common usage of botanists would have been to invent an adjective (emodiana), like S. chinensis. 'H/KoSojf opos or (plural) 'H/zco5d 6p-q is the name used by Greek geog- raphers in the third century B.C. and later for the Himalaya; Roman writers give Emodi montes (or H emodi — Pliny; or Haemodes (singular) — Mela). Another name for the range in classical geography is "Ifxaov opos, Imaus (mons) which Pliny (vi. 64) says, in the language of the natives, means 'snowy.' Both names, Emodi montes and Imaus, are thought to be derived from native Indian names of the Himalaya range, in which the word 'snow,' or 'snowy,' is the significant element. Neither is used by the classical geographers for any peak or particular part of the range, though after the eastern extension of the mountain system north of Farther India came to be known, they sometimes applied the name Emodi to the eastern part of the system (Ptolemy), and Imaus to what we call the Himalaya. What Wallich meant by his emodi can, therefore, not be learned from the ancients . . . The passage in Diodorus which you quote does not give as definite an indication of the region as might be desired because it is complicated with the question where he (or his authorities) thought that the 'Sakai' lived — one of the most perplexing problems of ethnography. My own opinion is that he located the Sakai in the Pamir, but the statements on this point in the ancient geographers and historians are irreconcilably conflicting." Sir David Prain, in a most informative letter dealing at length with the origin of the names Emodus and Himalaya as well as with the geographical regions which, by various writers, they were believed to represent, summarizes that Emodus as used by Dr. Wallich in his Syringa emodi meant the Himalayan range generally. Mr. Arthur Osborn of Kew, writing in "The Garden" of 1923, tells us that "hybrids raised on the continent between this species [S. emodi] or S. villosa SYRINGA EM0D1 25 and the Common Lilac are interesting and will no doubt be heard from in the future, but the Great War checked their development and dissemination." Mr. S. R. Duffy (Garden and Home Builder, May, 1927, 312) also writes: "Just before the outbreak of the world war we were told of a new race of late flowering Lilacs to be sent out. These were hybrids between the villosa section and the vulgaris hybrids and between the members of the villosa section." This cross is presumably the same as that to which Mr. Osborn had reference and is here dis- cussed under the hybrid S. Henryi Schneider (S. Josikaea X S. villosa). I know of no hybrid between Lilacs of the two groups Villosae and Vulgares. Three forms of S. emodi, characterized by variegated foliage, have been culti- vated. For convenience they are here arranged alphabetically. A form in which the leaves are said to be yellow throughout is : Aurea Hort. Behn[s]ch according to Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1886, 547, as S. Emodi aurea. — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. Suppl. v. 696 (1900). — L. Henry in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 753 (1901). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 415 (1903). — Render in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3300 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 752 (1927). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 78 (1920). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 28 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). S\yringa] E[modi] foliis aureis Mouillefert, Traite Arb. Arbris. n. iooi (1892-1898). Carriere writes of this form: "Cette variete, qui, par tous ses caracteres, rappelle le type, n'en differe guere que par la couleur de ses feuilles, qui est d'un jaune pale. Elle s'est aussi produit par dichroisme sur le Syringa Emodi foliis variegatis chez MM. Simon- Louis freres, a Plantieres-les-Metz." Carriere does not state why he attributes this form to Behnsch but he may have distributed the plant. Maxime Cornu (Rev. Hort. 1888, 493), writing of 5. emodi (not of S. Emodi rosea [= S. villosa] to which the article chiefly has reference), states: "II y a dans le S. Emodi cultive jusqu'ici une forme a. feuilles tres nettement dorees. Nous la possedons au Museum." L. Henry also writes: "Obtenu dans les pepinieres Simon-Louis, par dichroisme du S. Emodi foliis variegatis. Notablement different du type, non settlement par le beau coloris jaune de ses feuilles, argentees en dessous et nettement discolores, mais encore par les particularites suivantes; jeunes pousses et jeunes feuilles jaunatres au lieu d'etre rougeatres ou bronzes; floraison plus precoce d'une huitaines de jours; fleurs plus fines a, tube plus court et a divisions plus tot et plus nettement recurvees, devenant revolutees; calice vert et plus court; etamines tres nettement saillantes au lieu de n'arriver qu'a la gorge; inflorescences plus courtes et plus compactes, a verrues beaucoup plus nombreuses, plus saillantes, mais moins allongees; odeur encore plus forte et plus desagreable." Mouillefert describes the form thus: "Feuillage uniformement jaune et fleurs blanc- jaunatre." Rehder attributes this form to Simon-Louis. He had written (Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 207, 1899): "Die gelbblattrige Form S. Emodi aurea Sim [on] - Louis stammt moglicherweise von S. Emodi rosea [= S. villosa].'" At this time there 26 THE LILAC was considerable confusion as to the relationship of S. emodi and 5. villosa and Rehder then considered S. villosa to be a synonym of S. Emodi rosea Cornu. I have found only one mention (Cornu in Rev. Hort. 1888, 493) of a variegated- leaved form of 5. villosa and the plant is given no botanical name. See S. villosa. A plant of the form Aurea is growing in the collection of the Department of Parks, Rochester, New York. The foliage is golden throughout, contrasting noticeably with the young shoots, crimson in color. Another, in which the foliage is merely variegated with yellow, is: Aureo-variegata Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 169 (1877), name only, as S. Emodi var. aureo- variegata. — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 207 (1899) ; in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. VI. 3300 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 752 (1927). Syringe Emodi foliis variegatis Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 140 (1880). — Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1886, 547. — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 378 (1892). — Mouillefert, Traite Arb. Arbris. 11. 1001 (1892-1898). — L. Henry in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 753 (1901). — Stipp in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xl. 398 (1925). Syringa Emodi varieg[ata] van Kleef in Sieboldia, 111. 376 (1877). — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. hi. 536 (1887). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 415 (1903). — Bean, Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, 11. 567 (1914). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 78 (1920). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 28 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). Carriere, who attributes this form to Simon-Louis, writes: "Ne differe . . . du Sy- ringa Emodi que par la panachure de ses feuilles, qui est disseminee diversement dans l'interieur du limbe sous forme de marbrures jaunatres." Nicholson notes that "This differs from the type in having the leaves blotched with dull yellow." Maxime Cornu (Rev. Hort. 1888, 493) writing of S. emodi (not of S. Emodi rosea [= S. villosa] to which the article chiefly has reference) states: "il existe aussi une forme panachee doree d'apres M. Lavallee." L. Henry writes: " Se distingue du precedent [S. Emodi aurea] par les marbrures jaun- atres disseminees sur le limbe." Baudriller gives it the common name of Lilas de l'Himalaya a, feuilles panachees and notes: "Tres-belle variete nouvelle a, tres-grandes feuilles elegamment panachees et bordees de jaune"; Hartwig calls it the "bunt blatteriger E[modi] - Fl[ieder]." A third, characterized by yellow margins to the leaves is: Elegantissima Ottolander in Sieboldia, 11. 191 (1876). — De Vos in Sieboldia, 11. 198 (1876). — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 77 (1885). — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 378 (1892).— Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 415 (1903). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 78 (1920). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 28 (1926); reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). Ottolander describes this as "zeer fraai geel gerand, mede door de Vos gewonnen, waren takken tentoongesteld." De Vos notes that in the "Verslag der Bloemen-Tent- oonstelling onzer Pomologische Vereeniging" it is stated that this plant was raised by SYRINGA EMODI 27 Mm but this is not the case. He says that it is possible that he first had the plant but it was originally raised by Th. van der Bom of Oudenbosch. The Zoschen catalogue notes: " gelbgerandete Blatter, schon aber zartlich," and Hartwig calls it the " zierlichster E[modi]-Fl[ieder], mit gelbgerandeten Blattern." Possibly identical with this are: Lilas Emodi foliis aureis marg[inatis] (Baron- Veillard, Cat. 1876-1877, n) described as "Plante encore peu repandue, mais qui merite de l'etre car son feuillage et sa belle panachure en feront au printemps sans nul doute le plus beau des arbustes a feuilles caduques"; 5. Emodi variegata (Transon, Cat. 1880- 188 1, 66), described as follows: "Leaves as large as those of a Chionanthus in spring, freely edged with gold; the color is not so striking in autumn"; and S. Emodi aurea marginatis (Van Geert, Cat. no. 169, 44, 1896), listed without description. Plate VI SYRINGA YUNNANENSIS (Arnold Arboretum no. 7202) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1925. Plate VII SYRINGA YUNNANENSIS (Arnold Arboretum no. 17,387) Expanding buds, enlarged. May 3, 1926. Plate VIII all W 6 « § 3 £ 2 I SYRINGA JOSIKAEA (Arnold Arboretum no. 18,064) Winter buds, enlarged. January, 1926. Plate XII SYRINGA JOSIKAEA (Arnold Arboretum no. 18,064) Expanding buds, enlarged. May 3, 1926. Plate XIII SYRINGA JOSIKAEA (Arnold Arboretum no. 18,064) Flower cluster. June 20, 1924. Plate XIV SYRINGA JOSIKAEA (Arnold Arboretum no. 18,064) Fruit, enlarged. Picked August,' 1924. Plate XV SYRINGA JOSIKAEA Syringa Josikaea Jacquin fil. according to H. G. L. Reichenbach, Iconogr. Bot. PI. Crit. viii. 32, no. 1049, t. dcclxxx. (1830); Fl. Germ. Excurs. 1. 432, no. 2067 (1831); Icones Fl. Germ. Helvet. xvn. 20, t. mlxxiii. fig. 11. 6-8 (1855). — Jacquin fil. in Flora, xiv. pt. 1. 67 (1831); in Isis, col. 870 (1831); in Allg. Gartenzeit. 1. 4 (1833); in Haveti- dende, in. 513 (1837) (Danish translation); Eclogae PL 11. 11, t. 167 (1844). — Flora, xrv. pt. 1. 399 (1831). — R. Graham in Jameson, Edinb. New Philos. Jour. xv. 385, Sept. 10 (1833). — Hooker in Bot. Mag. lx. t. 3278 (1833). — Loudon in Gardener's Mag. ix. 706 (1833); Arb. Brit. 11. 12 10, figs. 1037, 1038 (1838). — Neumann in Ann. Fl. Pom. n. 306 (1834). — Ann. Soc. Hort. Paris, xiv. 355 (1834). — Hort. Reg. in. 38 (1834). — Lindley in Bot. Reg. xx. t. 1733 (1835). — Bluff and Fingerhuth, Compend. Fl. Germ. 1. 15 (1836). — Bon Jard. 1836, 597; 1849, 73^- — Van Houtte in L'Horticulteur Beige, in. 251 (1836), as S. Josikeii. — Maund, Botanist, 1. 24 [1836?]; Floral Reg. 1. 62 (1851). — G. Don, Gen. Syst. iv. 51 (1838). — Sweet, Hort. Brit. ed. 3, 454 (1839). — Spach, Hist. Nat. Veg. vm. 281 (1839). — Dietrich, Sp. PL 1. 38 (1839). — Bosse, Vollstand. Handb. Blumengartn. 111. 460 (1842).- — De Candolle, Prodr. vm. 283 (1844). — Pepin in Rev. Hort. 1844-1845, 120; 1846, 123. — Fuss in Baumgarten, Enum. Stirp. Transsilv., Mantissa, 1. 2 (1846); FL Transsilv. Excurs. 432 (1866). — Jacques and Herincq, Man. Gen. PL in. 54 (1847-1857). — Janka in Oesterr. Bot. Wochenbl. iv. no. 23, 188 (1854); in Termeszet. Fiizet. 1884, 313; in Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr. xxxv. 313 (1885). — Decaisne and Naudin, Man. Amateur Jard. 111. 89 (1862-1866). — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirch- ner, Arb. Muscav. 492 (1864). — Jager, Ziergeholze, 529 (1865). — Lindley and Moore, Treasury Bot. n. 1117 (1866). — Schur, Enum. PL Transsilv. 451 (1886). — May in Rev. Hort. 1870, 438. — Regel, Russ. Dendr. 208 [misnumbered 207] (1870). — [K. Koch] in Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xn. 44 (1869); Dendr. n. pt. 1. 270 (1872). — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 563, fig. (1875). — Willkomm, Forstl. Fl. Deutschl. 566 (1875). — De Jaubert, Invent. Cult. Trianon, 25 (1876).— Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 169 (1877). — Hemsley, Handb. Hardy Trees, 296 (1877). — De Vos in Nederl. Fl. Pom. 201 (1878). — Decaisne in Nouv. Arch. Mus. Paris, ser. 2, 11. 41 (1879). — Lauche, Deutsche Dendr. 171, fig. 58 (1880). — Simonkai (formerly Simkovics) in Termeszet. Fiizet. 1881, 43; Enum. Fl. Transsilv. 392 (1886). — J. Klein in Ter- meszet. Kozlony, xni. 314 (1881); in Bot. Centralbl. vn. 124 (1881) (German transl.). — Dietz in Erdesz. Lap. 1882, 221. — Borbas in Erdesz. Lap. 1882, 880; 1885, 396; 1887, 251; in Termeszet. Fiizet. 1884, 75, 313; in Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr. xxxv. 105 (1885); in Kertesz. Lap. 1887, 324. — Franchet in Bull. Soc. Philom. Paris, ser. 7, ix. 121-127 (1885) ; Observations sur les Syringa du nord de la Chine, reprint, 2 (1885) ; in Rev. Hort. 1891, 308, 332, excluding synonym S. emodi Wallich. — Bielz in Verh. Mitt. Siebenbiirg. Ver. Naturw. Hermannstadt, xxxvi. 51 (1886). — Csato in Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr. xxxvi- 249 (1886). — Kanitz in Magy. Nov. Lap. xi. 23 (1887). — Flatt in Erdesz. Lap. 1886, 141; 1887, 568; in Kertesz. Lap. 1882, 24; in Verh. Mitt. Siebenbiirg. Ver. Naturw. Hermannstadt, XL. 113 (1890); in Nagyvarad, March 29, 1891; A Josika-Farol, reprint, 16 pp. (1891). — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. in. 536 (1887). — A. Michalus in Erdesz. 33 34 THE LILAC Lap. 1887, 982 ; 1898, 849. — Sargent in Garden and Forest, 1. 222 (1888) ; iv. 343 (1891) ; in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 7, June 14 (191 1); n. s. in. 41 (191 7). — Dippel, Handb. Laub- holzk. 1. 115 (1889). — C. F. Nyman, Conspect. Fl. Europ. Suppl. 11. 215 (1889-1890). — J. G. J[ack] in Garden and Forest, in. 322 (1890). — Christ in Verh. Mitt. Sieben- biirg. Ver. Naturw. Hermannstadt, XL. 116 (1890); in Garden and Forest, rv. 190 (1891); in Gard. Chron. ser. 3, x. 8 (1891). — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 378, fig. (1892). — Mouille- fert, Traite Arb. Arbris. n. 1001 (1892-1898). — Koehne, Deutsch. Dendr. 499 (1893). — L. Henry in Jardin, vm. 88, 102 (1894); ix. 31 (1895); xv- 2&° C1*?01); m Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 3, xix. 444 (1897); ser. 4, n. 728, 750, 753 (1901); in Rev. Hort. 1902, 40, t. fig. 2. — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 654, fig. (1896). — Dauthenay in Rev. Hort. 1898, 58. — Bean in Garden, liii. 276 (1898); Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, 11. 568 (1914). — Pax in Engler and Drude, Veg. Erde, 11. 117, 194, 203, 206 (1898); x. 34, fig. 2, 211, 256 (1908). — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xrv. 207 (1899); in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3300 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 752 (1927). — Kardos in Kertesz. Lap. xv. 143 (1900). — Bois in Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, vn. 233 (1901). — St. Olbrich in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xvi. 561, fig. 11. (1901). — Grosdemange in Rev. Hort. 1902, 178. — Schneider in Wien. HI. Gartenz. xxviii. 100 (1903); Dendr. Winterstudien, 221, fig. 211 o-s (p. 209), 266 (1903); in Gartenwelt, xi. 463 (1907); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 230 (1911); 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 782 (1911); in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 361 (1913). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 415 (1903). — Dunbar in Gard. Mag. 1. 234 (1905). — Mottet, Arbust. Orn. 245 (1908); Arb. Arbust. Orn. 339 (1925). — L. Thaisz in Magy. Bot. Lap. vm. 217 (1909); x. 56 (1911); xi. 236 (1912). — Guylas in Muzeum Fuzetek (Kolosvar), n. 35-66 [Hungarian]; 67-104 [German], t. 11. 111. figs. 1, 2, 4, 6, t. rv. figs. 7, 10-13, 15, 16, 18 (1907); A Syringa Josikaea Jacq. fil. es a Syringa Emodi Wallich; Syringa Josikaea Jacq. fil., und Syringa Emodi Wallich, reprint, pp. 1-38, t. 11. 111. figs. 1, 2, 4, 6, t. iv. figs. 7, 10-13, 15, 16, 18 (1909). — T. Blattny in Bot. Kozlem. ix. 163 (1910); xii. 12 (1913). — L. Fekete and T. Blattny, Verbreit. Baume Straucher Ungarn. (transl. from the Hungarian, 1913), 1. 42, 43. 15*1 285> 379, 571, 62°> 82S, 834, 835, map v. (1914). — Von Hayek, Pflanzend. Oesterr.-Ungarns, 1. 350, 413, 456, 467, t. xliv. (opp. p. 412) (1914-1915). — Kuphaldt in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 24, 231 (1915). — Schelle in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 24, 208 (1915). — Goeze in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 25, 133 (1916). — -Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxiii. 153, 154 (1916); Aristo- crats of the Garden, 214, 224 (1917). — Kronfeld in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 27, 215 (1918). — Peterfi in Magy. Bot. Lap. xxvu. 97 (1918). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 78, figs. 1 (e, f) 2, 3 (c) (1920). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 404 (1922). — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 485 (1923). — Wierdak in Act. Soc. Bot. Poloniae, 1. 86 (1923). — Stipp in Gartenwelt, xxviii. 413, fig. 4 (1924); in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. XL. 398, fig. iv. (1925); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 37, 146, fig. (1926). — Stares, Cerines {Syringa L.), 4, 26, fig. 6 (1926); reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). — G. Hegi, 111. Fl. Mittel-Eur. v. pt. in. 1909, 1912, figs. 2897 a, d, e, 2898 (1927).* * Other references to Syringa Josikaea which I have not seen are: A. Neilreich, "Aufzahlung der in Ungarn u. Slavonien beobachteten wildwachsenden Gefasspflanzen " (i. 445, 1866). — Simonkai in his Nagy- varadnak es videkenek novenyvilaga (pp. 72—77, 1 plate, 1890). SYRINGA JOSIKAEA 35 Syringa Jacquinii Graham in Jameson, Edinb. New Philos. Jour. xv. 385, September 10 (1833), as a synonym. Syringa vincetoxifolia Baumgarten in manuscript according to Steudel, Nomencl. Bot. ed. 2, pt. i-n. 656 (1841), as a synonym. — May in Rev. Hort. 1870, 438. — Borbas in Erdesz. Lap. 1882, 880; 1885, 396; in Termesz. Fuzet. 1884, 313. — Flatt in Verh. Mitt. Siebenburg. Ver. Naturw. Hermannstadt, xl. 120 (1890). — Christ in Garden and Forest, rv. 190 (1891); in Gard. Chron. ser. 3, x. 8 (1891). Syringa prunifolia Kitaibel in manuscript according to Borbas in Termesz. Fuzet. 1884, 75, 117; in Erdesz. Lap. 1885, 396. — Flatt in Verh. Mitt. Siebenburg. Ver. Naturw. Hermannstadt, xl. 120 (1890). — Christ in Garden and Forest, iv. 190 (1891); in Gard. Chron. ser. 3, x. 8 (1891). Syringa Wolfi Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. n. s. 1. 28 (191 5); in. 42 (191 7); rv. 26 (1918); vi. 34 (1920); vni. 23 (1922). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxm. 155, fig. (1916); Aristo- crats of the Garden, 224 (1917). — Not Schneider. A shrub to 12 ft. tall; branches upright, stout, greenish gray, lenticellate; branchlets pubescent when young, sparingly lenticellate. Winter-buds ovoid with acute apex, flower bud % in. long more or less, lower scales dark brown, upper reddish brown with yellowish margins, acute, puberulous, keeled and forming a four-sided bud. Leaf-scar slightly raised, shield-shaped, not conspicuous, small; bundle-trace almost straight. Leaves broad-elliptic to elliptic-oblong, sometimes obovate, 2-5^ in. long, 1-2% in. broad, acute to acuminate, base cuneate or rounded, ciliolate, dark green, lustrous, glabrous above, glaucescent, sometimes pubescent especially along the veins, or glabrous beneath; petiole stout or slender, Yz~hA in. long, glabrous or pubescent. Inflorescence borne on leafy shoot, terminal, upright, broadly pyramidal, interrupted, 4-9 in. long; rhachis, pedicel and calyx tinged Carob Brown (xrv.); rhachis pubescent; pedicel short, pubescent; calyx pubescent with short acute teeth; flowers sometimes fascicled, corolla- tube funnelform, %-% m- l°ng; corolla-lobes erect or slightly spreading, broad at base, acute, cucullate; corolla xli-5li6 in. in diameter; color in bud Dull Dusky Purple to Dull Dark Purple (xxvi.) to Bishop's Purple to Argyle Purple (xxxvii.) ; when ex- panded Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac (xxxvii.) without, Light Pinkish Lilac or Hay's Lilac (xxxvii.) within, a solid color; anthers Vie in. long, Primrose Yellow (xxx.), inserted just above middle of corolla-tube. Capsule oblong, smooth, x/i in. long, acute, or rounded at apex, each valve terminating in a short tip. Habitat: Czechoslovakia; Rumania; Jugo-Slavia; Poland. This Lilac, later known as Syringa Josikaea, was earlier named Syringa pruni- folia by the botanist Paul Kitaibel. Kitaibel's name was not published and appears merely in a manuscript in the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. Dr. Vincenz von Borbas, describing (Termeszet. Fuzet. 1884, 74; Erdesz. Lap. 1885, 396) two manuscripts of Sadler's, notes that in one, "Octav. Lat. 80," he found the following: u Syringa prunifolia Kit.: Ita interea pro conservanda memoria nomino, quae ad viam Munkacsino Leopolim ducentem inter Felso-Hrabonitza et Pudpolocz in cottu Beregh crescit, foliisque Pruni distincta, referente Dre. Bulla" which, translated, reads: "I call by this name temporarily, for the sake of memory, that 36 THE LILAC Lilac which grows along the road from Munkacs to Lemberg, in the county of Bereg, between Felso-Hrabonitza and Pudpolocz and, according to Dr. Bulla, is distinguished by leaves similar to those of the Prunus." The date of this note is not given; Kitaibel lived from 1757 to 1817. But Charles Flatt (Erdesz. Lap, 1887, 568) notes that twenty years after the lines just quoted were written the Baroness Josika found the plant on her estate. This would bring the date of Kitaibel's manuscript not later than 18 10. Borbas (Termeszet. Fuzet. 1884, 74) continues:* "He [Kitaibel] speaks here of a Lilac with leaves similar to those of the Prunus. A Lilac with such leaves, among our Syringa, cannot be anything else but Syringa Josikaea Jacq. De Candolle in his Prodromus, vol. vni. p. 283, says the following of 5. Josikaea: 'Folia . . . subtus albida, fere Populi halsamiferae^ but if we search among the Pruni, we find there also P. Padus, the leaves of which are on the under surface, especially on the springs [= veins?], finely pruinose, and thus similar to those of S. Josikaea. Other Lilacs of ours must here be out of the question, for the form of their leaves is different from that of the leaves of the Pruni. In the herbarium of Kitaibel I have not found any data about Syringa prunifolia. That this Syringa might be identical with S. Josikaea gains credit from the fact that it was found in the district of Ung. . . . Kitaibel . . . knew 5. Josikaea . . . before Jacquin, and he, alone among his contemporaries, knew it from the Sylvan Carpathians ..." Elsewhere (Erdesz. Lap. 1885, 396) Borbas writes again: "In Kitaibel's herbarium I have found no data about Syringa prunifolia. Possibly he jotted down the above sentence after the sole information of Bulla. But that 5. prunifolia might be identical with S. Josikaea, is evident from the fact that in 1881 it was found in the district of Ung." Julius Klein (Termeszet. Kozl. 1881, 314; Bot. Centr. v. no. 30, 125, 1 881) states that he received a number of dried specimens of 5. Josikaea from Mr. Tomcsanyi, assistant forester in East Kemencze, in the district of Ung. Lajos Thaisz (Magy. Bot. Lap. 1909, 217) confirms the fact that the plant grows in this section and adds: "Flatt, Borbas, and later Magocsi-Dietz, all note about S. Josikaea being found in the county of Bereg; they rely on Kitaibel's manuscript now preserved in the Hungarian National Museum. Kitaibel himself, however, had never seen the plant; he merely heard from his colleague, Dr. Bulla, that there was a species of Lilac between Felso-Hrabonitza and Pudpolocz; he only added the description 'foliisque Pruni distincta.' Kitaibel gave the name to save the plant from oblivion : ' Syringa prunifolia Kit. Ita interea pro conservanda memoria nomino.' Till now it was merely a suspicion and not a certainty that S. Josikaea grows in the county of Bereg; but last summer I collected at Szarvashaza numer- ous live specimens which, for the sake of greater authenticity, I distributed among my botanist colleagues. The place of growth at Szarvashaza is noteworthy also for the reason that it lies only at a distance of 5 km. from the place of growth given * Quotations from the Hungarian botanists are given in translation for which I am indebted to Mr. Zoltan Haraszti of the Boston Public Library. SYRINGA JOSIKAEA 37 by Bulla and Kitaibel, and thus makes it certain that S. prunifolia Kit. is really- identical with S. Josikaea." Another earlier name for this species is cited as a synonym by Steudel in his "Nomenclator Botanicus":' "S. vincetoxifolia Baumg[arten], mpt." No mention of S. Josikaea appears in Baumgarten's "Enumeratio" but in the "Mantissa," written by Fuss, it is mentioned although the synonym 5. vincetoxifolia does not appear. According to Steudel Baumgarten's name appears in a manuscript. Borbas (Erdesz. Lap. 1882, 880) on the other hand refers to the name as appear- ing on a botanical specimen: "I went up therefore to the herbarium of the Hun- garian National Museum, where there . . . are also a sufficient number of specimens from Transylvania (Meleg-Szamos, Sebes, in the district of Kolos); one sample, with the characteristic name of S. vincetoxifolia, once belonged to Baumgarten." And again (Termeszet. Fiizet. 1884, 313) : "Finally we may also mention here that in the herbarium of the Hungarian National Museum there is an original specimen of Syringa vincetoxifolia Baumgarten, which was a gift of Sadler and which is nothing else but S. Josikaea. One may still read in the original note written by Baumgarten: 'ex loco natali Bujfunu 1834 ab me lecta.' This hitherto unknown growing place of S. Josikaea is in the district of Hunyad." Flatt (A Josika-Farol, 1891, 15) writes: "SteudePs 'Nomenclator Botanicus' contains the 'Syringa vincetoxifolia (sic for vincetoxicifolid) Baumgarten.' As Dr. Simonkai advises me, Baumgarten himself had never published the name. Steudel probably received it from Sadler, to whom Baumgarten, together with the name, had sent his specimen of S. Josikaea" The name, derived from vince- toxicum, should be spelled, as indicated by Flatt, vincetoxicifolia. Christ (Garden and Forest, 1891, 1. c.) quotes Flatt as follows: "St[e]udel . . . gives under 5. Josikaea as a synonym, S. vincetoxifolia, Baumg. Where he found this I cannot tell, for Baumgarten did not publish such a name." The information quoted by Christ was presumably of earlier date than that just cited in the previous paragraph. May (Rev. Hort. 1870, 438) writes: "Pourquoi la qualification Vincetoxifolia que lui a donnee Baumgarten? En ce que les feuilles de cette espece renferment un principe toxique. Nous signalons ce fait." May entirely misunderstood the meaning of the name which implies nothing else but the fact that the leaves are similar to those of Vincetoxicum. Even if the name should have been given in reference to any property of the plant itself, it would signify just the opposite, namely an antidote and not a poisonous quality. The date of publication of the original description of Syringa Josikaea has been a matter of considerable discussion between Dr. Vincenz von Borbas and Dr. Victor Janka (Termeszet. Fiizet. 1884, 313; Erdesz. Lap. 1885, 396). In the first of these references Borbas writes as follows: "Generally the 'Flora' or 'All- gemeine botanische Zeitung,' 183 1, no. 5, p. 67 is quoted as containing the first description of Syringa Josikaea . . . The Editor [Victor Janka], however, offers Reichenbach's 'Flora Germanica Excursoria,' 1830, as an earlier source. Since 38 THE LILAC both the 'Flora' and Reichenbach's 'Flora Excursoria' are foreign sources, I beg permission to make the following remarks: It is perfectly true that the first vol- ume of Reichenbach's work has the imprint of 1830; but the second volume bears the imprint of 1830-183 2. On the fly-leaf of this second volume one reads: Acro- blastae ed. 1830. This comprises pp. 1-140. Phylloblastae ed. 183 1. This part begins on p. 141, and in it on p. 432 there is the description of S. Josikaea. It is obvious, therefore, that S. Josikaea could not have seen the world before 1831 in Reichenbach's 'Flora Excursoria.' If we take into account that the short descrip- tion of S. Josikaea was published in number 5 of the 'Flora' on p. 67, we must come to the conclusion that the botanists took note of it earlier here than in the slowly progressing work of Reichenbach where it Was printed on p. 432. It is not without reason that the botanists quote 'Flora, 183 1, p. 67' and not Reichen- bach. A few words about Reichenbach's 'Criticae,' vol. vm. no. 1049, supposed to be published also in 1830. I believe that the date of publication is erroneous, a year earlier than it should be. For on p. 32 of this work Reichenbach alludes to his 'Flora Germanica Excursoria' and in it to the number of S. Josikaea, which, as shown above, dates from 1831. We shall stand therefore, also, in the future by 'Flora, 1831, p. 67,' as against the anachronism of Reichenbach." Upon this Janka comments as follows. "Baron Jacquin gave the first description of Syringa Josikaea in Germany, at the first meeting of the physicians and naturalists held in Hamburg on September 20, 1830; the report of the botanical conferences of this session was published in the February 1, 1831, number of the 'Flora.' Number 23 of that year, published on June 1, 183 1, prints on p. 400 the following paragraph: 'To this noble-minded and great man, whose memory will be immortal in the annals of science, to Baron Jacquin is Herr Reichenbach also indebted for this plant, giving us a characteristic likeness of it in his 'Copper Engravings' under no. 1049, almost at the same time that it became known in Germany; we find the plant also described on p. 432 of his 'Flora Germanica' which contains, in a truly astonishing way, all the newest discoveries.' It is obvious thus that, if we disregard the 'Flora Germanica Excursoria,' the first source to quote is Reichenbach's Tconographia botanica seu plantae criticae,' volume vm. of which (with the imprint 1830) contains Syringa Josikaea." The discussion is continued a year later (Erdesz. Lap. 1885, 396) by Borbas who repeats certain of his arguments and adds: "In Reichenbach's 'Plantae Criticae,' vol. vm. under no. 1049, a good picture of S. Josikaea was published. Considering that this volume is closed with no. 1080, it is certain that the picture of S. Josikaea appeared toward the very end of 1830, if not in 183 1. But considering also the fact that volume vm., p. 32 of the 'Plantae Criticae' already contains a reference to the number of -5. Josikaea which was described only in the 'Fl. Germ. Excurs.' of 1 83 1, it becomes obvious that the 'Plantae Criticae' of Reichenbach was also published in 1831 and the imprint of 1830 merely made it appear a year older — a custom which is frequent in books published at the beginning of the year SYRINGA JOSIKAEA 39 or when an essay read in a certain year falls into the volume of an earlier year. Of course, there is no great difference of time between the two descriptions of S. Josikaea, between the one in Jacquin films' 'Flora' and the other in Reichen- bach's quoted work. Jacquin filius himself tells in 'Flora,' 1831, no. 23, p. 399 that Reichenbach gave a characteristic picture of S. Josikaea almost at the same time that the plant became known in Germany. Note the words : 'almost at the same time,' but not before. Thus we do not have any reason to deviate from the source established and respected by the botanists; that is, to give up the 'Flora, 1831, p. 67' and to quote anachronistically, for the sake of deceiving appearance, Reichenbach's work." As noted by Borbas the date of publication of Syringa Josikaea in Reichenbach's "Flora Germanica Excursoria" is 1831, not 1830 as indicated by the pagination and years given on the fly-leaf of the second volume. The description in "Flora" p. 67, was published also in the same year, 1831. But I cannot agree with Dr. Borbas that Reichenbach's reference in "Plantae Criticae," which is dated 1830, to the work "Flora Germanica Excursoria" and to the number, 1049, °f $• Josikaea, which appeared in that work in 1831, is proof that the "Plantae Criticae" was not issued in 1830. Reichenbach, in the case of works already published, is in the habit of giving the page reference, but this he does not do in the instance in ques- tion. He was presumably working simultaneously upon the two books and in- cluded in the earlier certain facts which were to appear in the later. The pagination he was unable to include. Proof that the date of publication of the "Plantae Criticae" was 1830 rather than 1 83 1 is found in certain advertisements of the book, signed by the author. Opposite the title page of "Flora Germanica Excursoria," vol. 1., the Centuria, 1. to viii., are said to be in press in 1830. In vol. 11. where all the Centuriae are noted, 1830 is given as the date of publication of Centuria vni. There appears to be no reason to doubt the author's own statement as to the issuance of his book. Reichenbach in his "Plantae Criticae" attributes the name to Jacquin fil. H. Christ (Garden and Forest, rv. 191, i89i)ina bibliography of 5. Josikaea which he states he received from Flatt notes: "Nemzeti taesalbodo [ = Nemzeti Tarsalkodo] (1830), p. 344. — Erste quelle! (Eine ungarische Zeitschrift)". Dr. Ferdinand Filarsky, director of the botanical section of the Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum, Budapest, was so kind as to send me the following information in regard to this publication: "The first notice in the 'Nemzeti Tarsalkodo' Jhg. 1830 (supplement to 'Erdelyi Hirado') Kolosvar (Klausenburg in Transylvania), ed. Kisszantoi Pethe Ferencz, no. 43, Oct. 23, 1830, p. 344, reads, faithfully translated into German from the Hungarian: 'Klausenburg, the 20 Oct. — In the meetings of Naturalists and Physicians of Germany, which were held in September of the current year in Hamburg, the Viennese Professor B. Jacquin showed among other dried plants also a new Syringa, whose discovery Botany owes to the wife of His Excellency 'Verwaltungsrat-Vorsitzender' Baron Josika Janos, the Baroness Josika nee Coun- 40 THE LILAC tess Rosalia Csaky, who is particularly interested in this science, and who is highly regarded throughout the land. The plant received in honor and memory of the Baroness the name Syringa Josikaea, and will also be figured. — (Syringa is called in Hungarian Lila-clofa [Lila-Tree of Life] [and] belongs in the group of diandrous and monogynous plants. — With us one species 'Kerti borostyan [means in German really 'Garden Ivy' but the 'Garden Lilac' is really meant] is generally known.' [No signature of the correspondent.] Almost exactly the same may be found in Flora od. Allgem. Bot. Ztg. . . . This first source: 'Erdelyi Hirado' was hitherto known to us only from the literature. ... At your request I took the trouble to look up this old publication in our local library, in which I succeeded and I am pleased to be able to help you with the translation." From the above it is evident that no description of the plant is given and the first published description is evi- dently that of Reichenbach (Iconogr. Bot. PI. Crit., 1. c). Reichenbach observes: "Etiam hanc stirpem insignem, Vahlii S. villosae, cujus folia in descriptione tantum 'subtus pallida' dixit, fortasse affinem, summae benevolentiae ill. auctoris debeo. Indumentum desideratur in nostra, folia fere Populi balsamiferae, etiam absque indumento"; this, translated, reads: "This handsome species, probably related to S. villosa Vahl, the leaves of which in the description are said to be pale only beneath, I owe to the very great kindness of the illustrious author [Jacquin fil.]. In our species [S. Josikaea] the pubescence is lacking, the leaves almost those of Populus balsamifera, also without pubescence." A colored illustration accompanied these observations and the short diagnosis reads: "foliis ovali-acuminatis discoloribus." This description is slightly enlarged in Reichenbach's later works. That which appeared in "Flora" (183 1, 67) is short: "S. foliis ovalibus utrinque acutis undulato-rugosis repandis." The history of the discovery of S. Josikaea was read by Joseph Franz Jacquin, the son of Nikolaus Joseph Jacquin, and commonly called Jacquin filius, before a meeting of the botanical section of the German Naturalists and Physicians held in Hamburg on September 20, 1830. At the same time Jacquin showed dried specimens taken from plants grown in the garden of the Imperial and Royal University at Vienna where they had first flowered in 1830. These plants had been raised from specimens received from their discoverer, Baroness Josika. Jacquin (Allg. Gartenz. 1. no. 1, 4, 1833) writes: "The common Lilac (S. vulgaris) was known for a long time as native in several localities of Transylvania as Dr. Baumgarten in his 'Flora Transylvanica' (vol. 1., p. 16) himself says. The people had up to this time held the shrub which grew on the cliffs near Klausenburg in the district of Kolos in Transylvania as one of this common kind of Lilac, until . . . Rosalia, Baroness von Josika, nee Countess Czaky . . . drew attention to the char- acteristics of this shrub as a distinct species and kindly sent several living specimens to the garden of the Imperial and Royal University in Vienna, of which one bloomed SYRINGA JOSIKAEA 41 in the year 1830 and whose description I here present. The shrubs cultivated in our garden are 4-5 ft. tall, upright and branchy, the lower part of the trunk has a smooth gray bark, the branches are terete, stiff, slightly reddish with white spots, and the younger ones somewhat pubescent. The leaves are opposite and spreading, somewhat fleshy, oval, cuneate at the base and acuminate at the apex, 3-4 in. long, 2 in. or less wide, on the upper surface a saturated green, on the under side blue-green, on both sides, however, glabrous, rugose and wrinkled, sinuated at the margins, otherwise entire; the petioles are Y. an inch long, canaliculate and reddish purple. The flowers grow on the ends of the branches in panicles which are a foot long, straight, stiff, and not thickly flowered; the individual peduncles and pedicels are opposite or decussate, and each is supported by a persistent bract which is heart-shaped, soft-haired, and similar to the leaves only much smaller. The color of the flowers is blue-violet, similar to that of S. chinensis, and almost wholly scentless or having at least only a very weak scent like a Jasmine. The calyx is very small, bell-shaped, green and densely soft-pubescent with violet hairs, truncate above and indistinctly f our- toothed ; of the teeth the two opposite ones are almost bifid. The corolla is Y an inch long, soft-haired [on such specimens as I have examined this has not been found to be the case], infundibuliform, with a slightly open mouth and a 4-parted limb whose lobes are spreading (but much less than in S. vulgaris), concave and somewhat thick. Stamens two, placed at the base of the tube of the corolla, upright, terete, violet [he means the filament] and glabrous, the anthers oblong, volatile [aufliegend = lying upon (the filament)], double and yellow. The pistil is half as long as the corolla, the ovary egg-shaped, glabrous; the style terete, white and glabrous; the stigma soft-haired, almost conical and truncate; the capsule is cylindrical and glabrous. In order not to let the memory of the discoverer of this plant be lost, the referent decided to give the plant her name, and the great meeting of famous . . . botanists . . . agreed to the proposal . . . and decided that . . . this . . . should be named Syringa Josikaea. . . . The new Syringa grows in Transylvania in the western part of the district of Kolos not far from the capital of Klausenburg, on both banks of the river Szekelyo, on steep, bare, washed cliffs, where its finer matted roots, torn down from the rocks, with some humus, some moss, and Oxalis Acetosella, leave these completely bare. Its location is not on very high places, usually hardly 5 fathoms (30 ft.) above the river bank, not completely dry, yet not damp, except for a few minutes of sun in the morning and as many in the afternoon, always in the shade. There are always several shrubs growing closely together. The locality is surrounded by hills covered with Fagus sylvatica, Corylus Avellana, Fraxinus, Spiraea, Rosa canina, Ribes nigrum, Grossularia and Atragene alpina. The trunk of the Lilac is about 12-18 ft. high and its circumference is about 2Y2 in. The beautiful flowers are used for hair and hat decorations by the peasants of the neighboring villages. The plant blooms in May. Although this new Syringa has already been described for several years, it is yet so unknown in northern Germany that we thought it worth the 42 THE LILAC trouble to make it known in our circles, and to recommend it especially to the owners of gardens as a very beautiful ornamental shrub. ..." Dr. Graham, in his "Description of several new or rare plants which have lately flowered in the neighborhood of Edinburgh, and chiefly in the Royal Botanic Garden" which appeared on September 10, 1833, in the "Edinburgh New Philo- sophical Journal," tells of the introduction of -5. Josikaea to Great Britain: "This plant was received at the Botanic Garden from Mr. Booth of Hamburg in the end of October 1832, and flowered in the open border in the end of May and beginning of June. It seems therefore to flower later, and to remain longer in blossom than any of the species previously in cultivation, but does not equal any of them in beauty. As the name under which we received it was not legible, and as I had not seen it any where described, I proposed that it should receive the name of S. Jac- quinii, from the botanist who first noticed it. . . ." The colored plate (t. 3278) of the "Botanical Magazine" for 1833 was, according to Hooker, received from Graham. Loudon (Arb. Brit., 1. c.) writes: "Its leaves are . . . shining and lucid green above, and white beneath, in the manner of those of the balsam poplar; but of a dark green, something like that of the leaves of Chionanthus. ... It was first sent to Britain by Messrs. Booth of the Floetbeck [sic] Nurseries; and there are now plants in the Garden of the Horticultural Society, in the Edinburgh Botanic Garden and in some other collections; so that there can be no doubt but that, by grafting and budding, it will soon be as easily procured in the British nurseries as the common lilac. The price of plants in the Fulham Nursery is 7s. 6d. each." The colored plate in "Maund's Botanist" for 1837 "was taken from a small specimen which flowered in the greenhouse of J. T. Jarrett, Esq. of Camerton House, in June last, and which it is probable is not so deep in colour as if it had been grown in the open air, nor are the panicles of flowers quite so dense." "Paxton's Magazine of Botany" for 1838 also lists it, as 5. Josikeii, under "Notices of New and Rare Plants in flower in the principal nurseries in the vicinity of London." It was grow- ing at "Mr. Low's, Clapton." In French literature I have found S. Josikaea first mentioned by Neumann (Ann. Fl. Pom. 1834, 1. c.) who notes that M. de Mirbel introduced it to the Jardin des Plantes in 1831. The Annales of the "Societe d'horticulture de Paris" of 1834 records: "On a vu, en mai dernier, pour la premiere fois, ce charmant arbrisseau fleurir au Jardin du Roi, a Paris. . . . Ce Lilas a paru au Jardin du Roi en 1829. Le pied franc, ayant ete place en terre de Bruyere, a vegete faiblement, et on a lieu de penser que cette terre ne lui convient pas. M. Camuset en a grefle des rameaux en fente sur le Lilas cornmun plante.en terre ordinaire, et ils ont pousse avec une grande vigueur. Pendant tout le temps que ces greffes n'avait que des feuilles, on les aurait plutot prises pour des Chionanthus virginiana que pour des Lilas; mais lorsqu'en mai, 1834, deux d'entre elles ont montre plusieurs panicules de fleurs, l'incertitude a cesse. . . . Le fruit n'est pas encore connu. . . . Deja MM. Cels le SYRINGA JOSIKAEA 43 possedent et le mettront bientot dans leur commerce." "Le Bon Jardinier" for 1836 notes it as growing "Au jardin du roi et chez MM. Cels." Pepin (Rev. Hort. 1846, 1. c.) refers to it as received at the Museum of Natural History, within recent years, from M. Jacquin, professor of botany at Vienna. This was presumably a later introduction to the Jardin des Plantes than that of M. de Mirbel's. In Germany the plant must have been grown, almost as soon as discovered, at the Booth nurseries near Hamburg, for it was introduced by them into Great Britain in 1832. Bosse's "Vollstandiges Handbuch der Blumengartnerei" notes it as grown "In Flottb[eck] u[nd] Hamb[urg]." Professor C. S. Sargent (Garden and Forest, 1888, 1. c.) in discussing S. villosa Vahl, first wrote of S. Josikaea: "To this species should perhaps be referred, as M. Franchet hints in his paper upon the Chinese Lilacs, 5. Josikaea and S. Emodi, which as he points out, cannot be separated from dTncarville's plant by the shape of the leaves, the character of the inflorescence, or by the shape and size of the flowers. . . The plants of S. Josikaea, now widely distributed in gardens, have all been propagated from a single plant discovered in a Hungarian garden, but not known to be wild in Europe, and probably of Asiatic origin." This statement of Dr. Sargent's did not pass unchallenged for, in the same periodical, H. Christ in 1 89 1 writes: ". . . in an article in Garden and Forest ... it was stated that the native country of Syringa Josikaea Jacq., was unknown, and that all the plants in cultivation have been derived from a single specimen found in a garden in Hungary. The statement is inexact, and the country where this species grows naturally is well known. ..US. Josikaea is to be considered an escape from cultivation, what known species can it have been derived from? Certainly there does not exist in Europe any species from which it can have been derived, a reason sufficiently important for rejecting all idea of garden origin. And, as you know, Monsieur Franchet has suggested the identity of S. Josikaea and S. Emodi of the Himalayas . . . but certainly no one has ever cultivated the Indian plant in Hungary previous to the year 1830, when 5. Josikaea was discovered, and even to-day it is very doubtful if a single specimen of 5. Emodi can be found in all that district." Christ cites numerous authorities to prove that the plant is indigenous to Hungary. Dr. Sargent replied in a later issue of the same year: "His [Franchet's] argument, however, with regard to the naturalization of the common Lilac in Europe in recent years would apply with equal force to S. Josikaea, which is hardly to be distin- guished specifically from the widely distributed and variable S. villosa of southern and eastern Asia. It is certainly remarkable that these two plants with showy flowers, and conspicuous throughout the year from the fact that they spread into large masses, should have escaped the attention of botanists and gardeners in the Danubian provinces until 1828 and 1830. Instances of plants, even trees and shrubs, establishing themselves in a comparatively short time in extra- tropical regions remote from their native countries are numerous." He cites the naturaliza- tion in the United States of such foreign plants as the European Barberry, the 44 THE LILAC Woadwax (Genista tinctoria), the Cherokee Rose, the Ailanthus and the Melia Azedarach. S. Josikaea, as noted by Jacquin, was found growing on "steep, bare, washed cliffs" on the estate of the Baroness Josika; it was not found in a garden. Jacquin did exhibit cultivated specimens but these were taken from plants in the garden of the Imperial and Royal University, Vienna which were raised from material, probably plants, received from the Baroness Josika. Charles Flatt in his "A Josika-Farol" (1891, 8) writes: "I believe that the phrase 'CultaHermannstadt' (spread by the herbariums of Vienna and Breslau) prompted Franchet to identify S. Josikaea with S. Emodi, with a plant that grows on the Himalayas (Mons Emodus, Kardong). . . [See 5. emodi]. I had attacked Franchet's standpoint, but an article written in Hungarian can do little among foreign scholars. Thus the mistaken notion concerning our shrub, launched by Franchet, found ready credence abroad. Even Mr. Sargent, the excellent American dendrologist, had accepted Franchet's view and in the 'Garden and Forest' (published in New York) stated that the S. Josikaea is merely a garden product, which grew only once, and only in a single garden in Hungary. To combat this erroneous idea I have sent live specimens to Bohemia, Bavaria, Switzerland and America. I have also decided to publish my articles and correspondence relating to this plant in German. And I mention here with satisfaction that such scholars as Ascherson, Bolle, Christ, Prantl, Wiesbauer, etc., all condemn Franchet's essay. Mr. Sargent, too, has promised me that he will rectify his statement made in the 'Garden and Forest.'" Franchet's monograph, "Observations sur les Syringa du nord de la Chine" met with considerable criticism in Hungary, and Flatt went into a comparison of S. emodi, S. villosa and S. Josikaea with as much accuracy as the material at hand permitted. He published an article entitled "The Syringa Josikaea as an indepen- dent species" (Erdesz. Lap. 1887, 568-581) which he concluded as follows: "These are my chief reflections upon Franchet's essay. That he had identified S. Josikaea with 5. Emodi was due, in my belief, to the fact that he had never known, at least never known well, our shrub. S. Josikaea is easy to distinguish from S. villosa by the fact that the leaves of the latter are covered underneath with long hairs; that the number of the secondary nerves of its leaves are 6 or 7 ; that the branches of the shrub are very brittle and, when young, dark yellow. Contrarily, the lower surface of the leaves of S. Josikaea, though grayish white, is not even pubescent; the number of the secondary veins are 8 to 11; the young branches are flexible, and, when young, light gray. S. Josikaea is easy to distinguish from S. Emodi by the fact that the flowers of the latter are usually white, and those of S. Josikaea violet; that the leaves of our shrub are not attenuate but rounded at their base; that the flowers [the translator has inserted here the word flowers although I do not find it (viragai) occurring in this part of the text and believe that Flatt is still talking of the leaves] have no shingles [murvai = shingles; I do not understand the SYRINGA JOSIKAEA 45 use of this term] ; and finally that in S. Josikaea the lobes of the corolla are at least four times shorter than the tube of the corolla, and not almost of the same length as the tube. Everything taken together, I dare to say that 5". Josikaea is and shall remain a distinctly independent species, the endemic plant of our country, — even after the onslaught of M. Franchet." In his "A Josika-Farol" Flatt adds: "Anyone can see at first glance that this plant [S. emodi] is not identical with our S. Josikaea. The leaves of S. Emodi are pointed at the base where they run into the petiole; whereas the leaves of S. Josikaea are rounded. The color is the same in both plants. But very conspicuous is the difference in the flowers. The tube of the corolla of S. Emodi is elongated, narrow, and the comparatively long lobes of the corolla are always turned back in the shape of a plate; the tube of 5. Josikaea, on the other hand, is wide, and the comparatively short lobes of the corolla are always erect. In S. Emodi the filaments are longer than the tube of the corolla, so that the anthers protrude, whereas in S. Josikaea the filaments are shorter and the anthers are always hidden in the tube of the corolla. To my knowledge, no one has hitherto made this distinction, though it holds true for the cultivated specimens also, which shows the constancy of this mark." Borbas (Erdesz. Lap. 1887, 251) also disagrees in part with Franchet's mono- graph: "According to Franchet, the lilacs with unicolor leaves, that is, S. vulgaris and S. persica, have no native countries. The lilacs with discolor leaves, like S. Emodi or S. Josikaea, on the other hand, still grow in a wild state. However, Franchet's knowledge of the botanical conditions of our country is insufficient; had he ever been in the district of Krasso-Szoreny, he would readily believe that S. vulgaris still grows in a wild state. Thus if Franchet's proposition that S. Emodi Wallich 1828 is identical with 5. Josikaea Jacq. fil. 1831 is true, then the geo- graphical area of this beautiful shrub has become larger, but the plant itself has lost its special significance as an endemic Hungarian plant. For my part, I confess that I always had doubts whenever I thought of the endemism of the plant. It seemed to me curious that such a conspicuous shrub. . . should grow exclusively on the border of Transylvania and Hungary, in the districts of Maramaros, Bereg and Ung, mostly in the land of the Rumanians and Ruthenians." The question of which name, S. emodi or 5. Josikaea, should have priority, provided the two plants are considered to be the same species, is discussed at length by Borbas in this article. He arrives at the conclusion that "If we accept Wallich's catalogue as the first source of his Indian plants, together with the names which he had given them, then the dates of these names must be 1828." This would have given S. emodi priority over S. Josikaea. This question at the present time loses significance for there appears to be no doubt that the two Lilacs are distinct species. Charles Flatt (Erdesz. Lap. 1887, 568) in an article entitled "The Syringa Josikaea as an independent species" enumerated the localities where the plant had been found up to 1887. He refers to Kitaibel's S. prunifolia, to the discovery of 46 THE LILAC the plant by the Baroness Josika "about twenty years later," and to Baumgarten's 5. vincetoxifolia, and continues: "This [the locality presumably where the Baroness Josika found her plant] was the only known place of growth until 1854. The several specimens in the Hungarian National Museum bear the inscription: 'Culta Hermannstadt' ; that is, the plant was merely cultivated at Nagy-Szeben (Hermannstadt), but otherwise this city is out of the question as an original place of growth. In 1854 Victor Janka discovered it between Fekete-to and Banffy- Hunyad [Flatt refers to Janka's article in the Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr. ( = Wochenbl.) rv. 188 (1854)]. But all these places are in Transylvania, not in Hungary proper. Another twenty-seven years passed before new places of growth of S. Josikaea were discovered. In 1880 Lajos Simonkai found it near Fekete-to (Termeszet. Fiizet. v. 44 [1882]); this was the first proof that the shrub grows in Hungary proper. Since then several people have found S. Josikaea; thus: In 1881 Gustavus Tomcsanyi, forester in the district of Ung, in the valleys of Kis-Pasztely and Lyuta (Klein in Termeszet. Kozlony, [xiii. 314], 1881, July; in Bot. Centralbl. vni. [ = vti. no. 4] 124 [1881]. — Borbas in Erd6sz. Lap. 1882, 880). In 1884 Vincenz von Borbas, after reading Kitaibel's manuscript, maintains that Kitaibel's S. prunifolia is identical with S. Josikaea (Borbas in Termeszet. Fiizet. 1884, 75; in Erdesz. Lap. 1885, 396). In May, 1885, 1 succeeded in finding it around 'Lunka Kotuni' at Remecz (Erdesz. Lap. 1886, 141). The same year Victor Janka found it at Kelecseny, in the district of Maramaros (Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr. [xxxv. no. 9, 313] 1885) and Dr. Lajos Simonkai near the source of the Aranyos, between Szkeri- sora and Albak [Flatt refers here to "an independent publication of Dr. Simonkai"]. Last year, in 1886, I found again two new places of growth: one in the Sipotye valley, at Remecz, at the foot of the 'Magas' mountain, near the so-called Pareu- Fregucar; this is the richest place of growth with about a thousand young shrubs; and another in the woods of Belenyes, under a rock called 'piatra Bulzi', on the bank of the river Jad. I have collected several hundred specimens in these places, including branches with fruit, which Dr. Vincenz von Borbas has forwarded for the 'Flora exsicc. Austr.-Hung.' The same year Mr. John Csato, Vice-Sheriff of Nagy-Enyed, collected specimens in the valley of the Aranyos, around Albak, having also published an article about it (Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr. [xxxvi. no. 7] 249, 1886). Thus we know so far that 5. Josikaea grows in four districts (Comitats) of our country. And if my request, voiced in the 'Erdeszeti Lapok' (1886, 146) gains attention, I am convinced that we shall soon hear of other places of growth also." Other Hungarian botanists have later testified to the spontaneity of 5. Josikaea in Hungary. Alexander Michalus (Erdesz. Lap. 1887, 982) writes: "As Mr. Flatt remarks, he found it in 1885 and 1886 in the vicinity of Remecz; before him Victor Janka found it between Fekete-to and Banffy-Hunyad, and finally Dr. Simonkai found it around Szkerisora and Albak; thus this plant has been found in three- fourths of the mountain group of the Vlegyasza. I myself came across it in June SYRINGA JOSIKAEA 47 in the woods of Petrosz, a part of the bishoprical estate of Belenyes, along the Golbina (Galbina) (a tributary of the Fekete Koros) , where this receives the brook Bulz; I also found it in the valleys of the Aleo and Rumunyasza, both rivers being branches of the Golbina. ..." The conclusions reached by Pax (Engler and Drude, Veg. Erde, 1898, 1908, 1. c.) in regard to the plant's habitat are commented upon by Lajos Thaisz (Magy. Bot. Lap. 1909, 217) as follows: "Dr. Ferdinand Pax in his 'GrundziAge der Pflanzenverbreitung in den Karpathen,' p. 117, doubts that the S. Josikaea would grow in the district of Ung. On p. 211 of the second volume of the same work, published in 1908, he not only upholds this doubt, but extends it to the whole area of the Sylvan Carpathians. As he says: 'Die Zweifel die ich iiber das Vorkommen der Syringa Josikaea in den Waldkarpathen (Bd. 1. 117) ausserte, scheinen mir auch heute noch nicht behoben zu sein.' I find it necessary to dispel this doubt, especially because it was made public in such a significant work as that of Pax. The clarification of the problem is especially important, because the plant-geograph- ical significance of S. Josikaea gains added weight from the fact that the western border of its territory is near to the region where we must look for the dividing line between the eastern and western flora, even to-day after the publication of Pax's work. . . I began my investigation two years ago, when I asked Mr. Nandor Rochlitz, Councillor of Forestry at Ungvar, to send me wild growing Lilacs from the district. Soon I received a beautiful flowering specimen with this label: lS. Josikaea taken at the woods of Holodniszti at the village Sohat, in the district of Ung.' Then I turned to Mr. Gustav Tomcsanyi, who informed me that it was he who had discovered the Syringa in 1881 in three different places. He had sent in that year live roots both to the Botanical Garden of Budapest and to the garden of the Academy at Selmeczbanya. He had also distributed several herbarium specimens. . . Professor Alexander (Sandor) Magocsi-Dietz has also told me that he himself collected 5. Josikaea in the county of Ung, at the village of Oroszmocsar. Flatt, Borbas and later Magocsi-Dietz, all wrote about S. Josikaea being found in the district of Bereg; they rely upon Kitaibel's manuscript now preserved in the Hungarian National Museum. Kitaibel himself, however, had never seen the plant; he merely heard from his colleague Dr. Bulla, that there was a species of Lilac between Felso-Hrabonitza and Pudpolocz. . . . Till now it was merely a sus- picion and not a certainty that S. Josikaea grows in the district of Bereg; but last summer I collected at Szarvashaza numerous live specimens which, for the sake of greater authenticity I distributed among my botanist colleagues. The place of growth at Szarvashaza is noteworthy also for the reason that it lies only at a distance of 5 km. from the place of growth given by Bulla and Kitaibel. ... I am indebted for the discovery to . . . Paul Ratz, head of the State Model-Estate at Also-Vereczke. He told me that according to his personal observation, there is a Lilac at several different places in the northern part of the district of Bereg. He himself accompanied me to Szarvashaza, and I accept as facts also his data about 48 THE LILAC the other places of growth. How frequent is the Hungarian Lilac in northern Bereg is shown also by the fact that it is also widely used as a cultivated plant. ..." Thaisz enumerates in detail, for "plant geographical reasons," all the known places where S. Josikaea grows in the following sections of the Sylvan Carpathians : I. The water basin of the river Ung (district of Ung) ; II. The water basin of the Latorcza (district of Bereg); III. The water basin of the Nagyag (district of Maramaros) ; he also enumerates localities under four sections in the mountains of Bihar and in the Alps of Gyalu : I. The water basin of the Sebes Koros (district of Bihar) ; II. The water basin of Fekete Koros (district of Bihar) ; III. The water basin of the Aranyos (district of Torda-Aranyos) ; IV. The water basin of the Szamos (district of Kolos). He also mentions another place of growth, cited by Baumgarten, at "Bujfunu, a name which cannot be found on the map." He notes: "According to Janka (Termeszet. Fuzet. vm. 313 [1884]) and to Javorka this place must be in the district of Hunyad, and is identical with the village Boj (formerly Bojbunu)." And he summarizes: "As we have seen, the places of growth in the Sylvan Carpathians fall into three areas and those in the Transylvanian Middle-Mountains into four. Between the two territories there is a wide distance." Later (Magy. Bot. Lap. 1912, 236) Thaisz supplements this data by citing further localities in the following sections: I. The water basin of the Lotorcza (district of Bereg); II. The water basin of the Stryj in Galicia. He notes: "The discovery of places of growth in Galicia is, I believe, quite important. The flora of Austria has become enriched with an interesting plant, though, at the same time, the endemism of S. Josikaea has changed. We cannot regard it henceforth as a purely Hungarian shrub. ..." Antal Guylas (A Syringa Josikaea Jacq. fil., es z,Syringa Emodi Wallich, 1909, 1. c.) writes that he studied S. Josikaea growing in a wild state and his article con- tains photographs of such plants. Among spontaneous specimens of S. Josikaea which are in the Arnold Arboretum herbarium are five collected by Flatt. Three of flowers and foliage bear the number 4103. They were collected in May, 1890, and bear the notation: "Hungaria, cottu Bihar, ad margines sylvarum, prope pagum Remecz, in loc. petros. ad fluvium Jad, ad pedem montis Magos. ..." The two additional Flatt specimens bear his label but no notation. There is also an example collected by Csato at Albak, dated June 5, 1886, and one (no. 887) gathered by Simonkai in May- June from "Hun- gariae cottus Bihar. In silvis prope pagum Remecz." Curiously, although first found in Hungary, and called commonly the Hun- garian Lilac, at the present day, and according to the divisions of the Balkan States following the peace terms, 5. Josikaea, so far as I know, does not grow spontaneously in what is now Hungary. Bereg, whence came Kitaibel's S. pruni- folia, once in Hungary, is now in Czechoslovakia; the S. vincetoxifolia recorded by Baumgarten from Hunyad, once in Hungary, is now in Rumania; Kolosvar (in the German Klausenburg and in the Rumanian Cluj) where Countess Josika SYRINGA JOSIKAEA 49 found her plants, once in Hungary, is now in Rumania ; Maramaros and Ung, once in Hungary are now in Czechoslovakia; Fekete-to, where Simonkai found the plant in 1880, and which Flatt cites as the first record of the plant from Hungary proper, is now in Jugo-Slavia; and Galicia which Thaisz mentions as important because in Austria, is now in Poland. It is quite possible that the exclusion of present Hungary from the regions where this Lilac is indigenous may be inexact, because of the numerous localities from which this plant has been recorded, and because of the difficulty, with such maps as are available, of locating with certainty the boundaries of many of the Balkan districts as well as some of the smaller towns, etc. Moreover the names, as in the case of Kolosvar just cited, may appear quite differently if given in Hungarian, in German or in Rumanian. So far as I know, however, and any corrections of the statement would be valuable, the fact is as stated. Among cultivated specimens are many from plants growing in the neighbor- hood of Boston, Massachusetts; and in addition two (nos. 982 and 961) collected by George Nicholson on May 24, 1880, from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; one (no. 13) from the arboretum of von Sivers at Roemershof, Russia (collected by C. K. Schneider in 1904), as well as others from Scheitniger Park, Breslau, Silesia, from the Botanic Garden of the Forestry Institute at Muenden, Hanover, from the Botanic Garden at Vienna, and elsewhere. Certain collectors have given information in regard to the companion plants found with the wild 5. Josikaea; thus Janka (Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr. 1885, 1. c.) writes: ". . . we came to the acidulous spring . . . which fills the marsh of the valley bottom in the middle of which we found ... 5. Josikaea growing abundantly but hidden between Alnus glutinosa, A. incana, Rhamnus Frangula and Salix aurita, all of which exceeded the Syringa in the number of individuals"; Csato (Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr. 1886, 1. c.) refers to it as growing "between alders, willows and firs on the right bank of the Aranyos . . ."; Flatt (Erdesz. Lap. 1886, 1. c.) found it mixed with "beech-wood, or to put it more correctly, beech-shrubs." Flatt considers in detail, in the same article, the type of locality where S. Josikaea is found: "Now supplementing my personal observations with the topographical and geological data of the Sebes-Volgy around Csucsa, of the Koros- Volgy around Fekete-to, and the Jad-Volgy around Remecz and Belenyes (I do not know the conditions in the district of Ung) , I come to the following conclusions : 1. S. Josikaea is apt to grow on river-banks, or at least nearby. 2. Stony mountain- slopes, a ground of disintegrating rocks, unshaded by bigger trees, is its most fitting place. 3. It is doubtful if it ever could vegetate in deep, rich, mouldering soil. 4. Its most probable place of growth is a woody country where the stratum is composed of granite, limestone and graywacke." Again (Erdesz. Lap. 1887, 1. c.) Flatt gives certain conclusions: "1. A glance at the map of our country brings before our eyes the fact that S. Josikaea, according to the known places of growth, grows between 40 and 42 longitudinal and 46.7 and 48.7 latitudinal degrees, that 50 THE LILAC is within the area of two square degrees. 2. Within this space, it grows where the average temperature in spring is 8-10 Celsius, in summer 16-21 C.°, in fall 8-1 1 C.°, and in winter 3-4 C.° 3. The average yearly precipitation in the known places of growth is 85-100 cm. 4. The altitude is 300-500 m. 5. The stratum is mostly composed of granite, limestone, and graywacke. Finally 6. S. Josikaea grows on banks of rivers, or at least nearby." Michalus (Erdesz. Lap. 1887, 1. c.) states: "Its altitude at the Golbina is 490 m.; at Rumunyasza 660 m., and, in accordance with Mr. Flatt's observation, it is found also here by the water-side, some parts of it drooping in the river." Thaisz (Magy. Bot. Lap. 1909, 1. c.) tells us that "In the Sylvan Carpathians S. Josikaea grows in sand-stone. It is much more difficult to determine the composition of the stratum in the Transylvanian Mountains, because there are all sorts of rocks there. We do not have sufficiently detailed geological maps at our disposal." Also he notes: "In its wild state, it is not a shrub, but a 3-5 m. high small tree, growing in the neighborhood of alders and willows. Its soil is always a swamp along a brook, a flood land, or some other watery place. Not large and wide, but narrow and stern valleys are its home." The same writer in a later article (Magy. Bot. Lap. 191 2, 1. c.) notes of the conditions under which it grows in Galicia: "The Syringa grows in Galicia under conditions similar to those in Hungary, in shady moors along brooks, together with alders and willows; the ground is composed of the sand-stone of the Carpathians." In his article "The Syringa Josikaea as an independent species" (Erdesz. Lap. 1887, 1. c.) Flatt thus describes the plant: "The roots of our shrub are strong and creeping, proving that the plant has to gain its nourishment from rocky ground. Root-fibres spring sometimes from distant parts of the tap-root; a sign of the struggles of the plant which, amid the disintegrating rocks, holds on as it can. I dug up many shrubs and the roots were always alike; considering the nature of the places of growth, this could not be otherwise. I have found many old specimens, though the larger number of the plants were young. These old specimens are often covered with thick moss; they are crooked, veritable cripples. I took exact measure- ments from such an old shrub. They are: Trunk . . . 15.5 cm. in diameter. Where the two lowest branches start . . . 22.0 cm. in diameter. Diameter of one branch . . . 10.0 cm. Diameter of other branch ... 4.5 cm. This shrub is 3.5 m. tall, thus being an unusually strong specimen; but I wish to note here that there are much taller specimens, the measurements of which are smaller." In the same article Flatt writes that "The buds have an oval conical shape and are pointed; the terminal buds are always larger; the lateral buds point outwards; they are rust-brown, glabrous. The scales are acute." He notes that in Dietz's "Key to Buds and Leaves" (Erdesz. Lap. 1882, 1. c.) S. Josikaea is not considered. Dietz does, however, note of its leaves in this key: "Leaves hard, wrinkled, oval or rounded lanceolate (often in heart-shaped form), upper surface dark, lower surface pale light green, blade mostly runs into the stalk." Borbas (Erdesz. Lap. 1882, 1. c.) comments upon this: "Alexander Dietz . . . writes that the leaves of 5. SYRINGA JOSIKAEA 51 Josikaea are often heart-shaped and that 'their blades in most cases run into the stalk.' I cannot visualize or even draw such a leaf; but the leaves of S. Josikaea are not heart-shaped. If there is an approach to heart-shape (I have never seen it in any specimen) this must be the rarity; and only an approach to heart-shape can be in question." In Schneider's "Dendrologische Winterstudien" (1903) are found figures of its winter buds. The discussion in regard to the endemism of S. Josikaea appears to have aroused the pride of the Hungarian botanists and the evidence which they produced would seem to be conclusive. Certainly few, if any, species of Lilac have been recorded from so many spontaneous sources. The plant must have been a hardy one for in their zeal to obtain specimens the plant appears occasionally to have been somewhat harshly treated. Thus Csato (Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr. 1886, 1. c.) wrote: "... I learned that the sought-for shrub grew in the vicinity and immediately mounted with my attendants the horses which were being held ready, and rode to the spot. We found the Syringa to my great joy in the most wonderful bloom and began to collect them at once. But unfortunately it began to rain very hard, so that I, wrapping myself in my raincoat, could not see what my guides were doing. These latter, seeing that two presiding judges were accompanying me, decided to perform something obliging and serviceable and began to cut down the most beautiful shrubs. Happily I soon noticed their procedure with horror and stopped it right away. The people however insisted that it was not necessary to spare this shrub for it multiplies as easily as a willow. ..." Nor can one be amazed at the surprise of the pastor noted by Janka (Oesterr, Bot. Zeitschr. 1885, 1. c.) : "Several times I thought I saw it, but it soon turned out to be an Evonymus or a Rhamnus Frangula. . . . Now there remained nothing to do but to explore the village itself. There the pastor was not a little surprised when, after only a very short introduction, immediately paying almost no more attention to him, I rushed out in the pouring rain, into the little garden at whose entrance I let out a cry of joy as I found that the Syringa of which they had told me . . . was S. Josikaea. ... I rushed upon it with drawn knife and cut off three large-leaved shoots. There were hardly twice as many; the old trunk; nearly a span thick, was already nearly cut down. ..." I confess to sympathy for the pastor's garden. Several writers have commented upon the fact that large specimens of S. Josikaea were rarely found. Michalus (Erd6sz. Lap. 1887, 1. c.) writes: "I was surprised to see that although the surrounding country was uninhabited, all the branches of the shrubs were cut down. Upon my inquiries I learned that the people of the villages call S. Josikaea 'Lemne ventuluj' and that they use it for a cure upon paralysed parts of the body. ... I have not found any large specimen. The reason for this is, perhaps, to be looked for in the fact that the people, on account of its supposed medicinal effect, continue to cut it. The largest specimen was 1.5 m. high, and at the bottom n cm. wide. . . ." 52 THE LILAC Flatt (Erdesz. Lap. 1886, 1. c.) questions: ". . . why is S. Josikaea so rare? I am convinced that if the Syringa or 'Lunka Kotuni' at Remecz were not where they are, but nearer the village, they would have disappeared long since. We know well enough, how mischievous peasant urchins treat the ordinary lilac, at spring- time, when the plant is in flower. They are not content to pick five to ten clusters; he is the happiest who has the largest branch . . . thus before a general interest in the plant could have struck root, children's mischief had already destroyed it. For this reason I do not believe that 5. Josikaea will be found at a new place, near a village, or near any much-frequented location. From such places the S. Josikaea, if ever there was one there, has long since disappeared." In the same article Flatt makes some interesting comments upon the local names for this Lilac: "It is worth mentioning that the known places of growth of S. Josikaea are all in the Rumanian districts of Hungary; and that the village of O-Kemencz, in the county of Ung, is inhabited by Ruthenians. Therefore, seeking information from the 'people' we cannot go far with the Hungarian language. I have noticed that around the villages where 5. Josikaea grows the people know the plant but think it is identical with the Common Lilac. The inhabitants of Csucsa, as Lajos Simkovics [later Simonkai] (Termeszet. Fuzet. 1881, 44) notes, call it in Rumanian 'Melin.' The word has its meaning. But the Rumanians of Remecz (and generally all the Rumanians in Hungary proper) call it 'Kelin.' It is possible that the difference comes from the difference between the Rumanian dialects of Hungary and Transylvania. The Rumanian of Hungary calls also the Common Lilac 'Kelin.' The word 'Melin' appeals more to me; it is a more plausible name. * Kelin' (I have made many inquiries) has no meaning at all; on the other hand, the root of 'Melin' is 'mel' (in all probability a Greek root, jue\i= honey). [In a footnote he adds: "The Rumanian is a Latin tongue; and, just as in Latin, there are many Greek words in the Rumanian."] Perhaps the name came from the honey smell of the flowers of the Common Lilac. I remember that in my childhood we used to suck the corolla of the garden Syringa . . . perhaps the name 'Melin' was given because of the honey of the flower. A third Rumanian name is 'Scumpie,' which means preciousness, dearness (scump = dear) . ... I who have lived so many years among the Rumanians know very well how super- stitious this illiterate people is, especially in regard to medicine. It is the curing quality of the plant which is 'Scumpie,' or preciousness. And perhaps there is sense in their idea, for they really use it for medicine. The leaves of the garden Syringa and of S. Josikaea are bitter, and bitter stuffs are generally used against stomach troubles. Thus, when a baby is ill, they bathe it in boiled Syringa leaves. They give the same juice to their cattle, as a cure for colic. The Rumanians of the Hungarian parts use the Common Lilac for their quackery ; whereas the Rumanians of Remecz, Fekete-to and Csucsa (in the absence of the Common Lilac) use S. Josikaea which they take to be identical with the Common Lilac. B. H., apothecary, has told me that the Rumanian peasants often ask in his shop for Lilac leaves (which of course SYRINGA JOSIKAEA 53 they do not sell). A fourth Rumanian name is 'Orgonjan;' it is obvious that this word comes from 'orgona,' the Hungarian word for Lilac." A. Guylas (A Syringa Josikaea Jacq. fil. es a Syringa Emodi Wallich, 1909, 1. c.) has written on the same subject: "S. Josikaea is one of those plants whose native names have grown into a veritable labyrinth. A wrong but very common Hungarian name is 'Havasi Borostyan' (Transylvania) . . . S. Josikaea grows with few exceptions, in the mountain localities inhabited by Wallachians. It is therefore natural that it should have more Rumanian names than Hungarian. The Rumanian names are closely connected with the curative power which the people believe it contains, and the use which is made of it according to the experiences of the people. Everywhere that it grows the people know it and give it different names. As a plant which blossoms [with showy flowers] it naturally made itself noticeable. The Transylvanian Rumanian calls it 'Melin' (Csucsa), the Hungarian 'Kelinin' and 'Orgojan' (Remecz). The name Tenye' used in the valley of the warm Szamos River is not a specific name as the Rumanians use it for every plant. Their favorite name is that of 'Forest Lilac' (borostean de padure) by which one differentiates it from the 'Village Lilac' (borostean de sat) which means the S. vulgaris. In the villages near the Aranyos River, Vidra, Sckerisora and other places, it is called 'Skrintye.' In the forest of Belenyesi it is called 'Lemneven- tuluj' (wind tree), in the vicinity of Remecz and Csucsa, 'Scumpie.' [Guylas notes that this was also cited by Baumgarten, Enum. Stirp. Transsilv. 1. 16, 1816. In Guylas' Hungarian text Baumgarten's name is spelt Szkum pine and in his German text Skum pine.] These last two names were given to S. Josikaea for the healing power of her bark, leaves and young shoots. The meaning of 'Scumpie' is connected with the high cost of the medicine which is made from the plant. . . . The Rumanian people use the dried young shoots as a medicine for people as well as for animals, especially for stomach ache and paralysis. A person suffering from stomach ache drinks the juice boiled out of the leaves of the Syringa and one suffering from paralysis rubs the warm juice upon the sick limb. The effective substance of the plant is Syringin (Cl7H2402) which Kromayer first discovered and which is present in fairly large quantities in the bark and also in the mesophyll of the leaves." Guylas tells of his own experiments in extracting Syringin. S. Josikaea has been called by many common names. In French we find it as Lilas de Pensylvanie (Oudin, Cat. 1841, 22), Lilas feuilles de chionante (A. Leroy, Cat. 1852, 59), but the names most frequently applied are Lilas de Josika, Lilas Josika, and Lilas de Hongrie; in German Willkomm (Forstl. Fl. Deutschl., 1. c.) cites Josika's Hollunder, but ordinarily Josika Flieder and ungarischer Flieder, both cited by Hartwig and Riimpler (Vilmorin's Blumengartn., 1. c), are used; in English Deep Flowered German Lilac is cited in the "Botanical Magazine" (lx. t. 3278, 1833) and by Sweet (Hort. Brit. ed. 3, 1. c), Chionanthus-leaved Lilac is occasionally used (Prince, Cat. 1 844-1 845, 70), but Lady Josika's Lilac, Josika's 52 THE LILAC Flatt (Erdesz. Lap. 1886, 1. c.) questions: ". . . why is 5. Josikaea so rare? I am convinced that if the Syringa or 'Lunka Kotuni' at Remecz were not where they are, but nearer the village, they would have disappeared long since. We know well enough, how mischievous peasant urchins treat the ordinary lilac, at spring- time, when the plant is in flower. They are not content to pick five to ten clusters; he is the happiest who has the largest branch . . . thus before a general interest in the plant could have struck root, children's mischief had already destroyed it. For this reason I do not believe that S. Josikaea will be found at a new place, near a village, or near any much-frequented location. From such places the S. Josikaea, if ever there was one there, has long since disappeared." In the same article Flatt makes some interesting comments upon the local names for this Lilac: "It is worth mentioning that the known places of growth of 5. Josikaea are all in the Rumanian districts of Hungary; and that the village of O-Kemencz, in the county of Ung, is inhabited by Ruthenians. Therefore, seeking information from the 'people' we cannot go far with the Hungarian language. I have noticed that around the villages where S. Josikaea grows the people know the plant but think it is identical with the Common Lilac. The inhabitants of Csucsa, as Lajos Simkovics [later Simonkai] (Termeszet. Fuzet. 1881, 44) notes, call it in Rumanian 'Melin.' The word has its meaning. But the Rumanians of Remecz (and generally all the Rumanians in Hungary proper) call it 'Kelin.' It is possible that the difference comes from the difference between the Rumanian dialects of Hungary and Transylvania. The Rumanian of Hungary calls also the Common Lilac 'Kelin.' The word 'Melin' appeals more to me; i't is a more plausible name. 'Kelin' (I have made many inquiries) has no meaning at all; on the other hand, the root of 'Melin' is 'mel' (in all probability a Greek root, /xeXt = honey). [In a footnote he adds: "The Rumanian is a Latin tongue; and, just as in Latin, there are many Greek words in the Rumanian."] Perhaps the name came from the honey smell of the flowers of the Common Lilac. I remember that in my childhood we used to suck the corolla of the garden Syringa . . . perhaps the name 'Melin' was given because of the honey of the flower. A third Rumanian name is 'Scumpie,' which means preciousness, dearness (scump = dear) . ... I who have lived so many years among the Rumanians know very well how super- stitious this illiterate people is, especially in regard to medicine. It is the curing quality of the plant which is 'Scumpie,' or preciousness. And perhaps there is sense in their idea, for they really use it for medicine. The leaves of the garden Syringa and of S. Josikaea are bitter, and bitter stuffs are generally used against stomach troubles. Thus, when a baby is ill, they bathe it in boiled Syringa leaves. They give the same juice to their cattle, as a cure for colic. The Rumanians of the Hungarian parts use the Common Lilac for their quackery; whereas the Rumanians of Remecz, Fekete-to and Csucsa (in the absence of the Common Lilac) use S. Josikaea which they take to be identical with the Common Lilac. B. H., apothecary, has told me that the Rumanian peasants often ask in his shop for Lilac leaves (which of course SYRINGA JOSIKAEA 53 they do not sell). A fourth Rumanian name is 'Orgonjan;' it is obvious that this word comes from 'orgona,' the Hungarian word for Lilac." A. Guylas (A Syringa Josikaea Jacq. fil. es a Syringa Emodi Wallich, 1909, 1. c.) has written on the same subject: "S. Josikaea is one of those plants whose native names have grown into a veritable labyrinth. A wrong but very common Hungarian name is 'Havasi Borostyan' (Transylvania) ... 5. Josikaea grows with few exceptions, in the mountain localities inhabited by Wallachians. It is therefore natural that it should have more Rumanian names than Hungarian. The Rumanian names are closely connected with the curative power which the people believe it contains, and the use which is made of it according to the experiences of the people. Everywhere that it grows the people know it and give it different names. As a plant which blossoms [with showy flowers] it naturally made itself noticeable. The Transylvanian Rumanian calls it 'Melin' (Csucsa), the Hungarian 'Kelinin' and 'Orgojan' (Remecz). The name Tenye' used in the valley of the warm Szamos River is not a specific name as the Rumanians use it for every plant. Their favorite name is that of 'Forest Lilac' (borostean de padure) by which one differentiates it from the 'Village Lilac' (borostean de sat) which means the S. vulgaris. In the villages near the Aranyos River, Vidra, Sckerisora and other places, it is called 'Skrintye.' In the forest of Belenyesi it is called 'Lemneven- tuluj' (wind tree), in the vicinity of Remecz and Csucsa, 'Scumpie.' [Guylas notes that this was also cited by Baumgarten, Enum. Stirp. Transsilv. 1. 16, 1816. In Guylas' Hungarian text Baumgarten's name is spelt Szkum pine and in his German text Skum pine.] These last two names were given to S. Josikaea for the healing power of her bark, leaves and young shoots. The meaning of 'Scumpie' is connected with the high cost of the medicine which is made from the plant. . . . The Rumanian people use the dried young shoots as a medicine for people as well as for animals, especially for stomach ache and paralysis. A person suffering from stomach ache drinks the juice boiled out of the leaves of the Syringa and one suffering from paralysis rubs the warm juice upon the sick limb. The effective substance of the plant is Syringin (C17H24O2) which Kromayer first discovered and which is present in fairly large quantities in the bark and also in the mesophyll of the leaves." Guylas tells of his own experiments in extracting Syringin. S. Josikaea has been called by many common names. In French we find it as Lilas de Pensylvanie (Oudin, Cat. 1841, 22), Lilas feuilles de chionante (A. Leroy, Cat. 1852, 59), but the names most frequently applied are Lilas de Josika, Lilas Josika, and Lilas de Hongrie; in German Willkomm (Forstl. Fl. Deutschl., 1. c.) cites Josika's Hollunder, but ordinarily Josika Flieder and ungarischer Flieder, both cited by Hartwig and Riimpler (Vilmorin's Blumengartn. , 1. c), are used; in English Deep Flowered German Lilac is cited in the "Botanical Magazine" (lx. t. 3278, 1833) and by Sweet (Hort. Brit. ed. 3, 1. c), Chionanthus-leaved Lilac is occasionally used (Prince, Cat. 1844-1845, 70), but Lady Josika's Lilac, Josika's 54 THE LILAC Lilac and Hungarian Lilac, adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names," are those most frequently applied. Gerth van Wijk (Diet. PL Names, I. 1307, 191 1), in addition to certain of the names already mentioned, notes, as German names, lilak, syrene, syringsblume ; and, as Dutch names, hongaarsche sering and Josika sering. In England this species appears in Loddiges' Catalogue (1836, 66) as S. Josikaea. In early French catalogues we find it as follows: as S. Josikaea (Baumann, 1838-1839, 8); as Lilas Josikea (Oudin, 1839-1849, 1; Dauvesse, no. 21, 19, 1856); as S. josikea, Lilas de Pensylvanie (Oudin, 1841, 22); as Lilas Josika (Seneclauze, 1846-1847, 11); as 5. Josika, Josika Lilac (A. Leroy, 1850, 9); as 5. Josikaea, Chionanthus leaved Lilac (A. Leroy, 1851, 48); Baudriller (no. 43, 140, 1880) calls it S. Josikaea, Lilas a feuilles de chionanthe. In catalogues of the United States it appears: as S. Josikaea, Chionanthus- leaved Lilac (William R. Prince, 1844-1845, 66; Parsons, 1850, 25; Ellwanger and Barry, 185 5-1 856, 7); as S. Josikaea (Hovey, 1 846-1 847, n). It is found frequently listed at the present day. According to Pepin (Rev. Hort. 1844-1845, 120) the experiment of grafting S. Josikaea upon the ash was attempted: "Une greffe en 6cusson, faite en automne 1842 du Syringa Josikaea sur le Fraxinus excelsior (Frene commun) a produit au printemps de 1844 un buisson d'une belle forme, par les nombreaux bourgeons qui se sont developpes sur la longueur de la tige." Pepin, so far as known, made no further reference to this experiment, and, judging from similar attempts made with the Common Lilac, it is doubtful whether it proved a success. While in Ottawa, Canada, in the spring of 1927, 1 had the opportunity to observe the trial hedges at the Dominion Experimental Farms. Among the handsomest of the tall hedges was one of S. Josikaea. In the "Rapport interimaire de l'Horti- culteur du Dominion" (year ending March 31, 1921, p. 38) is a note written by Dr. W. T. Macoun: "Lilas de Josika (Syringa Josikaea). — Beaucoup de gens aiment avoir une haie de lilas; e'est surtout une question de gout, car le lilas ordi- naire ne fait pas une haie satisfaisante; il n'est pas assez raide et il n'a pas une feuille assez attrayante pour une haie qui doit orner les abords toute la saison. Le feuillage se mildiouse assez souvent, ce qui lui enleve de sa beaute, et lorsqu'on taille la haie, il n'y a pas de fleur. Cependant le lilas de Josika fait une haie beaucoup plus belle que le lilas ordinaire. Les feuilles sont d'un vert fonce lustre" et l'arbuste est plus ferme que les autres. C'est Tune des grandes haies les plus belles que nous avons a, Ottawa." This hedge was planted in 1891 and is now about fifteen feet broad by eleven feet tall. It is the first which I have seen made of this species and, with Dr. Macoun, I agree that it is far handsomer than those made from the Common Lilac and should be more often used. Dr. W. T. Macoun (Report of the Dominion Horticulturist for the year 1922, p. 38) also mentions S. Josikaea among the best ornamental shrubs hardy at Ottawa, Canada, but states that it is "not so attractive as S. villosa." SYRINGA JOSIKAEA 55 Franchet's monograph, "Observations sur les Syringa du nord de la Chine," is the source of the opinion that 5. Josikaea should be identified with S. emodi Wallich. He writes: "A propos de ces deux Syringa a feuilles discolores, je dois dire que j'ai vainement cherche un caractere precis permettant de distinguer nette- ment le S. Emodi, Wall., du S. Josikaea, Jacq. Ces deux Lilas ont toujours ete decrits comme s'ils ne pouvait etre confondus et, ni de Candolle, dans le Prodrome, ni Decaisne, dans sa Monographic, ne paraissent avoir songe a les comparer. On sait que le S. Josikaea n'est connu qu'en Hongrie, dans une seule localite des Siebenburgen, particularite de nature a jeter deja des doutes sur Pautonomie de l'espece. Ces doutes ne peuvent que s'accroitre lorsqu'on s'apercoit qu'on ne peut invoquer pour sa distinction specifique ni la forme des feuilles, qui se retrouve absolument la meme dans beaucoup des specimens de 1'Himalaya, c'est-a-dire variant de l'ovale a l'ovale-oblong, ni de la disposition generale de la grappe con- stitute par des rameaux courts et souvent ecartes, qui la rendent etroite et inter- rompue. Cette disposition s'observe dans plusieurs des echantillons rapportes du Cachemyr, par Jacquemont, notamment dans ceux qui portent le no. 445 (Herb, du Museum de Paris). La couleur des fleurs n'est pas plus caracteristique; il est vrai qu'elles sont assez souvent blanches dans le S. Emodi; mais il n'est pas rare aussi de les voir avec la nuance ordinaire des Lilas; enfin, on retrouve dans les deux plantes cette meme pulverulence, dont aucun auteur n'a parle, sur la nervure principale, a la face interieure des feuilles." Franchet's comparison of the two plants is not convincing. As noted under S. emodi, although Brandis (Indian Trees, 445, 1906) refers to the color of its flowers as "white or purplish," Major J. E. T. Aitchison (Jour. Linn. Soc. Lon- don, xvm. 78, 1881) states: "The flowers are always pure or greenish white, never purple." The Hungarian botanists, Flatt (Erdesz. Lap. 1887, 568; A Syringa Josika-Firol, 1891) in particular, compared the two species and offered excellent reasons for considering them to be distinct. As cultivated plants, growing in the Arnold Arboretum, S. Josikaea and S. emodi appear quite distinct. The conspicuous lenticels and the long, pale, vertical fissures seen on the bark of the Himalayan Lilac are lacking upon the Hungarian plant. The former is a coarser grower with larger foliage. The flowers of the two species are distinct although both species belong to the same group of Lilacs and pro- duce their clusters upon leafy shoots, normally from terminal buds. The corolla- tube of S. emodi is cylindric and that of S. Josikaea funnelform; the corolla-lobes of the former are narrow and curl backward after they have been expanded for only a short time while those of the latter, broad at their base, are held erect. The anthers of S. emodi extend beyond the mouth of the corolla-tube while those of S. Josikaea are inserted just above the middle of the corolla-tube and are not visible. The fruit capsules of S. emodi are characterized by a conspicuous slender tip while those of S. Josikaea terminate abruptly in a very short one. Reichenbach at once noted that 5. Josikaea and S. villosa Vahl were probably 58 THE LILAC The "Revue Horticole" (1908, 6) incorrectly attributes this form to the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, as does "Gardening Illustrated" for 1907. D. Bois (Rev. Hort., 1. c.) states that he wrote to Froebel on October 27, 1904, in regard to both the origin and the history of Eximia and H. Zabel; he tells us that they first appeared in Froebel's catalogue for 1900-1901 (no. 127, pp. 5 and 6); they are to be found even earlier however, in his catalogue for 1899 (no. 124, 78). Both have been classified at various times as 5. Henryi hybrids. Bois quotes Froebel's own statement in regard to this: "Ces deux nouveautes de Syringa Josikaea ont ete obtenues par des selections repetees et non par hybridation." Bois continues: "Ce dernier point n'etait pas inutile a fixer; car dans les catalogues des specialistes meme les plus qualifies, on trouve ces Lilas annonces comme 'hybrides du Syringa Bretschneideri' [= S. villosa]. C'est une indication erronee qui devrait etre remplacee par celle-ci: 'Selections du Syringa Josikaea.' Les seules hybrides issus du croisement du Syringa Bretschneideri et Josikaea, signales jusqu'ici, sont ceux qu'a obtenus au Museum notre collaborateur M. L. Henry. ..." It was of course possible that Froebel's plant of S. Josikaea might, unknown to him, have been naturally pollinized by 5. villosa, the second parent in the S. Henryi hybrids. Lobner (Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges., 1. c.) while retaining the name S. Josikaea eximia, states that, as a chance seedling, Eximia is obviously a hybrid of S. Josikaea and S. Bretschneideri [= S. villosa], which, in its growth and leaves, resembles more nearly S. Josikaea; he states that in the Froebel nursery were flowering specimens of 5. Bretschneideri and that these obviously furnished the pollen for the cross-fertilization since they stood beside bushes of S. Josikaea, the species which was used as Froebel's seed parent. The illustrations of the flowers of this form, resembling closely those of the form H. Zabel which I have seen, indicate clearly that Froebel's statement as to its origin is the correct one, and I believe both Eximia and H. Zabel to be improved forms of the Hungarian Lilac, showing no trace of hybrid origin. The characters which differen- tiate the French hybrids have been discussed at length under 5. Henryi. In both Froebel Lilacs are found the small anthers which characterize S. Josikaea; and their insertion in the corolla-tube is at the same point, just above the middle. The same wide throat is present and the corolla-lobes are held erect. That these forms are noticeably superior to S. Josikaea is evidenced by the much larger individual flowers with propor- tionally broader throat and larger corolla-lobes, and by the fuller, larger, and handsomer clusters. The pedicels appear to be unusually long on the improved forms. There is little doubt, however, that plants of 5. Henryi have been sold under the names Eximia and H. Zabel. St. Olbrich states that Eximia was the result of work which he carried on in the field when director of the Froebel nurseries. Lingelsheim (Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 94, 1920) mentions among plants of hybrid origin cited by Beissner, Schelle and Zabel (Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 415, 1903) S. Bretschneideri X Josikaea (S. eximia) var. Lutece Simon-Louis. This is not correctly quoted since these authors merely cite as synonym for their 5. villosa X Josikaea, S. Bretschneideri X Josikaea var. Lutece and do not mention S. eximia except as S. Josikaea eximia Hort. SYRINGA JOSIKAEA 59 "Standardized Plant Names" has adopted Red Rose as approved common name. A plant (no. 17,350 Am. Arb.) bearing the name S. Josikaea eximia was received in 191 1 at the Arnold Arboretum from Simon-Louis freres; it is merely a form of the hybrid S. Henryi. H. Zabel Froebel, Cat. no. 124, 79 (1899), as S. Josikaea "H. Zabel." — St. Olbrich in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xvi. 561 (1901). — Bois in Rev. Hort. 1908, 176. — Schneider, 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 782 (191 1); in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laub- geh. 361 (1913). Syringa Josikaea Zabeli Hort. according to Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz- Ben. 415 (1903). — Lobner in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 16, 262 (1907). — Schelle in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 24, 208 (191 5). — Stipp in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 37, 146 (1926). — Rehder, Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 752 (1927). — G. Hegi, 111. Fl. Mittel-Eur. v. pt. in., 1909 (1927). Syringa Bretschneideri hybrida H. Zabel Lemoine, Cat. no. 155, 29 (1903). Syringa Henryi "H. Zabel" Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vr. 3300 (1917). Without a name, as " Syringa Josikaea Neuheit II.," this plant was first described by St. Olbrich (Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 7, 99, 1898) as one of Froebel's produc- tions. In introducing this form the next year Otto Froebel, of Zurich, describes it as follows: "Neuheit, die Rispe ist in Grosse und Form der S. Josikaea bedeutend iiberlegen, ebenso die einzelnen Bliiten, deren Petalen auch schon abgerundet sind. Die Farbe ist in Knos- penzustande hellrotviolett und im aufgebluhten Zustande lilarot." This plant originated in the Froebel nursery and was put on the market with the form Eximia; it has, in my opinion, been, like the latter, misclassified as a form of the hybrid S. Henryi. The reasons for considering H. Zabel to be an improved form of S. Josikaea, rather than a hybrid, have been given under Eximia. No illustration of H. Zabel has been found. This form is mentioned in "Standardized Plant Names" (486, 1923) without indica- tion of its species. The paragraph prefacing the list in which it appears is misleading and would indicate that it was a form of S. vulgaris. There is in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum a specimen (no. 42) of flowers and foliage which was collected by H. Zabel at Gotha; this was purchased with the Zabel herbarium; also a specimen (no. 1 166 Horsey) collected by R. E. Horsey from a plant in the collection of the Department of Parks, Rochester, New York. There are also examples of flowers collected in 1913 and 1914 from a plant (no. 6839 Am. Arb.) which is growing in the Arnold Arboretum and was received from H,. A. Hesse, Weener, Germany, in April, 1910. The flowers of this plant bear such a marked resemblance both in color and in form of individual flower and of inflorescence to those of the plant (no. 15,660 Am. Arb.) grown from seed (no. 40) collected by Komarov, that I must believe them to be iden- tical. This Komarov (?) plant was until recently considered to be S. Wolfi. The only difference between the two plants (Am. Arb. nos. 6839 and 15,660) exists in the foliage which in the former (no. 6839) is more lustrous above. See 5. Wolfi. Notes taken from the living plant (no. 6839 Am. Arb.) show the color of the flowers to be as follows: in bud Light Perilla Purple to Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac (xxxvn.) ; 60 THE LILAC when expanded without and within Purplish Lilac (xxxvu.). The corolla-tube is some- times tinged Saccardo's Violet (xxxvu.). Monstrosa Jager, Ziergeholze, 529 (1865), name only, as 5. Josikaea var. monstrosa. This form of the Hungarian Lilac has been found mentioned in literature only once and without description. In the manuscript catalogue of the plants in the garden of the Forest Academy, Muenden, Hanover, which was purchased by the Arnold Arboretum with the H. Zabel herbarium, an entry records that Syringa Josikaea monstrosa was received in 187 1 from the Forest Garden, Chorin, Brandenburg, Prussia; Zabel had added "= vulgaris alba." Whether all plants of this name may have represented a white form of the Common Lilac seems doubtful; Zabel's original may have been grafted upon such a stock. Pallida Jager, Ziergeholze, 529 (1865), name only, as S. Josikaea var. pallida. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 140 (1880). — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 77 (1885). — Dippel Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 115 (1889). — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 378 (1892). — L. Henry in Jardin, ix. 32 (1895); in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 751 (1901). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 654 (1896). — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 207 (1899); in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 752 (1927). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 415 (1903). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. n. s. in. 42 (1917). — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 487 (1923), as a synonym. — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 27 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). Although at one time in quite general cultivation only meager descriptions of this form have been found, — it was probably merely a color variation, — and nothing in regard to its origin. Baudriller's catalogue mentions it, with S. Josikaea and the form which it calls "flore rubro" : " Ces trois dernieres varietes sont tres-ornementales par leur feuillage et par leurs fleurs tres-laches, paraissant seulement en juin"; he adds the common name of Lilas a. feuilles de chionanthe pales. Hartwig calls it the "blasser Josika-Flieder." L. Henry mentions it as appearing in horticultural catalogues and producing flowers "lilace bleu- atre, d'un mediocre effet." Rehder gives the color as "pale violet." "Standardized Plant Names" has adopted Pale Hungarian as approved common name. Professor C. S. Sargent (Bull. Arn. Arb., 1. c.) writes: "Two plants now found in some nurseries under the names of S. Josikaea pallida and S. Josikaea rosea are only forms of S. villosa with slightly different colored flowers. Plants under these names were culti- vated, however, in Europe several years before the discovery of S. villosa, and if they or other varieties of 5. Josikaea are known to any of the readers of these Bulletins the Arbore- tum will be glad to hear from them." As noted in the bibliography of this form the first reference found is that of 1865. S. villosa was described in 1805; it was only intro- duced between 1879 and 1881. A form of the Common Lilac, Pallida, was mentioned by Noisette as early as 1826. In 1879 the nurseryman Baumann (Cat. no. 159, 38) lists a Syringa pallida without specific name. His plant may either have been the 5". vulgaris form or this form of S. Josikaea. SYRINGA JOSIKAEA 61 A plant (no. 6855 Am. Arb.) bearing the name 5*. Josikaea pallida was received at the Arnold Arboretum in 191 2 from Simon-Louis freres; it is merely a pale form of 5. Henryi, Rosea Niemetz in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 17, 191 (1908), name only, as 5". Josikaea rosea. — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. n. s. 111. 42 (191 7). Niemetz, when writing of 5. velutina Komarov, — a plant which he says was intro- duced by Simon-Louis freres, and which he had undoubtedly confused with 5. velutina Bureau and Franchet [= 5\ tomentella Bureau and Franchet], — merely notes its similarity to S. Emodi rosea [= S. villosa] and to 61. Josikaea rosea. As quoted under the form Pallida Professor Sargent mentions these two plants as found in some nurseries but as being merely "forms of 5. villosa with slightly different colored flowers." He states that plants under these names were cultivated, however, in Europe "several years before the discovery of S. villosa" and asks his readers for infor- mation in regard to them. As noted under Pallida that form has first been found men- tioned in 1865; Vahl described S. villosa in 1805 but the species was not introduced until between 1879 and 1882. I have found only these two references to this form, but a plant (no. 5216 Am. Arb.) bearing the name was received in 1902 at the Arnold Arboretum from Ellwanger and Barry, Rochester, New York. It is still growing in the collection but is merely a form of the hybrid S. Henryi. Possibly the forms Rosea and Pallida were identical. I have never seen plants of either which were other than pale forms of 5. Henryi. Rubra Hort. according to Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 77 (1885), name only. — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk, 1. 115 (1889). — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 379 (1892). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 654 (1896). — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 207 (1899); in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3300 (191 7); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 752 (1927). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 415 (1903). — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 487 (1923), as a synonym. Syringa Josikaea flore rubro Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 140 (1880). — Mouillefert, Traite Arb. Arbris. 11. 1001 (1892-1898). — L. Henry in Jardin, ix. 32 (1895); in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 751 (1901). Syr[inga) Jos[ikaea]flor[ibus] rubris Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 115 (1889), as a synonym . This form was presumably merely a color variation from the type S. Josikaea. Its origin is not known. Neither the Zoschen catalogue nor Hartwig give a description, but the latter adds the common name " roter J[osika]-Fl[ieder]." Voss refers to it as " mehr rotviolett " than the form Pallida. Rehder notes the color as "reddish violet" and Baudriller gives it the common name of Lilas a. feuilles de chionanthe a, fleurs rougeatres; Mouillefert notes: "Fleurs plus rouges que dans le type, inflorescences aussi bien developpees et plus four- nies." L. Henry describes it as " Distinct par le coloris de ses fleurs plus rouges que celles du type; les inflorescences sont aussi plus grandes et plus fournies; c'est une variete veritablement meritante." The manuscript catalogue of the plants in the garden of the Forest Academy at Muenden, Hanover, which was purchased by the Arnold Arboretum with the H. Zabel 62 THE LILAC herbarium records that Syringa Josikaeafl. rubro was received from the Transon nurseries in November, 1888. Ellwanger and Barry (Cat. 1896, n, Suppl.) offered it for sale as "Similar to the old variety except that the flowers are a deep shade of red." "Standardized Plant Names" has adopted Red Hungarian as approved common name. A specimen (no. 1165 Horsey) of what appears to be this form is in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum. It was collected on June 12, 1920, by R. E. Horsey, from a plant growing at Highland Park, Rochester, New York. Horsey notes: "Lilac with a tinge of red, fading light lilac." Plate XVI I % SYRINGA WOLFI (Arnold Arboretum no. 10,054) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1025. Plate XVII SYRINGA WOLFI (Arnold Arboretum no. 10,954) Expanding buds, enlarged. April 30, 1926. Plate XVIII SYRINGA WOLFI (Garden of Mr. John S. Ames, North Easton, Mass. Flower cluster. June 12, 1024. Plate XIX SYRINGA WOLFI (Arnold Arboretum no. 10,954) Fruit, enlarged. Picked October, 1926. Plate XX l-O rf § n" d - O I- « S5 S Q « < 'o d w 1-1 u. w a < o 1/3 ^ 3 ~ O Plate XXIV t/J IN c/2 H < X ■* w c u kJ ' ~* c ta •s ^ w 1 1 Pi < 1— 1 o rt fe - If} ~c ffi o Plate XXV s o o < o to Ih o _: q=! P C 03 £ • f—t *-> "o C K rt * — ' O. Plate XXVII o -T — i 0) o PQ SYRINGA REFLEXA Syringa reflexa Schneider in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. ix. 80 (1910); 111. Handb. Laub- holzk. 11. 779, figs. 488 a-d, i-m, 489 d-e (191 1); 11. 1063 (191 2); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 227, 229 (1911); no. 29, 162 (1920); in Sargent, PI. Wilson. 1. 297 (1912); in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 361 (1913); in Gartenschonheit, vm. 144, fig. (p. 143) (1927). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 19, April 25 (1912); n. s. 1. 31 (1915); iv. 25 (1918); v. 27 (1919); x. 43 (1924). — Hesse in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 21, 196 (1912). — Goeze in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 25, 173 (1916). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxiii. 154, fig. (1916); Aristocrats of the Garden, 221 (1917); ed. 2, 221 (1926); America's Greatest Garden, 50 (1925). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3300 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 753 (1927). — Skan in Bot. Mag. cxlvi. t. 8869 (1920). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 81 (1920). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922). — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 485 (1923). — Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 799. — A. 0[sborn] in Garden, lxxxvii. 301 (1923). — Gartenwelt, xxviii. 278 (1924). — Stipp in Gartenwelt, xxviii. 409, figs. 1, 2 (1924); in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.- Zeit. xl. 398, fig. in. (1925); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 37, 146, t. 20, 21 (1926). — Mottet, Arb. Arbust. Orn. 340 (1925). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 4, 22 (1926); reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). A broad-topped, spreading shrub up to 12 ft. tall; branches angular, thick, smooth, gray, lenticellate; branchlets glabrous, lenticellate. Winter-buds oblong with acuminate apex, flower bud Yi in. long more or less, scales reddish brown with dark brown margins, acuminate, keeled and forming a distinctly four-sided bud, the four lower scales with sometimes an extremely long, slender tip, glabrous. Leaf-scar much raised, almost semi- circular, conspicuous, large; bundle-trace only slightly curved. Leaves ovate-oblong to oblong-lanceolate, occasionally elliptic-obovate, 3-8 in. long, 1-2 in. broad, acuminate, base tapering or cuneate, dull green, glabrous or sometimes when young sparingly pubes- cent above, paler, sometimes tinged Vinaceous-Drab (xlv.), villous beneath especially along midrib and primary veins which are sometimes tinged Vinaceous-Drab (xlv.); midrib and primary veins conspicuous; petiole slender, Yr^A m- l°ng> tinged Vinaceous- Brown (xxxix.). Inflorescence borne on leafy shoots, terminal, occasionally lateral; panicle laxly pyramidal or cylindric, suberect, drooping, or pendulous, 5-12 in. long, 2-7 in. broad; fascicles interrupted, occasionally remote; rhachis glabrous or sometimes villous, lenticellate; pedicel short, glabrous or sometimes villous; calyx short, glabrous or villous, with acute teeth; corolla-tube funnelform, 7/i6in. long; corolla-lobes spread- ing at right angles to corolla-tube, pointed, cucullate; corolla 5/i6 in. in diameter, color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Rhodonite Pink (xxxvin.); when expanded Rhodonite Pink (xxxvin.) without, Light Buff (xv.) or white within; anthers Primrose Yellow (xxx.), inserted at mouth of corolla- tube, occasionally protruding. Capsule oblong, erect or reflexed on the panicle, verrucose, H~% m- long, each valve often terminating in 71 72 THE LILAC a short, slender tip. (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant (no. 6857 Arn. Arb.) growing in the Arnold Arboretum.) Habitat: China : province of Hupeh. C. K. Schneider in 1910 described the species Syringa reflexa from two specimens. The first (no. 6819), of fruit, was collected by Augustine Henry in the province of Hupeh in central China, at an altitude of 8000 to 9000 ft. S. A. Skan, in the "Botanical Magazine" of 1920, states that this specimen was gathered in 1889 at Fang [ = the district of Fang hsien in western Hupeh]. In the Gray Herbarium, Cambridge, Massachusetts, is a specimen of fruit bearing the same number (6819) but the date is noted as 1885-1888. This was at one time determined as S. emodi. The second (no. 2078 Veitch) of flowers, was found by E. H. Wilson while collecting for Messrs. James Veitch and Sons in 1901, in the mountains of Fang hsien; Mr. Wilson's field notes state that it was a bush 6-12 ft. tall, with light purple flowers. A co-type specimen, showing flowers and fruit of a previous year, is in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum. Schneider's description, translated, reads: "A shrub related to S. villosa; branches of the previous year [presumably an error on Schneider's part] glabrous, olive colored, branches of the year [Schneider confused the words annotinus and horno- tinus, reversing their meanings] more or less ash-colored, round, dotted with many lenticels; leaves elliptic-oblong or oboval or lanceolate, to 7 X 3-5-i3 X 5.5 or 11 X 3.5 or 11 X 5.5 mm. large, above deep green, especially on the midrib pilose, beneath pale, toward base bearded-pilose, on margins scabrous; petiole to 2 cm. long; inflorescence to 14 X 3 cm. large (fruiting up to 18 cm. long) ; flowers violet (?), at apex scarcely spreading, with tube about 11 mm. long; calyx about 3 mm. long, truncate-denticulate, scarcely pilose; pedicels 2-3 mm. long, pilose; fruit to 15 mm. long, verrucose, obtuse, reflexed." Wilson also collected S. reflexa on his later expeditions of 1 907-1 908 and 1910- 191 1 made for the Arnold Arboretum. In June, 1907, he found it (no. 2582) again in Fang hsien growing in thickets at an altitude of 5000-8000 ft. and de- scribed the bush as 6-8 ft. tall with reddish flowers; on June 16, 1910, he again found it (no. 4460) growing in thickets, in the district of Fang hsien, at an altitude of 6000-8000 ft., and noted that the flowers were rosy pink, the panicle pendulous, and the shrub 5-12 ft. tall. A photograph (no. 092 Wilson), taken of this shrub in flower is in the collection of the Arnold Arboretum. A second specimen bearing the same number (no. 4460) was gathered when the plant was in fruit, in October, 1910. Seed (no. 4460) collected at this date was sent to the Arnold Arboretum where it was received in March, 191 1, and the species was thus introduced into cultivation in the United States and elsewhere. The Arnold Arboretum sent some of this shipment of seed to the Office of the Woods, Forests and Land Revenues, in Eng- land. It was from that Office that the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew received their first seed in 191 1, and from it was grown the plant figured in the "Botanical Magazine" of 1920. SYRINGA REFLEXA 73 S. reflexa was offered for sale by the Lemoine firm in 191 7 (Cat, no. 191, 25). The flowers are described in the English edition as having "reflexed lobes of a soft mauve color." I have seen no flowers on plants of this species which were other than a decided pink. Wilson, in the second edition of his "Aristocrats of the Garden," states: "The most distinct of all Lilacs is the new 5. reflexa with narrow or broad flower clusters from nine to twelve inches long, suberect, nodding or pendent and sometimes hang[ing] downward like the inflorescence of the Wistaria. ... It is native of the margins of woods and thickets on the mountains of western Hupeh, in central China. . . ." Mr. Wilson tells me that his photograph, already mentioned, gives an excellent idea of the wild plant. Schneider in first describing this species distinguishes it from S. villosa by its warty, reflexed fruit; it was because of this character, rather than because of the pendulous flower-clusters, that the plant received its name. I have not found the fruit to be more reflexed upon the panicles than is that of other species such as S. Komarowi and S. Julianae. Lingelsheim writes: "S. reflexa forma fructus nullo modo a S. villosa distinguenda est, ut C. K. Schneider putat, fructus 'reflexi' etiam in paniculis S. villosae occurrunt." The plant of S. reflexa (no. 6857 Arn. Arb.) growing in the Arnold Arboretum which was raised from Wilson's seed (no. 4460) does not give a good idea of the beauty of this Lilac, for it has never thriven satisfactorily. Growing near by, at Holm Lea, Brookline, Massachusetts, are four plants which are worthier repre- sentatives of the species. These show the wide variation which is characteristic of S. reflexa, not only in color, but also in form of individual flower and of inflores- cence. In one of these plants the flower-clusters are narrow and the flowers notice- ably fascicled; in the other three they branch widely at the base; three have large flowers, while one has curiously small ones. In all the corolla-lobes are narrow, cucullate, and show a tendency to curl backward against the corolla-tube after they have been expanded for a time; and in all the somewhat large anthers, Primrose Yellow (xxx.), are inserted near the mouth of the corolla-tube and protrude slightly. The following color notes taken from these four plants will give an idea of the range of color found in this species. Plant no. 1 : color in bud Rhodonite Pink (xxxvin.) ; when expanded Rhodonite Pink to Pale Rhodonite Pink (xxxvin.) without, Pale Vinaceous-Fawn (xl.) within. Plant no. 2 : color in bud deep Helle- bore Red to Rocellin Purple to Rhodonite Pink (xxxvin.) ; when expanded Rhodo- nite Pink to Pale Rhodonite Pink (xxxvin.) without, Pale Purplish Vinaceous (xxxrx.) within. Plant no. 3: color in bud Rhodonite Pink (xxxvin.) to Olive- Buff (xl.) tinged with Pale Grayish Vinaceous (xxxrx.); when expanded corolla- tube Light Brownish Vinaceous tinged with Pale Purplish Vinaceous (xxxrx.), corolla-lobes white without, Pale Olive-Buff (xl.) to white within. Plant no. 4: color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Rocellin Purple to Rhodonite Pink (xxxvin.); when expanded Rhodonite Pink without, Pale Rhodonite Pink (xxxvin.) to Pale 74 THE LILAC Purplish Vinaceous (xxxrx.) within. In all these plants the clusters are nodding or almost pendulous and they vary from rive to six inches to a considerably greater length. * The foliage of this species is large and handsome; it is somewhat rough to the touch, unfolds late in the spring and falls early in the autumn. The flowers open in late May or early June; unfortunately they lack fragrance; the individual blossom falls as it fades, leaving the calyx and a prominent pistil. The fruit is about z/i of an inch long, and as a rule pronouncedly warty or verrucose. This character and the smooth gray bark marked with dark lenticels, appear to dis- tinguish this species from the closely related 5. Komarowi, on living plants of which the fruit capsules are commonly smooth while the bark on old wood is marked with many small fissures giving an effect of network; bark of the same character is found on the species S. Julianae. When in bloom S. reflexa is a far handsomer plant than 5. Komarowi. See also 5. Komarowi. Mr. E. Lemoine wrote me, on July i, 1925, in regard to these species: "Je crois que les S. reflexa, Komarowii, Sargentiana, ne sont que des varietes d'une seule et meme espece. J'ai recu autrefois d'une pepiniere allemande le S. reflexa; et depuis j'ai eu des graines recoltees a 1' Arnold Arboretum. Ces graines m'ont donne des plantes tres variees, a. inflorescences paniculees, bien plus ramiiiees que dans ma premiere plante, et j'ai eu l'impression que les S. reflexa de l'Arboretum avaient du etre croises avec une autre espece par les abeilles." The common name of Pendulous Lilac has been given this species by Nash (Jour. N. Y. Bot. Gard. xx. 234, 1919). Nodding Lilac has been adopted as ap- proved common name by "Standardized Plant Names." E. H. Wilson in "Aristocrats of the Garden" suggests that in the hands of the hybridist S. reflexa "may be the forerunner of a race totally different in aspect from present day Lilacs." The attempt was made by Miss Isabella Preston (see the hybrid S. Prestoniae) to cross S. reflexa (§) and 5. Josikaea ($). Dr. W. T. Macoun in his "Report of the Dominion Horticulturist for the year 1925" writes under the heading "Some results in cross-breeding ornamental plants at the Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Canada": "S. reflexa X S. Josikaea is a handsome shrub with large panicles of lilac flowers." When in Ottawa in June, 1927, this cross was impossible to locate. There was in the collection a plant (no. 20-09) which in the form and color of its flowers suggested 5. Josikaea and in its pendulous inflorescence S. reflexa. The plant had a somewhat abnormal appearance and except for purposes of further hybridization had little to recommend it. A specimen is in the Arnold Arboretum herbarium. For Miss Isabella Preston's attempt to cross S. reflexa ( 9 ) with S. Henryi Lutece ( 6 ) see the hybrid S. Henryi. See 5. Prestoniae, a hybrid between S. reflexa ( 6 ) and S. villosa ( $ ). * Three of these plants in the autumn of 1927 were moved to the Arboretum collection where they bear the nos. 20,450, 20,451 and 20,452. Plate XXIX SYRINGA KOMAROWI (Arnold Arboretum no. 6858) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1925. Plate XXX SYRINGA KOMAROWI (Arnold Arboretum no. 6858) Expanding buds, enlarged. May 3, 1926. Plate XXXI o < o oc d c 3 o « 1/1 < O C < H c < On =3 bC < X) u b£ 3 Plate XXXIII 00 is-, tr1 oo % c S S o M < o >H O o ^4 PS SYRINGA KOMAROWI Syringa Komarowi Schneider in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. ix. 82 (1910); 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 738, figs. 489 b-c, 490 s-u (191 1); 11. 1064 (1912); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 227, 230 (1911); in Sargent, PI. Wilson. 1. 301 (1912). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 19, April 25 (1912); n. s. rv. 26 (1918); ix. 43 (1924). — Goeze in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 25, 173 (1916). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3302 (1917). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 79 (1920). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 405 (1922). — A. Ofsborn] in Garden, lxxxvii. 301 (1923). — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 485 (1923). — Gartenwelt, xxviii. 278 (1924). — Mottet, Arb. Arbust. Orn. 340 (1925). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 4, 27 (1926); reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). Syringa Emodi Hemsley in Jour. Linn. Soc. London, xxvi. 83 (Ind. Fl. Sin. 11.) (1889), in part, as to Faber specimen. — Diels in Bot. Jahrb. xxix. 532 (1901). — Not Wallich. Syringa Sargentiana Schneider in Sargent, PL Wilson. 1. 298 (191 2); 111. Handb. Laubholzk 11. 1063, fig. 628 a (1912). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 19, April 25 (1912); n. s. v. 27 (1919); vni. 23 (1922). — Wilson, Naturalist in Western China, 1. 247 (1913). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. i-u. 81 (1920). — A. 0[sborn] in Garden, lxxxvii. 302 (1923). — Gartenwelt, xxviii. 278 (1924). — Stares, Cerines {Syringa L.), 4, 23 (1926); reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). Syringa Komarowii var. Sargentiana Schneider in Sargent, PL Wilson, m. 432 (1917); in Gartenschonheit, vni. 144, t. (as 5. Sargentiana) (1927). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3302 (191 7); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 754 (1927). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. n. s. rv. 25 (1918). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 405 (1922). — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PL Names, 485 (1923). A broad shrub from 6 to 15 ft. tall; branches upright, stout, lenticellate, marked with conspicuous ridges; branchlets smooth, occasionally slightly pubescent, quadrangular, brownish gray, lenticellate, tinged when young Dark Vinaceous-Brown (xxxix.). Winter- buds oblong with acuminate apex, flower bud Y2 in. long more or less, scales reddish brown with dark brown margins, acute or acuminate, glabrous, keeled, and forming a four-sided bud. Leaf-scar much raised, shield-shaped, very conspicuous, large; bundle-trace broad V-shaped. Leaves ovate-oblong to oblong-lanceolate, sometimes elliptic-obovate, 2-6 in. long, J^-3 in. broad, acute or acuminate, base cuneate, dark dull green, glabrous above, paler, pubescent beneath, tinged when young Dark Vinaceous-Brown (xxxix.); Y2-1 in. long, slender, glabrous. Inflorescence borne on leafy shoots, terminal, nodding or pendulous, 2-6 in. long, 2 in. broad, cylindric, compact; rhachis pubescent at first, later glabrous, lenticellate; pedicel short, pubescent; calyx short, pubescent, sometimes glabrous, with shallow, rounded or acute teeth; corolla-tube funnelform, }4:~}/2 m- l°ng; corolla-lobes upright or spreading at right angles to corolla-tube, frequently only three 75 76 THE LILAC in number, pointed, slightly cucullate; corolla x/i in. in diameter, color in bud Deep Hellebore Red (xxxviii.) tinged on corolla-lobes Vinaceous-Fawn (xl.) ; when expanded Rocellin Purple without, Daphne Red (xxxvin.), a solid color, within; anthers Primrose Yellow (xxx.), V% m- l°ng> inserted near the mouth of corolla-tube and protruding. Capsule oblong, frequently contracted near the apex, reflexed, smooth, or rarely slightly verrucose, % in. long, each valve ending in a short slender tip. (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant (no. 6858) growing in the Arnold Arboretum.) Habitat: China: province of Szechuan. When in 1910 C. K. Schneider described the Hupeh species S. reflexa he also described for the first time the nearly allied plant Syringa Komarowi, from the province of Szechuan, China. He based his description upon a flowering speci- men with Russian inscription, — in 191 1 he notes that the precise locality and name of the collector were unreadable, — which was in the herbarium of the Botanic Garden at St. Petersburg; it was collected in Szechuan on July 18, 1893. Schneider named the species for V. L. Komarov, the Russian botanist, the author of the "Flora Manshuriae." His description, translated, reads: "A shrub; habit?; flowering branches yellow-brown, round, loosely pilose, with many distinct lenticels; older branches gray-brown; leaves narrowly ovate, acute, above deep green, minutely pilose on veins, beneath yellow-green, everywhere pilose, but not bearded on midrib, 11-18 cm. long, 4-7 cm. broad, with petiole to 15 mm. long; inflorescence narrow, to 14 X 5 cm. large, like pedicel and calyx (partly) loosely short-hirsute; flowers violet (?), to 18 mm. long (with erect lobes hardly 2 mm. long included), calyx hardly 2 mm. long; anthers exceeding the mouth of corolla about % as in S. emodi; pedicel more or less lacking; fruit unknown." According to Bretschneider (Hist. Europ. Bot. Discov. China, 1020, 1898) G. A. Potanin, while collecting for the Imperial Russian Geographical Society, re- mained from June 22, 1893, for three months in Ta tsien lu. As the specimen upon which Schneider based his S. Komarowi was gathered on July 18, 1893, it seems probable that its collector was Potanin, for his material went to the Im- perial Botanic Garden at St. Petersburg. In 1 91 2 Schneider identified this species with three specimens collected by E. H. Wilson in western Szechuan on his expeditions made in 1907-1908, and in 1910-1911, for the Arnold Arboretum. The first of these (no. 1217), of which there are two examples, was gathered at Mupin; one of flowers in July, 1908, the other of fruit in October of the same year. The plant was 6-15 ft. tall, growing in thickets at an altitude of 6000-9000 ft. and the flowers are noted as "deep rose-pink." A second (no. 2580), of flowers, came from Nin tou shan west of Kuan hsien in western Szechuan and was dated June 20, 1908, the plant, 10-12 ft. tall, growing in thickets at an altitude of 7000-9000 ft.; the flowers were "reddish purple." A third (no. 4407) of fruit, also from Mupin, was collected in October, 1910, from a bush 15 ft. tall growing in woodlands at an altitude of 9000 ft. When writing of these speci- SYRINGA KOMAROWI 77 mens Schneider for the first time describes the fruit as " 12-14 mm. long, obtuse or sometimes mucronulate and nearly smooth." Under the name 5. Sargentiana, Schneider in 191 2 described, from further specimens collected by Wilson in western Szechuan, still another species. One (no. 2581) of flowers came from Wa shan, at an altitude of 6000-8000 ft.; the bush 10-12 ft. tall was growing in thickets, and bore "reddish purple" flowers; it was dated July, 1908. The second (no. 4304) from Pan Ian shan, west of Kuan hsien was growing in woodlands at an altitude of 8000 ft.; the bush was 10-12 ft. tall; it was collected in October, 1910. Schneider writes: "This species seems nearly related to S. reflexa Schneider, but differs in the long acuminate leaves, the denser and usually shorter, only nodding, not pendulous inflorescence, the pubescent calyx and the not verrucose fruit." In 191 7 he reduces this to a variety of 5. Komarowi writing: "Judging by living plants, this species must be regarded as a variety only of S. Komarowii Schneider. The insertion of the anthers in the corolla- tube is about the same in both species; it is possible to find slight variations in different flowers, the apex of the stamens sometimes only reaching the mouth of the corolla, sometimes being more or less slightly exserted." He adds to his enumeration of specimens the plant (no. 4081 Veitch) collected by Wilson in July, 1903, at Wa shan in western Szechuan; the collector's notation reads: "6-15 ft. Fls. rose. 7-8500 ft. Mt. Wa. 7103." This number (4081 Veitch) is not a Wilson seed number and although he first collected specimens in 1903 it was not until 19 10 that he collected seed and introduced the Lilac to cultivation. Lingelsheim in 1920 retains S. Sargentiana as a species based upon the Wilson specimens (nos. 2581 and 4304), but notes that these he has not seen. Examination of the specimens determined by Schneider as S. Komarowii var. Sargentiana reveals no characters which appear to justify its retention as a variety and I have included it as a synonym of S. Komarowi. Schneider himself had noted that the "insertion of the anthers in the corolla-tube is about the same in both. . . ." The relationship of S. Komarowi to S. reflexa Schneider is exceedingly close and it is possible that at some future time S. Komarowi may be classified as an extreme form of the Hupeh plant. Observation of living plants shows the fruit of S. reflexa to be noticeably verrucose while that of S. Komarowi is practically smooth. This distinction is, however, less pronounced in some of the herbarium material. The bark on old wood of S. reflexa is smooth and gray in color, marked with dark lenticels, while that of 5. Komarowi is covered by a fine net-work of fissures, much like that found on the species S. Julianae. These two characters, noticeable on the living plants, appear to justify, for the time, the retention of these plants as distinct species. In S. Komarowi the flower-cluster appears to be more compact and cylindric than in S. reflexa, and the color of the flowers is considerably darker, but, as noted under S. reflexa, that species is extremely variable both in the form and color of its inflorescence, and one finds plants of that Lilac showing quite as wide a divergence in these respects as exists between S. reflexa and 5. Komarowi. 78 THE LILAC Mr. Wilson who had unusual opportunities to observe these two species growing spontaneously at one time believed them to be distinct. In his book, "A Naturalist in western China" he wrote of the "red Basin of Szechuan," — to the west of which grows 5. Komarowi, and to the east, in Hupeh, S. refiexa, — that "this triangle has long constituted a well-marked boundary is evidenced by the fact that remarkably few of the plants found in the mountains bordering the eastern limits at 2000 feet altitude and upwards are common to the mountains bordering the western limits. The genera are of course the same but the species are usually distinct. The differ- ence between the floras of the eastern and western border-ranges is too great for a mere 500 miles of longitude to account for solely. The same is true of the fauna in so far as the game birds and animals is concerned." It is of course possible to believe that this difference in geographical situation may account for some of the differences in the two species. Mr. Wilson tells me recently that he considers it possible that S. Komarowi may eventually be considered to be an extreme form of S. refiexa, the combined range of the two plants extending along the Ta pa shan to Sungpan and south to Mt. Wa. Hemsley (Jour. Linn. Soc. London, xxvi. 83, 1889-1902; Ind. Fl. Sin. 11.) refers under S. emodi Wallich to a specimen [no. 203] in the herbarium of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, which was collected by [Ernst] Faber at Mt. Omei at an altitude of 10,000 feet. Mt. Omei is south of Ya chou in the western part of Szechuan. This specimen, which, through the courtesy of Dr. A. W. Hill, was forwarded for examination, I refer to S. Komarowi. Diels (Bot. Jahrb., 1. c.) cites for his S. emodi the [Augustine] He[nry] specimen no. 6819 collected on Mt. Omei. Henry did not collect within a great distance of Mt. Omei; it is possible that Diels received his specimen (probably the Faber plant just noted since Diels refers to the "Index Florae Sinensis," p. 83) from Dr. Henry and through an error attributed its collec- tion to the donor. The species is growing in the collection of the Department of Parks, Rochester, New York, and specimens from several of their plants are in the Arnold Arboretum herbarium; among them are three sheets (nos. 695, 699, one unnumbered) taken from plants grown from Wilson no. 4304 and four sheets (no. 682) from Wilson no 1 2 17. Seed (no. 4304) collected by Wilson at Pan Ian shan west of Kuan hsien, in October, 1910, and which, as already noted, was first described as S. Sargentiana, was received at the Arnold Arboretum in February, 1911. The plant (no. 6858 Arn. Arb.) of S. Komarowi now growing in the collection was raised from this seed. The firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, offered S. Komarowi for sale as a novelty in 1913 (Cat. no. 185, 7, 1913). Their stock was raised from Wilson's seed (no. 1217), collected at Mupin in October, 1908. As noted under S. refiexa, Mr. Emile Lemoine now considers that "5. refiexa, Komarowii, Sargentiana, ne sont que des varietes d'une seule et meme espece." "Standardized Plant Names" has adopted as approved common names, — for SYRINGA KOMAROWI 79 S. Komarowi, Komarof Lilac, for 5. Komarowi var. Sargentiana, Sargent Lilac; according to my classification the latter name should be dropped. In the Arnold Arboretum the plant of S. Komarowi has proven entirely hardy, but is, when in bloom, interesting rather than handsome, for the nodding flower- clusters are few and so compact in form that they lack grace. They open in late May or early June and have little fragrance. In color they are a deeper pink than those of any other Lilac known to the present time. The foliage is somewhat sparse and slightly rough to the touch. It is by no means as handsome when in flower as S. reflexa. Mr. F. L. Skinner of Dropmore, Manitoba, Canada, wrote me on November 18, 1925: "Four years ago I secured some pollen of S. Sargenti [=S. Komarowi] from the Arnold Arboretum; this was used on a panicle of S. vulgaris and a number of seeds were secured. These germinated freely and I now have ten plants appar- ently from this cross. These seedlings have, to the naked eye, the foliage of 5. villosa, and though I took every precaution to exclude seeds [sic] of S. villosa I hesitate to claim this cross until my plants have flowered." In August, 1926, Mr. Skinner sent foliage specimens to Professor Sargent and wrote: ". . . None of them however show any of the characteristics of S. vulgaris, at least as far as I can tell with the naked eye. . . . None of them have flowered yet." The foliage, as noted by Mr. Skinner, shows no trace of 5. vulgaris parentage. Plate XXXIV SYRINGA VILLOSA (Arnold Arboretum no. 17,362) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1925. Plate XXXV SYRINGA VILLOSA Arnold Arboretum no. 17,362) Expanding buds, enlarged. May 3, 1926. Plate XXXYI SYRINGA VILLOSA (Arnold Arboretum no. 41 71) Flower cluster. June 12, 1924. Plate XXXYII ^o ,_, (N l^ o HH H-t Tt », < r^ CO 6 i— t O c o hJ c h-1 r* 3 > 3 *-> t— » < o |J O r> — I < O « rp> >H 2 c Gfl 'o c 4-1 '— < c Plate XXXYIII SYRINGA VILLOSA (Arnold Arboretum no. 41 71) Fruit, enlarged. Picked August, 1924. Plate XXXIX < in O 1-1 < O i— i M CO M O S-i < . SYRINGA VILLOSA Syringa villosa Vahl, Enum. PI. i. 38 (1805-1806). — Mirbel, Hist. Nat. PL xv. 148 (1805-1806). — F. G. Dietrich, Vollst. Lex. Gartn. Bot. ix. 591 (1809). — Roemer and Schultes, Syst. Veg. 1. 77 (181 7). — Sprengel, Syst. Veg. 1. 36 (1825), excluding synonym Ligustrum sinense Loureiro. — A. Dietrich, Sp. PL 1. 248 (1831). — D. Dietrich, Syn. PL 1. 38 (1839). — Don, Gen. Syst. iv. 51 (1838). — Loudon, Arb. Brit. 11. 1212 (1838). — De Candolle, Prodr. vm. 283 (1844). — Mollendorf in Zeitschr. Ges. Erdk. Berlin, xvi. 136 (1881). — Bretschneider, Early Europ. Researches Fl. China, 121 (1881); Hist. Europ. Bot. Discov. China, 48, 53, 276, 1056 (1898). — Franchet in Bull. Soc. Philom. Paris, ser. 7, ix. 121-127 (1885); Observations sur les Syringa du nord de la Chine, reprint, 1, 5 (1885); in Jour. Botanique, rv. 317 (1890); in Rev. Hort. 1891, 308, 333. — Flatt in Erdesz. Lap. 1887, 568. — Nagy in Gartenflora, xxxvu. 587 (1888). — Sargent in Garden and Forest, 1. 222, 520, fig. 38 (1888); in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 7, June 14 (1911); n. s. 1. 14, 28 (1915). — J. in Garden and Forest, 1. 453 (1888); 309 (1889). — P. C. in Garden and Forest, iv. 354 (1891). — L. Henry in Jardin, ix. 76 (1895); m Rev. Hort. 1902, 40, t. fig. 1 (as S. Bretschneideri Hort.). — Meehan's Monthly, x. 121, fig. (p. 120) (1900). — Grosdemange in Rev. Hort. 1902, 177, fig. 75. — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 415 (1903), excluding synonym S. pubescens Turczani- nov. — Schneider in Wien. 111. Gartenz. xxvui. 100 (1903); in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. ix. 81 (1910); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 226, 230 (191 1); 111. Handb. Laub- holzk. 11. 780, fig. 490 e-h (191 1); in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 361 (1913). — Dunbar in Gard. Mag. 1. 234 (1905); in Amer. Florist, xxrv. 370, fig. (p. 371) (1905). — KomarovinAct. Hort. Petrop. xxv. 253 (Fl. Mansh. 111.) (1907), in part. — Rehneltin Gar- tenwelt, xvi. 138, 2 figs. (1912). — Grignan in Rev. Hort. 1914,332, fig. 105. — Bean, Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, 11. 572 (1914). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxni. 154, fig. (1916); xxxviii. fig. (p. 36) (1923); Aristocrats of the Garden, 223 (1917). — Goeze in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 25, 172 (1916). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3300, figs. 3759, 3760 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 753 (1927). — Trelease, Winter Bot. 313, fig. 3 (1918); PL Mat. Woody Plants, 130 (1921). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 80, fig. 3 d (1920). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 405 (1922). — Olmsted, Coville, and Kelsey in Stand. PL Names, 485 (1923). — A. 0[sborn] in Garden, lxxxvii. 302 (1923). — Horticulture, n. s. in. 279, fig. (1925). — Mottet, Arb. Arbust. Orn. 340 (1925). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 4, 20, fig. 5 (1920), reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). — G. Hegi, 111. Fl. Mittel-Eur. v. pt. 111. 1910, 191 2 (1927). Syringa Ewodi Decaisne in Nouv. Arch. Mus. Paris, ser. 2, 11. 40 (1879), in part, as to David specimen no. 2239. — Bretschneider in Bull. Soc. Nat. d'Acclim. France, ser. 3, ix. 580(1882). — Franchet in Nouv. Arch. Mus. Paris, ser. 2, vi. 84 (1883); Plant. David. 1. 204 (1884). — Hemsley in Jour. Linn. Soc. London, xxvi. 83 (Ind. Fl. 81 I* 82 THE LILAC Sin. n.) (1889), in part, excluding Faber specimen. — L. Henry in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 752 (1901), in part, as to David specimens. — ? Burvenich in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. xxvin. 193, t. (1902), in part. — Wister in House and Garden, March, 1926, fig. (p. 72). — House and Garden's Second Book of Gardens, fig. (p. 161) (1927). — Not Wallich. Syringa Emodi rosea Cornu in Rev. Hort. 1888, 492, t. — L. Henry in Jardin, iv. 126 (1890); ix. 21 (1895); in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 3, xix. 444 (1897). — Mouille- fert, Traite Arb. Arbris. 11. 1000 (1892-1898). — Wittmack in Gartenflora, xliv. 499, fig. 100 (1895). — Dauthenay in Rev. Hort. 1897, 267. — Bean in Garden, mi. 276 (1898). — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. Suppl. 696 (1900). — Bois in Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, vn. 232 (1901). — Mottet, Arbust. Orn. 243 (1908). Syringa Bretschneideri Lemoine, Cat. no. 115, xix. (1890). — Wien. 111. Gartenz. 369 (1890). — E. Lemoine in Garden, xxxix. 91, fig. (1891). — G. in Gardening 111. xiii. 519, fig. (1891). — L. Henry in Jardin, vin. 102 (1894); xv. 280 (1901); in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 749, 753 (1901). — Zabel in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 13, 66 (1904). — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 379 (1907). — N. E. Brown in Bot. Mag. cxxxvi. t. 8292 (1910), in part. S[yringa] affi-nis Emodi (Bretschneider) according to L. Henry in Jardin, rx. 21 (1895), as a synonym. S[yringa] villosa var. rosea Cornu according to Rehder in Bailey, Cycl. Amer. Hort. rv. 1762 (1902). — Schneider in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. rx. 81 (1910); 111. Handb. Laub- holzk. 11. 780 (1911); in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 361 (1913). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-h. 80 (1920). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 25 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, n. (1926). — G. Hegi, 111. Fl. Mittel-Eur. v. pt. ni. 1910 (1927). S\yringa] villosa var. glabra Schneider in Engler, Bot. Jahrb. xxxvi. Beibl. no. 82, p. 88 (1905)- S\yringa] Josikaea var. eximia [Hort.] according to N. E. Brown in Bot. Mag. cxxxvi. t. 8292 (1910), as a synonym. S[yringa] villosa var. typica Schneider in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. rx. 81 (1910); 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 780 (1911). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 80 (1920). S\yringa] rosea Lingelsheim in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. vin. 9 (1910), name only. S[yringa] villosa var. typica f. glabra Schneider in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. rx. 81 (1910); 111. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 780 (1911). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 25 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). S\yringa) villosa var. typica f. subhirsuta Schneider in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. rx. 81 (1910); 111. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 780 (1911). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 25 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). S\yringa] Emodi var. villosa Hort. according to Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. n. s. in. 41 (1917), as a synonym. S\yringa] glabra Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-h. 81, fig. 3 e, f (1920). S\yringa] robusta f. subhirsuta Nakai, Fl. Sylv. Koreana, x. 58 (1921), in part, as to the synonym S. villosa var. typica f. subhirsuta Schneider. S[yringa] pubescens Hort. according to Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland- Laubgeh. ed. 2, 405 (1922), as a synonym. — Not Turczaninov. Syringa villosa emodi Wister in House and Garden, March, 1926, fig. (p. 72), as a synonym. SYRINGA VILLOSA 83 A round-topped shrub of dense habit, up to 12 ft. tall, as broad as tall; branches upright, sturdy, gray, lenticellate; branchlets glabrous or slightly pubescent, lenticellate. Winter-buds ovoid with acute apex, flower bud Y rounded at apex, each valve occasionally ending in a very short, slender tip. (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant (no. 41 71) growing in the Arnold Arboretum.) Habitat: China: provinces of Chihli; Shensi; Shansi. Charles Francois Brisseau de Mirbel writes in the "Nouveau Duhamel" (11. 209, 1804): "II existe a. la Chine une espece de Lilas qui differe des precedents par ses feuilles velues en-dessous; elles sont longues d'un pouce environ et pointues aux deux bouts. On voit chez M. de Jussieu, dans Pherbier du P. d'Incarville, un £chantillon de ce Lilas, recueilli sur les montagnes des environs de Pekin." This Lilac, — 5. villosa, — was first named and described one year later by Vahl, from the same specimen to which De Mirbel refers. This specimen, which I have seen, shows flowers and foliage, but no fruit. According to Dr. Emil Bretschneider (Hist. Europ. Bot. Discov. China, 46, 1898) the Frenchman, Pierre dTncarville, was a Jesuit missionary who "sent to Paris towards the middle of the 18th cent, an interesting collection of dried plants and seeds of the Peking Flora . . . He was a pupil of the great French botanist Bernard de Jussieu ... to whom he used to send his collections. . . . Incarville on the labels attached to the specimens distinguishes between plants gathered in Peking (including probably those collected in the plain which surrounds the capital) and plants from the Peking mountains." DTncarville's herbarium is now in the Jardin des Plantes, Museum of Natural History, Paris. The collection was deter- 84 THE LILAC mined by Adrien Franchet in 1882 but certain specimens, including S. villosa, were determined previous to that date by other botanists. Vahl's diagnosis reads: "Syringa foliis oblongis utrinque acutis subtus villosis"; he describes the plant's branches as glabrous; its leaves as petiolate, of the length of a thumb or larger, perfectly entire, veinless [he refers to the veinlets], slightly nerved, pale beneath; its inflorescence as terminal, erect; its flowers as the length of a finger nail, [the corolla] four parted. He adds that its branches are angular above and its leaves opposite. Vahl thought it might be identical with Ligustrum sinense Loureiro. Most other botanists, such as Mirbel (Hist. Nat. PI., 1. c), Don and Loudon, were, like Vahl, uncertain as to the identity of the two plants. Sprengel named it as a synonym. The Ligustrum sinense of Loureiro (Flora Cochinchinensis, 1. 19, 1790) is however a Privet and not a Lilac. No new specimens of S. villosa are recorded until Adrien Franchet in 1885 published his " Observations sur les Syringa du nord de la Chine." He writes: "Le S. villosa a ete etabli par Vahl sur un specimen unique rapporte de la Chine, au milieu du siecle dernier, par le P. dTncarville et conserve, avec son herbier, au Museum de Paris. La description de Vahl ne parait pas avoir ete modifiee depuis la publication de l'Enumeratio, et dans le Prodrome, de Candolle se contenta de reproduire la diagnose dans toute sa brievete, sans meme y joindre la phrase complementaire de l'auteur. Aussi n'est-il pas surprenant que l'identite du S. villosa ait ete meconnue plus tard par les botanists qui n'avaient pour guide que les deux lignes de description donnees dans le Prodrome, vol. viii. 283. II pourra neanmoins paraitre singulier que Decaisne qui avait sous la main l'herbier de d'Incarville, ait neglige de le consulter, soit pour comparer la plante qu'il nomme S. villosa, soit pour la decrire; il ne cite meme pas a son occasion le nom du P. d'Incarville et la localite ou il avait trouve sa plante. Tout ceci est certainement regrettable, car le Syringa rapporte par M. l'abbe David, et decrit sous le nom de S. villosa, est bien different du type original." The S. villosa of Decaisne is identical with S. pubescens Turczaninov, as noted under the latter species. Franchet con- tinues: "Le meme auteur a fait une nouvelle confusion lorsqu'il a rapproche du 5. Emodi, Wall., un autre Syringa egalement recolte aux environs de Pekin, par M. l'abbe David, et qui n'est autre que le veritable 5. villosa, Vahl. L'hispidite de la face inferieure des feuilles, si caracteristique dans cette derniere espece, hispidite qui existe sur les specimens de M. l'abbe David et qui fait constamment defaut dans la plante de l'Himalaya, ou elle est remplacee sur la nervure mediane par une pulverulence a peine visible, aurait cependant du premunir l'auteur de la Monographic des Syringa contre une pareille assimilation." Franchet accounts for his own similar misclassification in his "Plantae Davidianae" (1883), in a footnote, thus: "Lors de la redaction de la premiere partie des Plantae Davidianae, les Syringa de la Chine se sont trouves absents de l'herbier du Museum; l'auteur a du des lors suivre la Monographic de J. Decaisne, sans etre a meme d'en controler les determinations." SYRINGA VILLOSA 85 Franchet by 1885 had however seen these David specimens in addition to that of d'lncarville, and he determines as identical with the plant described by Vahl a flowering specimen (no. 2239) collected by David in July, 1863, "in cacumine montis Ipehoachan." Mr. Rehder tells me that he considers Ipehoachan another spelling for Po hua shan; David spelt the name probably as he understood it to be pronounced by the Chinese. Franchet writes: "Les specimens rapportes par M. l'abbe David ressemblent tout a fait a celui du P. d'lncarville, et fournissent des elements plus complets de description." He mentions the fruit as unknown. Later (Jour. Botanique, 1. c.) Franchet also mentions a specimen of 5. villosa collected "In montis Sy-lin-chan" by Em. Bodinier. Bretschneider tells us that the Pere Armand David was attached to the Mission of the Lazarists at Peking, and that his specimens in the Museum of Natural History, Paris, were determined by Franchet and the determinations published in 1884 and 1888 (Plantae Davidianae, vols. 1. and 11.). Of Emile Bodinier, a mission- ary of the Missions Etrangeres, Bretschneider relates: "Mr. Franchet writes me that in 1890 the Paris Museum received, through the medium of Father David, 930 species of dried plants of the Peking Plain and the mountains west of Peking, collected by M. Bodinier, M. Provost . . . and M. Francois. In the Journ. de Bot. 1890, 301, where Franchet describes the novelties in the collection he states that these plants had been, for a great part, gathered in two little known localities in the mountains of North Chihli. One of them is situated 160 kil. west of Peking, beyond the Great Wall, where in 1883, on a spur of the celebrated Po hua shan, the Trappists have founded a monastery (at Yang kia k'ou). . . . The other locality lies farther to the north, in the midst of high mountains, which rise to an elevation of 3000 metres. This is about 60 kilom. northwest of Siian hua fu another estab- lishment of the Trappists." I have been unable to locate the Sy lin mountains on any available map of China. To Dr. Bretschneider is due the credit of introducing 5. villosa into cultiva- tion. In his book just cited he writes most interestingly of this Lilac : "In the Peking mountains, there grow abundantly two beautiful representatives of the genus Syringa with bluish-purple flowers like our common Lilac. They have frequently been confounded by botanists, but the late C. Maximowicz always considered them as two distinct species, as also does Mr. Franchet. In their wild state they are easily distinguished from their outer appearance: Syringa villosa Vahl, first dis- covered by Father d'lncarville, more than a century and a half ago, was unsatis- factorily described, from a specimen (unicum) in Jussieu's herbarium, Paris, by Vahl in 1805. . . . This species was rediscovered by Kirilov (Herb. Horti Petrop.). It is the larger one, sometimes growing treelike and inhabiting the higher regions of the mountains. Mr. O. v. Moellendorf, in ascending the Siao Wu t'ai . . . met with large forests of it between 4500 to 6000 feet. To distinguish it from the next [S. pubescens Turczaninov] he terms it the 'large-leaved Syringa.' The leaves are I3/£~3 inches long, ovate, thick. The specific name 'villosa' was unfortunately 86 THE LILAC chosen for the plant, for its leaves are (at least on the specimens I gathered, and which were determined by Maximowicz) green and glabrous on both sides; only the lower part of the midrib shows some villousness. Large fragrant flowers in large panicles. Capsules smooth. The natives call this species ta (great) ting hiang." In a footnote Bretschneider adds: "ting hiang (literally 'nail's perfume') is properly the Chinese name for cloves, but is also applied to Syringa."* The author continues: "Of these two Chinese mountain lilacs I have sent, from 1879 to 1882, herbarium specimens in flower and plenty of capsules with ripe seeds to Kew, the Arnold Arboretum, the Museum d'hist. nat. and the Societe d'acclim., Paris, and the Botan. Garden, St. Petersburg, where both these species were successfully cultivated. The large-leaved and large-flowered species (S. villosd) was first erroneously referred, by the late Professor Decaisne to 5. Emodi Wall., of the Himalayas .... The cultivated plant has produced rose-coloured flowers, and Prof. M. Cornu of the Museum called it, therefore, 5. Emodi, var. rosea. Some French gardeners named it S. Bretschneideri. . . . But it is, as Mr. Franch[et] has shown . . . d'Incarville's S. villosa. He was the only botanist enabled to compare d'Incarville's typical plant with Father David's specimens, likewise gathered in the Peking mountains, and found them to be identical. The plant figured by Sir Joseph Hooker in Bot. Mag. t. 7064 (1889) under the name S. villosa is the small- leaved S. pubescens (MS note by the late C. Maximowicz)". In a "Liste des graines, fruits, etc., de quelques plantes de Pekin, sauvages ou cultivees, envoyees a la Societe" which was sent with a letter (dated 1882) to the Societe Nationale d'Accli- matation de France Bretschneider cites Syringa emodi. It is not probable that the true S. emodi was one of the plants cultivated at Peking and Bretschneider was evidently writing of S. villosa. We are told by Bretschneider that P. V. Kirilov, who he states also collected 5. villosa, was appointed physician to the nth Ecclesiastical Mission and travelled through Mongolia to Peking with Bunge; he resided in that capital for more than ten years and "devoted himself to the investigation of the flora of the Peking plain and the adjacent mountains. He was the first botanist to visit, in about 1835, the celebrated Mount Po hua shan, about 60 miles west of Peking." He also writes of the collections of Otto F. von Mollendorf, who he tells us also saw S. villosa in the Hsiao wu tai shan: "The plants collected in 1879 on the Siao Wu t'ai shan, together with some duplicates from the former collections were transmitted by the collector to me for presentation to the Botan. Garden, St. Petersburg. The novelties were described by Maximowicz." A Mollendorf specimen (no. 65) is cited by Lingelsheim for his 5. villosa var. a typica; this was collected in the Hsiao wu tai shan in Chihli and is undoubtedly the specimen to which Bretschneider refers. In Mollendorf 's "Reisen und Topographische Aufnahmen in der nord-chinesi- * For the resemblance of the Lilac flower-bud to the clove see also S. vulgaris Linnaeus where the similarity is recorded in various vernacular names for the Common Lilac. SYRINGA VILLOSA 87 schen Provinz Dshy-li" published in the "Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft fiir Erdkunde zu Berlin" in 1881, S. villosa appears in a list of plants collected by Hancock and Mollendorf in the Hsiao wu tai shan. These mountains are on the border of Chihli and Shansi. The collection was determined by Maximowicz. Reviews of this article, including the list of plants collected, appeared in Just's "Botanischer Jahresberichte" (dc. pt. 2, 416, 1881 [published in 1884]) and in Engler's "Botanische Jahrbucher" (rv. 467, 1883). As already noted, the S. emodi of Decaisne is only in part, as to specimen no. 2239 of the Abbe David from the mountains about Peking, "Ipe-hoa-chan", to be referred to S. villosa. In the Museum of Natural History, Paris, there are three David specimens, bearing this number, all of flowers and foliage. Franchet (Plan- tae Davidianae, 1. c.) for his S. emodi (=5. villosa) only cites the David specimen no. 2239a, "Chine: sommet de la montagne dTpehoachan, du nord de Pekin." Hemsley's S. emodi, in so far as the Tatarinov, Mollendorf, and David specimens are concerned, should be referred to 5. villosa; the Faber specimen from "Mount Omei, 10,000 feet," I refer to 5. Komarowi. L. Henry (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, 1. c.) also incorrectly classifies the David specimen as S. emodi. The Burvenich reference is somewhat doubtful. The colored plate is clearly 5. villosa and although the article is entitled S. emodi, it is apparent from the text that the author is, in part at least, referring to S. villosa. In an article entitled "Syringa Emodi a fleurs roses" Maxime Cornu classifies the plant, here called S. villosa, as a variety of the Himalayan Lilac. The colored plate bears the title Syringa Emodi rosea but that name, although attributed to Cornu, is not mentioned in his text (Rev. Hort., 1. c). He tells us of the plant's introduction to France, stating that Bretschneider sent, from 1879 to 1881 to Decaisne, and from 1881 to 1883 to Bureau, an interesting series of seeds. These came principally from the neighborhood of Peking, and especially from the moun- tainous regions at an altitude reaching from 2000 to 2500 meters. He writes: "Parmi les graines qu'il adressa au Museum, un certain nombre ont germe, malgre la longue duree du voyage qu'elles avaient du subir. . . . M. Decaisne partageases graines avec le regrette M. Lavallee et avec son collaborateur et ami, M. Naudin, V eminent directeur des Laboratories d'Enseignement superieur de la Villa Thuret a, Antibes. Pendant l'interim qui suivit sa mort, on fit de larges distributions de ces curieuses plantes de Chine. . . . Le Syringa dont nous possedons le plus d'exemp- laires est une expece etiquetee par M. Decaisne: Syringa Emodi. Cette plante provenait d'un melange de graines dont les unes donnerent le S. pubescens et les autres l'espece dont il est question ici. Nous cultivons depuis longtemps le S. Emodi. . . . Ses fleurs blanches, peu elegantes, apparaissent en mai-juin, apres les autres Lilas. . . . Les plantes issues des graines de M. le docteur Bretschneider se distinguent aisement des autres S. Emodi, dont elles ont, d'ailleurs, la plupart des caracteres. Cultivees cote a cote, elles ont montre une vigueur bien plus grande, une ampleur de feuilles plus considerable, une floraison tres-abondante, des pani- 88 THE LILAC cules fournies et denses, des fleurs beaucoup plus grandes et plus 6toffees, une tendance plus caract6risee a, se dresser en tige, au lieu de buissonner. . . . Malheure- usement l'odeur rappelle celle des Ligustrum et est desagreable. La plupart des plantes ont la meme apparence et les fleurs ont ete semblables; quelques-unes cependant ont 6te plus pales, d'un rose faiblement carn£, mais le plus grand nombre avaient des fleurs d'un rose tendre sans teinte bleuatre-lilac6e ou violettes; elles palissent d'ailleurs en vieillissant. ... Le S. Emodi des jardins d'Europe peut se differencier tres-aisement du nouveau; il a les feuilles plus allongees, plus etroites; la vegetation est moins vigoureuse; les fleurs sont d'un blanc creme; et se montrent rarement au Museum; les buissons n'atteignent que im20 a im5o. Placee dans des conditions plus favorables, dans un sol plus fertile, cette forme de S. Emodi change notablement d'apparence; les feuilles deviennent beaucoup plus larges, beaucoup plus ovales, et les differences entre les deux se comblent de plus en plus. Cependant le S. Emodi de M. le Dr. Bretschneider, cultive cote a cote avec la forme ant6rieure- ment introduite, se couvre de fleurs chaque annee depuis quatre ans, tandis que l'autre ne fleurit que tres-maigrement. ... Ce Syringa se reproduit de graines fidelement, et, comme on l'a vu, les fleurs apparaissent d6ja quatre annees apres le semis." Numerous other authors follow Cornu in considering this Chinese Lilac to be merely a variety of the Himalayan S. emodi. The firm of V. Lemoine et fils of Nancy, when introducing this Lilac, as S. Bretschneideri, for sale in France in 1890, writes : "Nous avons recu divers echantillons de ce Lilas qui est cultive sous le nom de 5. villosa dans 1' Arnold Arboretum, a Cam- bridge (Etats-Unis), et sous celui de 5. Emodi rosea au Museum d'histoire naturelle de Paris, et en comparant les branches fleuries que M. le professeur Cornu a bien voulu nous communiquer, avec les specimens que nous avions importes d'Amerique, nous avons pu nous convaincre que nous avons affaire a une seule et meme espece. Cet avis 6tant aussi celui de M. le professeur Sargent, directeur de 1' Arnold Arbo- retum, qui a eu l'occasion de comparer de visu les deux plantes, nous nous sommes cru autorises, pour couper court a toute espece de confusion, a l'offrir sous le nom de S. Bretschneideri, en honneur du botaniste a qui nous devons son introduction simultanee dans les jardins d'Europe et d'Amerique." Numerous writers retained Lemoine's name S. Bretschneideri. While it cannot be felt that, as was hoped, the confusion in regard to the species was helped by the new name, yet it would have undoubtedly been more suggestive of the plant's origin, and, as noted by Bret- schneider, "the specific name 'villosa' was unfortunately chosen for this plant. . . ." Dr. Nakai who examined the specimens of S. villosa in the Museum of Natural History, Paris, wrote on June 7, 1924, to Mr. E. H. Wilson: "d'Incarville's speci- men has small leaves 1-6 cm. long, glandular-dotted beneath and short compact inflorescence; it is not S. Bretschneideri." Mr. C. K. Schneider in June, 1927, visited Paris on my behalf and examined Vahl's type specimen. He writes: "I cannot see the glands said to be on the leaves beneath by Nakai, but there are some very small brownish things the real nature of which I cannot determine. SYRINGA VILLOSA 89 There are some too on the David specimens (2239) which otherwise are just alike." N. E. Brown (Bot. Mag., 1. c.) retains the name 5. Bretschneideri and writes of its introduction to England: "The examples in the Kew collection have been received from various sources and under the diverse names of 5. Emodi var. rosea, S. villosa, S. Josikaea var. eximia, and S. Emodi, Wall.; that species however differs ... in having quite glabrous leaves which are much paler beneath, with a different main-venation and a less distinct secondary reticulation; the panicles too are smaller and the flowers are white. In the same year our plant was else- where referred to as S. villosa, Vahl; Vahl's plant is, however, a very distinct species with smaller and rounder leaves, less copious panicles and smaller flowers of a paler colour. The species now described is more nearly allied to 5. Josikaea, Jacq., of which it has by some growers been considered a variety, than to either of the species just mentioned. . . S. Bretschneideri is fond of abundant moisture and generous treatment at the root; it thrives well in a rich loamy soil." Judging by the color of the flowers of the "Botanical Magazine" plate, it seems possible that the drawing was made, not from a plant of S. villosa, but from the plant received under the name S. Josikaea var. eximia to which Brown refers. By some, and I believe correctly, Eximia has been considered to be, as its producer claimed, a form of S. Josikaea, but others have thought it a variety of the hybrid 5. Henryi (S. villosa X S. Josikaea). It is certain that forms of this hybrid have been sold under the name Eximia. I believe that the plate represents one of these 5. Henryi forms, which bear, except in the color of the flowers, which are close to those of S. Josikaea, a strong resemblance to both parents, being intermediate in many char- acters. Brown himself records its resemblance to the Hungarian plant. J. D. Hooker (Bot. Mag. cxv. t. 7064, 1889) had confused the smaller-leaved and smaller- flowered S. pubescens with Vahl's S. villosa. Apparently Brown in 1910 still con- sidered the Hooker determination to be correct for he differentiates S. Bretschneideri from S. villosa by the latter's "smaller and rounder leaves, less copious panicles and smaller flowers of a paler color." These characters do not differentiate S. Bretschneideri from 5. villosa. Brown's S. Bretschneideri, in so far as a part of the text is concerned, in undoubtedly 5*. villosa. I include S. Josikaea var. eximia [Hort.] as a synonym of S. villosa since Brown states that under that name the plant has been received at Kew and it is of course possible that, as such, they received the true S. villosa. W. J. Bean also mentions S. Josikaea var. eximia Hort. as a synonym of 5. villosa. L. Henry (Jardin, EX. 21, 1895) teus us that as US. affinis Emodi (Bretschneider)" the Museum of Natural History, Paris, distributed, on August 20, 1887, plants of S. Emodi rosea [ = S. villosa]. I consider to be a synonym the 6". villosa var. glabra Schneider (Engler, Bot. Jahrb., 1. c.) which the author reduces (Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov., 1. c.) to S. villosa var. typica f. glabra and which Lingelsheim (Engler, Pflanzenr., 1. c.) considers to 90 THE LILAC be a species, 5. glabra. Schneider in first describing this as a new variety of S. villosa states that its inflorescences approach those of S. emodi and 5. tomentella, but that its flowers are similar to those of the type S. villosa, its anthers not extend- ing beyond the throat, its panicles and branchlets glabrous, covered with distinct yel- low lenticels. In a note he states that, in his var. typica, the axis of the inflorescence is sparingly pubescent with less numerous and less conspicuous lenticels. As type of this variety he cites the specimen (no. 7194) collected by the Rev. Giuseppe Giraldi; Lingelsheim enumerates for his S. glabra, in addition to this specimen, two additional Giraldi examples (nos. 1782, 7195) which I have not seen. I have however seen a photograph and fragments of the type specimen (no. 7194) which were very kindly sent me by Dr. Pampanini. All these are in the Biondi-Giraldi Herbarium in the Botanical Museum, Florence, Italy. According to a record of the Giraldi material also supplied by Dr. Pampanini these were collected as follows: no. 7194 on July 10, 1900, "in montibus Tsin-ling-san" in northern Shensi; no. 7195 bears the same date and locality; and no. 1782, on June 20, 1894, "Piccolo monte Hua-tzo-pin, distante dal monte Tun-u-sse 10 km. e da Han-Kuin-fu 25 Eon.," in southern Shensi. The determinations of Schneider and Lingelsheim are recorded on these specimens. By their inclusion the range of S. villosa is considerably ex- tended. Lingelsheim in describing his species S. glabra states that in habit it is similar to S. villosa, but differs in its flowers subacute in bud, and chiefly in its very elongated inflorescences, to 20 cm. long, 4 to 5 cm. broad, interrupted, with narrower leaves. He states that the fruit is unknown. The size and form of the inflorescence, whether narrow or broad, varies in all Lilac species on the same plant, as does also to a great extent the width of the leaves. Schneider's original determi- nation, as noted in his use of the name glabra, is based primarily upon the glabrous character of the inflorescence and branchlets. I consider pubescence in Lilacs to be an inconstant character and have referred this glabrous form to typical S. villosa. Two plants of S. villosa growing in the Arnold Arboretum vary considerably in this character but are otherwise very similar. Schneider described his S. villosa var. typica as having leaves bearded-pubescent only beneath on the mid-rib and on the primary veins near the base, very minutely pilose inflorescences, and calyx somewhat denticulate on the margin. Lingelsheim, who cites as a synonym of his 5. villosa var. a typica the S. villosa var. typica of Schneider, notes its leaves as pilose along the veins beneath, and the inflorescence with calyx slightly hirsute, spreading. He mentions as example of this variety the Mollendorf specimen (no. 65) to which reference has already been made. It has been stated that the color of the flowers of the wild plants of 6". villosa is bluer than that of the cultivated ones raised from Bretschneider's seed. It was on this supposition very largely that were distinguished the 5. Emodi rosea of Cornu, the S. rosea of Lingelsheim and the S. villosa var. rosea of Schneider. Vahl does not mention the color of the flowers in describing d'Incarville's plant and it was doubtless impossible to form any judgment in that regard from the dried SYRINGA VILLOSA 91 specimen. The David specimens were twenty years old when determined by Franchet; their color was recorded on the specimens as "lilas." Bretschneider tells us that the wild plants of both S. villosa and S. pubescens produce "bluish- purple" flowers. A specimen in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum which was collected by N. H. Cowdry (no. 1658) in the province of Chihli, Hsiao wu tai shan, on July 1, 192 1, records the flowers as "white or light pink." Bretschneider's note on the color and those recorded on the David and Cowdry specimens, are the only ones which I know describing the color of the flowers of the wild plant. Bretschneider notes that the "cultivated plant [of S. villosa] has produced rose- coloured flowers." The distinctly pink color of the cultivated plant is confirmed by Cornu, to whom is attributed the name rosea, for he writes: "quelques unes cependant ont ete plus pales, d'un rose faiblement carne, mais le plus grand nombre avaient des fleurs rose tendre sans teinte bleuatre-lilacee ou violettes", and also by Bois (Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, vn. 232, 1901) who states: "Chez les Lilas de Bretschneider les fleurs sont uniformement roses: rose plus ou moins pale, plus ou moins came, mais toujours assez attenue." The only colored figure which I have found which has been classified as S. villosa, and which shows the cultivated plant to have lilac flowers is the S. Bretschneideri of the "Botanical Magazine"; as already stated in writing of the synonyms of S. villosa, this illustration bears a marked resemblance to Lilacs of the S. Henryi group to which I refer it. Upon comparing the flowers (from cultivated plants) of both 5". pubescens and S. villosa with Mr. Ridgway's plates we find that those of the former species con- tain more blue in their coloring than do those of 5. villosa. No pink variety of *S. pubescens has been distinguished although L. Henry (Jardin, vni. 249, 1894) notes: "le coloris habituel est le lilas rose; mais il existent maintenant des formes blanc carne et d'autres lilas bleuatre." Although, as just stated, upon analysis of the color we find in both these species that blue is present, yet the color effect of the flowers of both lilacs when grown in the open is pink rather than bluish or lilac. It seems strange, in view of the many plants of S. villosa which originated from Bretschneider's seed, that all should have differed from the parent plants in their coloring. The note on the Cowdry specimen indicates that at least certain of the wild plants resemble the cultivated in color. It appears to me probable that, as in the color descriptions of the flowers of other species, the color terms were some- what vaguely used. L. Henry, writing of the flowers of the cultivated 5. villosa raised at the Museum of Natural History, Paris, states that their color was "exclu- sivement rose ou rose-lilace, ou blanc rose"; his use of the adjective "lilace" indi- cates the presence of a certain amount of blue coloring matter in some of the culti- vated plants, just what is found if we compare them with the Ridgway color plates. The flowers of the three plants of 5. villosa growing in the Arnold Arboretum, as well as those of other plants observed, appear for all garden purposes pink, despite the presence of the blue already referred to. Until the wild plants can be 92 THE LILAC more carefully studied and their color analyzed, I find little reason to believe that they differ sufficiently from their cultivated descendants to justify the retention of the latter as a color variety. Even Schneider states that his 5. villosa var. rosea differs from the type only in its whitish-lilac, "albo-lilacinis", flowers, and writes: "Ich finde zwischen typischer villosa und dem was als S. rosea geht keine Unterschiede ausser in Bltitenfarbe, die bei villosa mehr gleichmassig hellviolett ist." Yet he uses the adjective "lila- cinis" for his variety rosea. In his "Handbuch" Schneider notes that the flowers are whitish, tinged rose. Lingelsheim's S. villosa var. d rosea has the inflorescence with glabrescent calyx, leaves often very large, and flowers whitish-rose in color. He states that it is only known in cultivation. His var. a typica has lilac flowers. The S. villosa var. typica f. subhirsuta Schneider, stated by its author (Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov., 1. c.) to differ from the type in having leaves somewhat more villose beneath, and the calyx and pedicels with longer scattered hairs, and, again (111. Handb. Laubholzk., 1. c.) to differ in having the pedicels (with a very fine pubescence) and calyx with scattered pale fine hairs, I include in typical S. villosa. Nakai (Fl. Sylv. Kor., 1. c.) mentions as a synonym of his S. robusta f. subhirsuta (which I believe identical in part with 5. Wolfi) S. villosa var. typica f. subhirsuta. I cite as a synonym of S. villosa Schneider's S. villosa var. typica f. subhirsuta, and as a synonym of 5. Wolfi his 5. villosa var. hirsuta from Korea. See S. Wolfi. Professor Sargent (Bull. Arnold Arb. n. s. in. 41, 191 7) refers to 5. villosa as "sometimes called ... 5. Emodi var. villosa." Silva Tarouca and Schneider mention S. pubescens Hort. as, in part, a synonym of S. villosa. L. Henry (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, 1. c.) tells us that S. Bretschneideri first bloomed at the Museum of Natural History, Paris, in 1886, and that the flowers were exhibited on May 27, 1886, at a meeting of the Societe nationale d'horti- culture de France. In 1887 it was distributed by the Museum in the form of living plants. He mentions the color of its flowers as "jusqu'ici exclusivement rose ou rose lilace, ou blanc rose, d'un ton tres frais et tres agreable." He comments that the fragrance of the flowers suggests that of the Privet, but is less disagreeable than that of S. emodi. The plant fruits abundantly and is "plus que toute autre espece, sujet aux attaques de la Cochenille et de la Zeuzere. II parait se plaire particulierement dans les terres saines, chaudes et impregnees de sulfate de chaux. II se multiplie aisement de graines, et les jeunes plantes croissent rapidement. Les bonnes varietes se greffent sur franc. On peut aussi le greffer sur Lilas com- mun, et inversement." Bois (Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, vn. 232, 1901) notes of S. Emodi var. rosea: "II a fleuri pour la premiere fois dans notre Etablissement, en 1886 (dans la partie du Jardin dite le carre des couches, aupres de la Fosse aux ours). . . . L'introduction et la propagation de cette nouvelle plante sont dus entierement au Museum." Grosdemange (Rev. Hort., 1. c.) discusses S. villosa's method of flowering. SYRINGA VILLOSA 93 Grignan (Rev. Hort., 1. c.) shows an excellent photograph of this species grown in tree, or standard form, in the garden of Georges Boucher, avenue d'ltalie, Paris. Lilacs grown in this form are more common on the continent of Europe than in the United States. While visiting the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa, Canada, in June, 1927, I saw the collection of hedges grown for demonstration purposes. One of S. villosa, planted in 191 1, is now about twenty feet broad and about fifteen feet tall. It forms a handsome hedge but is not so striking as one of 5. Josikaea. See S. Josikaea. Of S. villosa in Great Britain W. J. Bean writes: "The beautiful lilac, perhaps the most robust of its section of the genus, flowers at the end of May and early in June, after the flowers of the common lilac and its varieties have faded. It is one of the most desirable of hardy shrubs, vigorous in constitution, and free flowering." Professor C. S. Sargent (Garden and Forest, 1. c.) who at once identified the plant raised from Dr. Bretschneider's seed with S. villosa suggests that possibly to that species should be referred 5. emodi and S. Josikaea. He notes certain differences however: "In the Himalaya plant (S. Emodi), however, the long, white hairs which cover the under side of the leaves of S. villosa, are replaced by a minute puberulence on the mid-rib, which is even less developed on the leaves of S. Josikaea. The bark, color and markings of the young shoots and the habit of these three plants are identical, although in S. Josikaea the leaves are narrower than in the Chinese plant, but not narrower than those of many Himalaya speci- mens. ..." Franchet in his monograph had compared S. villosa and S. Josikaea in certain particulars; with some of these Flatt (Erdesz. Lap. 1887, 1. c.) dis- agrees. Professor Sargent's article includes an excellent picture of the flowers of S. villosa, taken from a plant raised at the Arnold Arboretum from Bretschneider's seed. He writes of this Lilac when first introduced into the United States: "Syringa villosa is a vigorous and very hardy shrub, now five feet high here, by as much through the branches, with stout, erect, pale brown shoots, marked with white spots, broad and ample pale green strongly reticulate- veined leaves, and narrow, and rather obtuse, often interrupted clusters of pale rose or flesh-colored flowers, which are decidedly less fragrant than those of the common Lilac. They appear here towards the end of May. 5. villosa is a valuable and desirable addition to gardens. The only drawback which it has yet developed as an ornamental plant is found in the fact that its leaves fall very early, or after the first frost, without any change of color." E. H. Wilson writes in his "Aristocrats of the Garden": "Of the late-flowering Lilacs the best known in this country and perhaps the hardiest of all is 5. villosa, a native of northern China. ... It is a large shrub of excellent habit with erect, fairly stout branches and oblong-lance-shaped, rather pale green leaves. The flowers are rose-colored, pink, or nearly white, but they have an unpleasant odor. It is, 94 THE LILAC however, a first-rate garden shrub, exceedingly floriferous, and very valuable for its hardiness and for its late flowers." Dr. W. T. Macoun (Report of the Dominion Horticulturist for the year 1922, p. 37) mentions S. villosa among the best ornamental shrubs hardy at Ottawa, Canada. S. villosa is listed for sale in many nursery catalogues of the United States. It is not uncommon however to find that the plant grown under that name is not the true S. villosa but one of the S. Henryi hybrids. In the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum are numerous specimens collected from wild plants of S. villosa. F. N. Meyer found it (no. 125) on the Hsiao wu tai shan in the province of Chihli on August 12, 191 3, growing at an elevation of over 9000 ft.; and again (no. n 73) in the same locality on April 12, 1913; the leaves on these specimens are in some instances unusually large. Father Chanet also gathered it (no. 11) in Chihli in 1918, but the precise date and locality are not recorded. Specimens were also collected by Joseph Hers in Chihli, (nos. 1554, 1533, 1535) in the Hsiao wu tai shan on July 14, 1921, — the Chinese name is given as "ting siang," and (nos. 21 17, 2 131) from the same mountain range, at Tieh ling sze, at an altitude of 1300 meters, on October 7, 1922, — the Chinese name given as "tsiao lien hua." N. H. Cowdry found it (no. 1658) on the Hsiao wu tai shan, province of Chihli, on July 13, 192 1, and he notes: "Mountain slopes. Fls. white or light pink. Shrub 5 ft." C. O. Lee collected it (no. 6088) in Shansi, at Tung tsa, at an altitude of 4000 to 5000 ft. in July, 1924. J. Hers gathered it (no. 2638) through Chinese collectors in the Wu tai shan in Shansi at 1600 meters on July 31, 1923. In regard to the Cowdry specimen it should be stated that, although the label gives Shansi as the province where Cowdry collected the plant the Hsiao wu tai shan is in Chihli, not in Shansi; it has been impossible to locate on any available map Tung tsa where Lee collected his plant; the Hers specimen (no. 2638) from the Wu tai shan is therefore the most satisfactory record of its occurrence in Shansi. At one time a plant of S. villosa was growing in the Arnold Arboretum which was raised from grafts (S. P. I. 22,675) supplied by the U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, in May, 1908; this plant has disappeared but herbarium specimens taken from it are preserved. According to the records (U. S. Dept. Agric, Bur. PI. Industry, Bull, no. 143, 24, 1909) it came from "Nansante Temple, Wutaushan, Shansi, China." Meyer's field notes read: "(No. 269, Feb. 26, 1906) A lilac found growing at high elevations, 7000 to 8000 feet. Said to bear large panicles of white flowers. Chinese name 'Sar shu.' " In his "Chinese Plant Names" (12, 191 1) Frank N. Meyer gives as common name for the plant no. 138 which he calls 5. villosa (?), "Sha Shu." Numerous specimens, taken from plants cultivated in European collections, are also preserved. Two examples from the herbarium of C. K. Schneider show that it was grown in the Vorwerker Baumschule at Liibeck, Germany, — one of these bears the name S. Bretschneideri X emodi ?, the other 5. Bretschneideri. SYRINGA VILLOSA 95 From the herbarium of H. Zabel are two specimens, also collected at the Vorwerker Baumschule, which were determined as S. Bretschneideri; it is noted that one was there cultivated as S. emodi, the other as S. emodi rosea. Also from the Zabel herbarium are two examples from plants cultivated in the Botanischer Garten der Forstakadamie, Muenden, Hanover (nos. 23 and 41) ; no. 23 came from the Botanic Garden at Gottigen in 1882 where it was raised by Regel from Peking seed and where it bore the name S. emodi; no. 41 came from Paris in 1892 under the name S. villosa. From the herbarium of Dr. C. Baenitz are two examples ; one, determined as S. villosa Vahl, came from Schneitniger Park, Breslau, in Silesia; the other, deter- mined as S. rosea (Cornu) Lingelsh[eim], from the Royal Botanic Garden at Breslau. S. villosa was offered for sale in the catalogues of such nurserymen as : in Germany, Dieck (1887, 27), Spath (no. 69, 114, 1887-1888); in France, Simon-Louis (1894- 1895, 24) as S. emodi rosea or Lilas de l'Himalaya rose and as S. villosa, Lilas velu; in the United States, Parsons (1890, 94), Ellwanger and Barry (1892, 100; 1900, 86, fig.). The plant was probably offered earlier by these firms, as well as by others. There are growing in the Arnold Arboretum three good-sized plants of 5. villosa. The oldest of these (no. 41 71 Am. Arb.) was raised from seed (no. 1430) received on March 24, 1896, from Messrs. Vilmorin-Andrieux and Co., Paris, France; the other two (no. 17,362 Arn. Arb.) were received as plants from Holm Lea, Brookline, Massachusetts, in April, 1907. The earlier history of these three plants is not known although it is probable that the Vilmorin seed came from Bretschneider and that the Holm Lea plants were also raised from seed of his collecting. All plants once raised in the Arboretum from seed received directly from Bretschneider in 1882 have unfortunately disappeared. The three plants are of a similar habit. One, the largest and oldest, is about eleven feet tall, and of equal breadth; all are round- topped, with gray, lenticellate, sturdy, upright branches; the leaves are large, and the shrub well foliaged from base to top. 5. villosa is here, as a rule, entirely free from mildew. Each year, with regularity, these three plants bloom profusely and, when covered with large clusters of pale pink or flesh-colored flowers, are exceedingly showy and handsome. The flowers fade almost white. The species is "tidy," with few twigs, and rarely any dead wood, and is one of the hardiest of all Lilacs. The odor of the flowers, frequently noted as objectionable, is not, in the open at least, so disagreeable as to warrant the plant's exclusion from a garden. Its flowering period follows that of 5. vulgaris and its forms, and prolongs the Lilac season by about two weeks. To develop properly, a plant of 5. villosa should be given plenty of room, — a radius of ten feet is none too much, — for much of the beauty of the species exists in its fine symmetrical habit. One of the plants (no. 41 71 Arn. Arb.) in the Arboretum is more glabrous than the other two (nos. 17,362 Arn. Arb.), and, were pubescence to be considered a reliable character, might be classified as Schneider's glabrous form. The two plants from Holm Lea appear to bloom slightly later each year than the one raised from Vilmorin's seed. 96 THE LILAC S. villosa has been called by Don (Gen. Syst., 1. c.) and others the Villous Lilac; Nash (Jour. N. Y. Bot. Gard. xx. 234, 1919) gives it the common name of Hairy Chinese Lilac. The name Hairy Lilac, noted as English, was applied to 5. villosa by F. G. Dietrich (Vollst. Lex. Gartn. Bot. ix. 591, 1809); he also notes the German common name of Weichhaariger Flieder. The approved common name of Late Lilac has been adopted by "Standardized Plant Names." In French literature and catalogues it frequently appears as the Lilas de Bretschneider and as S. Emodi a fleurs roses. Simon-Louis calls it Lilas velu and also Lilas de l'Himalaya rose. This species is most nearly related to S. tomentella Bureau and Franchet and to S. Sweginzowii Koehne and Lingelsheim. It differs considerably, however, from both of these Lilacs in general appearance, being sturdier in habit and producing its more compact and heavier flower clusters in a stiffer and more upright fashion. While often confused with 5. pubescens the two belong to different groups of Lilacs, — the flower clusters of S. villosa, which are leafy at the base, appearing normally from terminal buds, while those of 5. pubescens, non-leafy at the base, are produced normally from lateral buds. Foliage, said to have come from the Sacred Tree growing in the Lamasery at Kum-bum, in the province of Kansu, China, was identified by Hemsley with S. villosa. The identity of this tree is discussed under S. pekinensis Ruprecht. Although never given a name, nor introduced into cultivation, there did at one time exist a variegated-leaved plant of S. villosa. Maxime Cornu (Rev. Hort. 1888, 493), of 5. Emodi a, fleurs roses at the Jardin des Plantes, writes: "L'un des pieds presenta des feuilles jaune d'or, par places, quoique saines; mais il ne fut pas note d'une maniere suffisante et n'a pas ete retrouve avec certitude." Although Cornu believed that S. Emodi rosea was only a variety of the Himalayan Lilac, yet he was not confused as to the different appearance of S. emodi, long cultivated at the Jardin des Plantes, and the new pink flowered variety raised from Bret- schneider's seed. There was evidently produced therefore, at one time, a varie- gated-leaved plant of S. emodi rosea, or S. villosa. After mentioning this form Cornu goes on to describe the variegated-leaved forms of the real 5. emodi to which he refers as the "S. emodi cultive jusqu'ici." This is, so far as I know, the only record of a variegated form of S. villosa. A spontaneous variety of S. villosa has been described as : Syringa villosa var. Limprichtii Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 80 (1920). — Limpricht in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov., Beihefte, xn. 462 (Bot. Reisen Hochgeb. China Ost-Tibets) (1922). Habitat: China: province of Chihli. This variety, not in cultivation, which he calls var. /3 Limprichtii, was founded by Lingelsheim upon a specimen (no. 599) collected by W. Limpricht in the province of Chihli, China, in the Hsiao wu tai shan. According to the collector it was found at 3100 meters altitude, "Abhange unter dem Gipfel." SYRINGA VILLOSA 97 Lingelsheim describes its inflorescence as few-flowered, interrupted, 5 centi- meters long more or less, glabrescent; the branchlets of the current year often somewhat spinescent; the flowers lilac. By spinescent branches Lingelsheim possibly means, not thorny, but rigid. I have not seen this Limpricht specimen but except for the character of the branches find nothing in the description to differentiate the plant from the glabrous examples of S. villosa. The elevation and the difficult conditions under which the plant was growing probably had some influence in producing this rigid (?) character. To this species belongs the garden form: Semiplena Hort. Paris. Syringa Emodi rosea semiplena [Hort. Paris] according to Render in Holler's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 207 (1899). Syringa emodi f. semiplena Hort. according to Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 415 (1903), name only. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. i-n. 78 (1920), name only. Writing of S. villosa, which he calls S. Bretschneideri, L. Henry (Jardin, iv. 126, 1890) tells us: "Souvent les divisions de la corolle se montrent au nombre de 5, 6 et meme 7, et il n'est pas rare de rencontrer des etamines qui commencent a se transformer en pieces petaloides. Cette tendance a la duplicature est d'un bon augure pour l'avenir; nul doute que d'habiles cultivateurs n'en profitent pour obtenir prochainement une serie de formes des plus ornementales." And again Henry writes (Jardin, ix. 22, 1895) : "Une particu- larity a signaler dans cette espece, c'est une grande tendance a la duplicature par transfor- mation des etamines en pieces petaloides distinctes. Les exemplaires ne sont pas rares sur lesquels cette tendance se manifeste a des degres variables. En mai 1894, nous avons trouve au Museum un individu remarquable sous ce rapport : la duplicature en est presque complete et touche a la plenitude." And Henry further (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, h. 750, 1901) states: "Cette remarquable espece . . . n'a encore que peu varie; cependant les semis nous ont donne quelques formes d'un coloris un peu plus intense, et aussi des formes a fleurs semi-doubles. Les formes les plus belles sont aussi les plus tar- dives." A. Gourlot (Jardin, xi. 150, 1897) in his article, "Hybrides et formes doubles du Lilas de Bretschneider, " writes: " Dans la meme presentation de jeudi dernier [Societe nationale d'horticulture de France, May 13, 1897] figurait aussi une inflorescence semi-double de ce beau Lilas de Bretschneider. Nous savons qu'au Museum plusieurs exemplaires sont en observation qui presentent cette interessante particularite, deja signalee. . . ." Apart from the citations from Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, and from Lingelsheim in the bibliography, I have found no mention of a semi-double form of the Himalayan Lilac, 5. emodi; and in these no description is given. The species S. emodi and S. villosa were frequently confused and I believe that, in all probability, these references indicate a misclassification. Render at one time considered S. villosa to be merely a synonym of S. Emodi rosea Cornu [= S. villosa}. His S. Emodi rosea semiplena originated in the Jardin des Plantes, Paris. It is doubtful whether this form is any longer in cultivation. Plate XL SYRINGA HENRYI "LUTECE" (Arnold Arboretum no. 5208-1) Winter buds, enlarged. January, 1026. Plate XLI SYRINGA HENRYI "LUTECE" (Arnold Arboretum no. 5208-1) Expanding buds, enlarged. April 30, 1926. Plate XLII SYRINGA HENRYI "LUTECE" (Arnold Arboretum no. 5208-1) Flower clusters. June 20, 1924. Plate XLIII . SYRINGA HENRYI "LUTECE" (Arnold Arboretum no. 5208-1) Fruit, enlarged. Picked August, 1924. Plate XLIV X SYRINGA HENRYI A hybrid between S. Josikaea Jacquin fil. and 5. villosa Vahl is: X Syringa Henryi Schneider in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. ix. 81 (iqio); 111. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 781 (191 1); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 230 (191 1); in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 361 (1903). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 7, June 14 (1911); no. 23, May 22 (1912); no. 40, May 9 (1913); n. s. 1. 14, 25 (1915). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxiii. 155 (1916); Aristocrats of the Garden, 228 (1917). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3300 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 753 (1927). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 80 (1920). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922). — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 485 (1923), as a synonym. — Mottet, Arb. Arbust. Orn. 341 (1925). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 32 (1926); reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). — G. Hegi, 111. Fl. Mittel-Eur. v. pt. in. 191 1 (1927). S[yringa] Emodi rosea X S\yringa] Josikaea Dauthenay in Rev. Hort. 1897, 2^7- — Bois in Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, vn. 233 (1901). S[yringa] Josikaea X S[yringa] Emodi rosea Dauthenay in Rev. Hort. 1897, 267. — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 207 (1899). — Bois in Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, vn. 233 (1901). — Jour. Hort. Soc. London, xxvn. t. (opp. p. 801) (1903). Syringa Bretschneideri X Josikaea var. Luthce Simon-Louis, Cat. 1900-1901, 67. — L. Henry in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 755 (1901). S[yringa) Bretschneideri X S\yringa] Josikaea L. Henry in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 754 (1901). S[yringa] Josikaea X S[yringa] Bretschneideri L. Henry in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 755 (1901). Syringa Josikaea hyb[rida] Lutece Lemoine, Cat. no. 149, 27 (1901). Syringa Bretschneideri hybrida (Syringa Bretschneideri X S. Josikaea) L. Henry in Rev. Hort. 1902, 41, t. fig. 3. Syringa Josikaea hybrida (Syringa Josikaea X S. Bretschneideri) L. Henry in Rev. Hort. 1902, 41. Syringa Bretschneideri hybrida Lutece L. Henry in Rev. Hort. 1902, 41. — Lemoine, Cat. no. 152, 31 (1902). Syringa villosa X Josikaea Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 415 (i9°3)- Syringa Josikaea X villosa Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 415 (i9°3)- Syringa Bretschneideri N. E. Brown in Bot. Mag. cxxxvi. t. 8292 (1910), in part, as to the plant figured. S[yringa] villosa var. Lutece Hort. Simon-Louis according to Schneider, 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 781 (191 1); in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 361 (1913). 99 100 THE LILAC S\yringa] Henryi var. Lutfae Hort. Paris according to Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 7, June 14 (iqii); no. 23, May 22 (1912); no. 40, May 9 (1913); n. s. 1. 14, 28 (1915). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxiii. 155 (1916); Aristocrats of the Garden, 228 (1917). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3300 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 753 (1927). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922). — Mottet, Arb. Arbust. Orn. 341 (1925). S\yringa] Bretschneideri X Josikaea (S. eximia) var. Lutece Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, ac- cording to Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 94 (1920), as a synonym. S[yringa) hybrida Hort. (S. Emodii X vulgaris) according to Hand-List Trees and Shrubs Royal Bot. Gardens Kew, 236 (1925). S[yringa] Emodii var. hybrida Hort. according to Hand-List Trees and Shrubs Royal Bot. Gardens Kew, 236 (1925), as a synonym. The S. Henryi hybrids, which are very similar in general habit and in foliage to the parents S. villosa and S. Josikaea, are distinguished in their flowers by the form of the corolla-tube, which is less cylindric than that of 5. villosa and less funnelform than that of S. Josikaea, by the size of the anthers, which are smaller than those of S. villosa and larger than those of 5. Josikaea, and by their position in the corolla-tube where they are inserted slightly higher than those of S. Josikaea and slightly lower than those of S. villosa. In color the flowers vary a little on different plants but all contain considerable blue in their coloring matter and in this show their S. Josikaea ancestry. The following color notes were taken from a plant (no. 17,352 Am. Arb.) which was received at the Arnold Arboretum from Mr. A. Hunnewell, Wellesley, Massachusetts, in April, 1907, under the name S. Henryi Lutece. Color in bud Light Perilla Purple to Argyle Purple or Purplish Lilac (xxxvu.) ; when expanded Argyle Purple or Purplish Lilac or Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvu.) both within and without; anthers Primrose yellow (xxx.). From the same plant the additional notes were also taken: the winter-buds ovoid with acute apex, flower bud ^ in. long more or less, scales reddish to yel- lowish brown marked with gray, acuminate or acute, keeled, puberulous; leaf- scar slightly raised, shield-shaped, inconspicuous, large; bundle-trace crescent- shaped; the capsule oblong, smooth, }4r2A m- l°ng> obtusish or acute. The hybrid Lilacs to which the name 5. Henryi was later applied by Schneider originated from crossings made by Louis Henry in the Jardin des Plantes, Paris. Under the title "Nouveaux Lilas hybrides" their producer first wrote (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 3, xix. 444, 1897) of the origin of these plants: ". . . La presque complete uniformite du coloris dans les L. de Bretschneider obtenus de semis, m'a suggere l'idee de chercher a les faire varier. Le S. Josikaea Jacq. fil., voisin de S. Bretschneideri, m'a paru, avec son coloris fonce tirant sur le bleu, de nature a produire le resultat desire. . . . Encourage par M. le professeur Maxime Cornu et bien seconde par M. Grosdemange, j'ai croise, avec tous les soins necessaires, le Lilas de Bretschneider par le L. de Hongrie et inversement. Environs deux cent soixante-quinze exemplaires ont ete obtenus; deux fleurirent des 1896. Une dou- zaine ont fleuri cette annee et m'ont permis de faire la presentation du 13 Mai." SYRINGA HENRYI 101 Two crosses were shown at the meeting of the Societe nationale d'horticulture de France in the name of Professor Maxime Cornu; Henry gives them no name at this time. The first was "Croisement du Lilas de Bretschneider par S. Josikaea (fait les 13, 14, 22 et 23 Mai 1890)." Of the plants raised from this cross he notes the following characters: " Vegetation et rameaux se rapprochant beaucoup du L. de Bretschneider. Feuilles moins grandes et moins fermes que dans ce dernier, plus elargies que dans le S. Josikaea; velues sur la face inferieure, comme dans le L. de Bretschneider (dans le S. Josikaea, elles sont glabres). Inflorescences: forme de celles du L. de Bretschneider, c'est-a-dire beaucoup plus ramifiees et plus longuement que dans le S. Josikaea, et, partant, plus amples et plus fournies; pyramidales et en thyrses bien degages; rachis et petiole teintes violace et d'appar- ence pruineuse comme dans le S. Josikaea. Fleurs se rapprochant beaucoup de celles du 5. Josikaea: i° par le coloris violet ou violace, au lieu d'etre rose ou blanc rose comme dans le L. de Bretschneider; 20 par les dimensions sensiblement plus petites (1) et plus greles que dans le L. de Bretschneider; 30 par la forme en cornet plutot qu'en entonnoir; toutesfois les divisions sont plus grandes, plus arrondies, moins incurvees que dans S. Josikaea, et elles finissent gen£ralement par s'etaler comme dans le L. de Bretschneider." In a footnote (1), he adds, "Les pieds sur lesquels ont ete coupees les inflorescences presentees ont ete transplanted au mois de feVrier dernier. Cette circonstance a certainement influe sur le developpement des thyrses et sur la grandeur des fleurs." The second was "Croisement du S. Josikaea par le Lilas de Bretschneider (fait le 22 mai 1890)." Of this Henry writes: "Le resultat s'est montre assez sensiblement le meme que dans 1 'operation inverse. . . . Les feuilles sont plus allongees, plus longuement acuminees, et en general, moins velues; les inflorescences sont un peu moins fournies et le rachis plus fonce. Les boutons sont plus rouges et les divisions de la fleur plus etalees et plus recurvees. Les fleurs presentent aussi plus de rouge, et quelques exemplaires les ont d'un coloris pourpre tres special." Henry summarizes the influence of the parents thus: "Le Lilas de Bretschneider se retrouve surtout dans les caracteres de vegetation, les tiges, les feuilles et la forme des inflorescences. L'empreinte du 5. Josikaea se manifeste particuliere- ment dans la fleur: coloris, dimensions et forme." To emphasize the care with which these crosses were made, Henry notes: "Parmi les inflorescences de Lilas de Bretschneider choisies a cet effet, l'une d'elles avait ete confiee a un jardinier qui, lors de la castration, avait laisse un certain nombre d'etamines. Ce defaut de soin ne passa pas inapercu et les graines furent notees comme douteuses: or, dans le lot de plantes provenant de ces graines, quelques-unes ne sont pas autre chose que des L. de Bretschneider." In "Le Jardin" (xi. 228, 1897) the appearance of this article is recorded. The "Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society" (xxvu. t. (p. 800), 1902) gives a plate with three figures, — S. Josikaea, S. Emodi rosea and the hybrid. 102 THE LILAC Bois (Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, vn. 232, 1901) states that Henry began making these crosses in 1890 and "les poursuivit pendant dix ans." Dauthenay (Rev. Hort., 1. c.) describes the two crosses as 5. Emodi rosea X S. Josikaea, and as S. Josikaea X S. Emodi rosea. A. Gourlot (Jardin, xi. 150, 1897) writes about Henry's work under the title "Hybrids et formes doubles du Lilas de Bretschneider," but he gives no name to the crosses. He stresses the new colors obtained: "Jusqu'a present, le L. de Bretschneider n'avait donne, par le semis, que des exemplaires rose carne ou blanc legerement rose. L'influence du S. Josikaea, — qui est, comme on sait, violet fonce, — a eu pour resultat de donner des fleurs dans lesquelles le violet et le pourpre tiennent une large place; certains de ces coloris sont inedits dans la gamme pourtant si riche des Lilas." Gourlot felt that Henry's work was not sufficiently appreciated when exhibited: "Le comite d'Arboriculture d'Ornement de la Societe nationale d'horticulture a ete plutot . . . disons tiede pour rester courtois." It was not until 1902 (Rev. Hort., 1. c.) that Henry gave his crosses the names, Syringa Bretschneideri hybrida (S. Bretschneideri X S. Josikaea) and Syringa Josikaea hybrida (S. Josikaea X S. Bretschneideri). He gives a colored plate showing the flowers of 5. Josikaea, of S. Bretschneideri, and also of one of his hybrids: "La planche coloriee ci-jointe represente l'une des formes . . . obtenues, forme tres voisine de celle mise au commerce par les Pepinieres Simon-Louis, de Plantieres-les-Metz, sous le nom de Lutece." The name 5. Henryi was given these hybrids by C. K. Schneider (Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov., 1. c.) in 1910, as a tribute to their producer, and has since been generally adopted. Many plants were put on the market and it is undoubtedly true that under that name have been sold, not only the true hybrids, which vary greatly in the beauty of their flowers, but also the species S.villosa and S. Josikaea and its forms. The foliage of S. villosa and of 5. Josikaea is very similar in form; in both it is glabrous above and varies in the amount of pubescence beneath; in both the leaves are dark green above and glaucescent beneath. The chief difference appears to be that the leaves of S. Josikaea are more lustrous above than are those of S. villosa. The flowers of 5. villosa appear to me distinct in appearance; they are character- ized by their pale pink or flesh color lacking much blue coloring matter (the blue is scarcely noticeable unless the colors are compared with a color chart); by their cylindric corolla- tube ; by their corolla-lobes, pronouncedly hooked at the apex and expanding at a right angle to the corolla- tube; by the large size of their anthers (close to 3/i6 in. long), and by their position in the corolla- tube where they are inserted just below the mouth. The flowers of 5. Josikaea are characterized by their funnelform corolla-tube, with wide mouth, by their erect corolla-lobes, by their small anthers (close to Vis in. long), and by their position in the corolla-tube, where they are inserted slightly above the middle. SYRINGA HENRYI 103 When we examine the hybrid plants we find the leaves sometimes lustrous above, sometimes not; they even appear to vary on an individual plant in this regard. The size of the leaves, which Henry noted as intermediate between the two parents, I have found to be an unsatisfactory guide since they vary in this particular, not only on the parent plants, but also on the hybrids, in accordance with the vigor of the plant. The only characters which to me appear determining are the form of the flowers and the size and position of the anthers. The corolla- tube is between funnelform (as in S. Josikaea) and cylindric (as in S. villosa); as a rule the corolla-lobes expand finally to a right angle with the corolla-tube as they do in S. villosa; the anthers are intermediate in size between those of the two parent species (close to % in. long), and are inserted slightly higher than in S. Josikaea and not so high as in 5. villosa. The flowers, as in S. Josikaea, contain much blue coloring matter. The firm of Simon-Louis freres, in 1900 (Cat. 1900-1901, 67), under the title "Syringa Bretschneideri X Josikaea var. Lutece" introduced a Lilac, which by some is said to be the type of these S. Henryi hybrids. Schneider however mentions no type. In his "Handbuch" he states: "Als erste dieser Formen scheint S. villosa var. 'Lutece' Hort. Simon-Louis in den Handel gekommen zu sein." The name does not appear in this form in the Simon-Louis reference but as Syringa Bret- schneider X Josikaea var. Lutece. The firm describes it as 'Tune des plus meritantes de cette serie. Les inflorescences sont amples, bien fournies, pyramidales, longues de 25 a 28 cent. Les fleurs, d'abord pourpre bleuatre, passent au lilas cendre bleuatre." Henry's figure in the "Revue Horticole" for 1902, which is cited by Schneider in first writing of the 5. Henryi hybrids, shows a flower cluster said to be "tres voisine" to the Simon-Louis plant. All the forms however bear a resem- blance to each other and I have been unable to discover, either in such descriptions as exist, or from the examination of herbarium specimens or living plants, any characters serving to differentiate the form Lutece. Professor Sargent, in the "Bulletin of Popular Information" of the Arnold Arboretum, has often noted the value of S. Henryi Lutece; he states (Bull. Arn. Arb. n. s. 1. 14, 1915): "The beauty of Lutece shows that it is impossible to foretell what hybrids may produce and makes it reasonable to hope that by the use in this way of some of the new species. . . new hybrid races may be obtained of distinct value as garden plants." Under the name Lutece are frequently sold some of the less desirable S. Henryi forms. The name Lutece is a derivation from the old name for the city of Paris where the plant originated. According to Graesse (Orbis latinus, 1861) the etymology is "Lutetia, Lutetia parisiorum, Parisii; Paris, st[adt] in Frankreich." Among the synonyms cited by Beissner, Schelle and Zabel for their S. villosa X Josikaea, is S. Bretschneideri X Josikaea var. Lutece Simon-Louis; this is mis- quoted by Lingelsheim (Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 94, 1920) as S. Bret- schneideri X Josikaea (S. eximia) var. Lutece. The garden form of S. Josikaea 104 THE LILAC introduced by Froebel in 1899 under the name Eximia is correctly classified by Beissner, Schelle and Zabel. They make, so far as I know, no reference to a 5. eximia. For synonym S. Bretschneideri, see S. villosa, p. 86. Lutece is mentioned in "Standardized Plant Names" (486, 1923) without in- dication of its hybrid origin. The paragraph prefacing the list in which it appears is misleading and would indicate that it was a form of S. vulgaris. In the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum are many specimens which should be classified as belonging to this group of hybrids. The various names under which they have been determined go to prove their great similarity to S. villosa and 5. Josikaea, with both of which species, as well as with improved S. Josikaea forms they have at times been confused. The same confusion has existed in regard to living plants in the Arboretum and in private collections. A plant (no. 1 7,352 Am. Arb.), received as Lutece in 1907 from Mr. A. Hunnewell Wellesley, Massachusetts, is now an exceedingly handsome specimen in the Arnold Arboretum. It is broad, round-topped, and well filled out from base to summit, and produces annually a great number of showy flower-clusters which appear frequently from several pairs of lateral buds as well as from the terminal bud. An even handsomer plant, also thought to be Lutece, is growing in the garden of Mrs. Bayard Thayer, Lancaster, Massachusetts. One great advantage of these hybrids is their late blooming season which comes after the forms of the Common Lilac have faded. They lack, however, the fragrance of S. vulgaris and its forms. Mr. F. L. Skinner of Dropmore, Manitoba, Canada, wrote me on November 18, 1925: "About 12 years ago I crossed S. villosa with 5. Josikaea; the resulting seedlings resemble S. villosa in foliage, but the flowers, though they vary consider- ably, are more or less intermediate between both parents. I have not propagated or distributed any of these hybrids." Writing in "The Garden" (lxxxvii. 301, 1923) Mr. Osborn of Kew tells us that "hybrids raised on the continent between this species [S. emodi Wallich] or S. villosa and the Common Lilac are interesting and will no doubt be heard from in the future, but the Great War checked their development and dissemination." In a letter of November 17, 1926, he replied to an inquiry made in regard to this cross: "The Syringa Emodi and other hybrid Lilacs we first obtained from V. Lemoine and Son . . . in 191 2. . . . We consider Syringa 'Lamartine' . . . the best of the hybrids we have grown. When sending plants ... I will include grafts of this hybrid Lilac . . . also one called 'Lutece.' On February 25, 1927, he kindly sent grafts of Lamartine, here classified as a form of 5. hyacinthiflora (S. oblata X S. vulgaris) and introduced by Lemoine in 191 1, and of Lutece, a form of the hybrid 5. Henryi Schneider introduced by the Simon-Louis firm in 1900, as well as of a plant called S. hybrida. In an accompanying letter he states that this latter plant was a cross between S. emodi and 5. vulgaris and was raised from seed received from Regel and Kesselring, Russia, in 1913. A plant of the same name appears in the "Hand-List of Trees and Shrubs . . . grown in the Royal Botanic SYRINGA HENRYI 105 Gardens, Kew" (236, 1925) as "S. hybrida Hort. (S. Emodii X vtdgaris). Garden origin. 5. Emodii var. hybrida Hort." Specimens of the flowers and foliage of this 5. hybrida were received at the Arnold Arboretum in May, 1925. These show no 5. vtdgaris influence either in the flowers or in the foliage; moreover the clusters terminate leafy shoots and they therefore belong to the group of the Villosae. No characters of foliage, of individual flower, or of inflorescence, can be found differentiating these examples of S. hybrida from the hybrids 5. Henryi, and the plant undoubtedly belongs in that group. Confusion of the Lilacs S. villosa and S. emodi was, and is, not infrequent and the term "hybrida" was used by L. Henry in writing of his crosses, — he calls them S. Josikaea hybrida and S. Bretschneideri hybrida, — so that it was not amazing that such an error should occur in the propa- gation or distribution of these plants. I know of no successful cross between Lilacs of the two groups Vulgares and Villosae. An inquiry of Mr. Emile Lemoine in regard to crosses between Lilacs of these two groups brought me on August 21, 1927, the following reply: "Je n'ai jamais reussi de croisements entre les S. Vulgares et Villosae, quoique je les aie souvent tentes, mais je ne pretends pas que d'autres ne puissent pas y reussir." As noted under the hybrid S. Prestoniae, Miss Isabella Preston attempted to cross S. villosa ( 9 ) with S. vtdgaris ( 6 ) but was unsuccessful. Mr. Skinner, already quoted, wrote me on November 18, 1925: "During the past six years I have tried on every available occasion to cross 5. vtdgaris with S. villosa, but so far without success. On one occasion I did secure a few seeds but they failed to germinate." S. R. Duffy (Garden and Home Builder, May, 1927, 312) writes: "Just before the outbreak of the world war we were told of a new race of late flowering Lilacs to be sent out. These were hybrids between the villosa section and the vulgaris hybrids and between the members of the villosa section. This section includes Syringa villosa, emodi, bretschneideri [= S. villosa], and josikaea. . . . There seems to be some confusion as to whether the first three are distinct species or merely varieties of villosa. . . . The only one of these promised hybrids that we have listed in the United States, so far as I know, is Lutece, the parents being S. bretschneideri and josikaea. . . . Apparently the war stopped the work of propa- gating and disseminating these later flowered hybrids and they are something to which we may, perhaps, look forward." The "hybrids between the villosa section and the vulgaris hybrids" to which Mr. Duffy refers are presumably the same as those to which Mr. Osborn had reference and which he calls S. hybrida. In a letter dated August 21, 1927, Mr. Emile Lemoine writes: "J'ai quelques hybrides provenant du croisement du S. Henryi Lutece avec S. Wilsonii (Wilson 1273) que vous nommez maintenant 5. tomentella je crois. lis ont le meme aspect, et le meme mode de vegetation et de floraison que les precedents [Mr. Lemoine refers to 5. Henryi Lutece, Eximia ( = S. Josikaea Eximia), H. Zabel ( = S. Josikaea H. Zabel)], et si je les mets un jour au commerce, ce sera sous la meme rubrique [S. 106 THE LILAC Henryi], car ils fonnent, pratiquement du moins, un groupe assez homogene." See S. nanceiana for the statement of Mr. Lemoine's position in regard to retaining the name 5. Henryi (adopted by Schneider for the cross between S. villosa and 5". Josikaea) for a cross, from a garden point of view very similar in appearance, but between different parents (X S. Henryi Schneider X S. Sweginzowii Koehne and Lingelsheim) . Miss Isabella Preston (see S. Prestoniae) attempted to cross S. reflexa (9) with S. Henryi Lutece (6). Dr. W. T. Macoun, in an article noted under S. Prestoniae writes: "One plant, of which S. reflexa was the seed and S. lutece (a hybrid of 5. villosa) the pollen parent, shows more of the drooping panicles and pinkish color of S. reflexa." When visiting Ottawa in June, 1927, this cross could not be found. X SYRINGA NANCEIANA A hybrid between S. Henryi Schneider and S. Sweginzowii Koehne and Lingelsheim has recently been introduced by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, of Nancy, France, under the name S. Henryi Floreal. For reasons explained below I propose for this hybrid the following new name: X Syringa nanceiana (S. Henryi Schneider X S. Sweginzowii Koehne and Lingels- heim), new name. Syringa Henryi Floreal Lemoine, Cat. no. 199, 20 (1925-1926). The Lemoine catalogue, English edition, states: "This handsome variety [S. Henryi Floreal] is a hybrid from Syringa Henryi Lutece crossed with S. Sweginzowii superba. The whole shrub is covered with a quantity of light and ample panicles of flowers of a fair size, and of a pleasing shade of mauve lilac, very effective at a distance." In a letter of December 8, 1925, Mr. E. Lemoine wrote me: "J'ai fait en effet plusieurs croisements entre le Syringa Henryi Lutece et le S. Sweginzowii superba, d'une part, et le S. Wilsonii (Wilson no. 1273) que vous appelez maintenant S. tomentella, je crois, d'autre part. Un hybride obtenu du premier croisement a ete mis au commerce cet automne sous le nom de 5. Henryi Floreal. ... Le Syringa Sweginzowii superba etait cultive au Museum d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris sous le no. 5576, et n'y fleurissait pas. Nous en avons recu quelques rameaux en 1907 et lorsque l'arbuste a fleuri, nous avons remarque qu'il etait voisin du S. Sweginzowii que nous avons recu du feu Max von Sivers de Riga; mais plus beau et plus florifere. C'est une vari6te qu'il faut multiplier par voie vegetative, car les semis ne repro- duisent pas fidelement la variete." The hybrid S. Henryi Schneider was produced by crossing S. villosa Vahl and S. Josikaea Jacquin fil. This new hybrid of the Lemoine firm cannot correctly bear the same name since its parents are not the same. I have therefore adopted the name S. nanceiana because of the plant's origin in Mr. Lemoine's nursery at Nancy, France. Floreal is the type of this new hybrid. As stated later under 5. Sweginzowii I do not believe that the plant introduced in 19 15 by the Lemoine firm as S. Sweginzowii superba differs from typical 5. Sweginzowii. Floreal was the name for the eighth month of the calendar of the first French Republic, — from April 20 to May 19; these dates are presumably applicable to the date of flowering of this Lilac, in France. In regard to the change of name here believed necessary I wrote to Mr. Emile Lemoine and received the following reply, dated August 21, 1927: "Syringa Henryi 107 108 THE LILAC Floreal. Je l'ai classe comme Henry i parce que j'ai trouve qu'au point de vue horticole, par sa vegetation, son aspect, sa floraison, il se rapprochait beaucoup du groupe des S. Henryi Lutece, Eximia [= S. Josikaea Eximia], H. Zabel [= S. Josikaea H. Zabel], et ne pouvait guere en etre separe par un nouveau nom specifique. Les catalogues d'horticulteurs n'ont pas la pretention d'etre des documents bota- niques, et je ne desire pas changer ce nom." No discourtesy to Mr. Lemoine's posi- tion in regard to his retention of the original combination of names is intended, and I wish to emphasize that Floreal should be retained as the horticultural name of this particular cross, while 5. nanceiana will stand as a group name for all hydrids beween S. Henryi and S. Sweginzowii. A plant of this hybrid (Arn. Arb. no. 19,274) is growing in the Arnold Arboretum and flowered sparingly in 1928. It was received from the Lemoine firm in Decem- ber, 1925. The following notes were made upon its winter-buds: oblong with acute apex, flower bud 5/i6 in. long, scales reddish brown with dark margins, acute, keeled and forming a markedly four-sided bud, lustrous, glabrous. Leaf-scar much raised, shield-shaped, inconspicuous, medium size; bundle-trace crescent- shaped. In their form these buds resemble those of the parent S. Sweginzowii. The form of the flowers and flower-cluster is much like that of the parent 5. Sweginzowii but their color, containing considerable blue, indicates the parent ■S. Henryi. The foliage appears to be close to S. Henryi although slightly smaller. This promises to be a valuable and distinct hybrid Lilac. Plate XLV SYRINGA PRESTONIAE "ISABELLA" (Preston no. 20-14-114) Flower cluster. June 21, 1927. Plate XLVI p o < with stout, funnelform corolla- tube and a wide throat. The corolla-lobes are broad, acute at apex, cucullate, with a short hook. They are held erect, never expanding to a right angle with the corolla- tube. The anthers are large, 3/i6 in. long, or about the size of those of S. villosa, and are inserted just below the mouth. They are visible in the expanded flower but not conspicu- ous because of the position of the corolla-lobes. The color of the flowers is in bud Vinace- ous-Purple turning to Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) ; when expanded, the tube Laelia Pink, the lobes Pale Laelia Pink without, white with shadings of Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvui.) within. The clusters, frequently 9 in. long and 7 in. broad, are produced on leafy shoots 7 to 8 in. long. Their basal subdivisions are often 5 in. long. The clusters taper from a broad base to a narrow top and droop slightly for a part of their length. They appear frequently in threes, from one terminal and two opposite lateral buds on the same branchlet; the rhachis, pedicel and calyx are tinged Dark Indian Red (xxvu.); the rhachis is slightly puberulous, but not the calyx or pedicel. The winter-buds are ovoid with acute apex, the flower bud 7/i6 in. long more or less, the scales reddish brown with yellower brown margins, acute or rounded, the lower pair conspicuously keeled, the upper pairs less so, glabrous or minutely puberulous, slightly lustrous. The leaf-scar slightly raised, shallow shield-shaped, inconspicuous, medium size ; the bundle-trace only slightly curved. The capsule is oblong, obtuse, non-verrucose, % in. long, each valve ending in a short, slender tip. In the numbers used by Miss Preston the first figures stand for the year in which the cross was made, the second for the cross, and the final numbers for the individual plant. Mr. F. L. Skinner of Dropmore, Manitoba, Canada, wrote me on November 18, 1925, that he had produced a similar cross: "My first attempt to cross 5. villosa with S. reflexa was in 1920, but I had no success until 1922. In that year with pollen from the Arboretum I was quite successful and now have over 70 two year old seedlings of this cross." On July 20, 1927 he again wrote: "... one of my hybrids of this race produced a few flowers this year and I expect quite a number of them to flower next year." Miss Preston also attempted to cross S. villosa ( $ ) with S. vulgaris ( 6 ). Dr. SYRINGA PRESTONIAE 113 i Macoun in the article already cited writes: "S. villosa X 6". vulgaris makes a smaller shrub than the other crosses and has leaves that show its hybrid origin. The panicles are small and the flower purplish. This is more curious than beautiful but may be useful for further breeding work." We examined in June, 1927, the seedlings raised and could find no trace of 6". vulgaris parentage. Miss Preston also pollinized S. villosa with 5. chinensis. Of this cross Dr. Macoun writes: "S. villosa X S. chinensis (Rothomagensis) are not so ornamental as the parents and will be discarded." Again the pollen parent was not traceable in the offspring. The latter cross was noted by Miss Preston in "The National Horticultural Magazine" (January, 1927, 27). I know of no successful cross between Lilacs of the groups Villosae and Vulgares. Plate XLVIII SYRINGA TOMENTELLA (Arnold Arboretum no. 6625) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1925. Plate XLIX SYRINGA TOMENTELLA (Arnold Arboretum no. 6625-6) Expanding buds, enlarged. May 3, 1926. Plate L SYRINGA TOMENTELLA (Arnold Arboretum no. 6626) Flower cluster. June 16, 1924. Plate LI w H w o o 2 a 0) PI >* o3 a; < £ ■*f < -J o ^O |x| H o e rj w H 3 s 0 3 >— » H o )-. < rt < o >— < 2 O • i— ( >< c <-> CO c (^ Plate LIII L_ SYRINGA TOMENTELLA (Arnold Arboretum no. 6625) Fruit, enlarged. Picked August, 1924. Plate LIV to o <3 £ O < S , I i— i ' W '/■ « "o IH >-< c oj CO < PQ SYRINGA TOMENTELLA Syringa tomentella Bureau and Franchet in Jour. Botanique, v. 103 (April 1), 160 (May 16) (1891). — Carriere and Andre in Rev. Hort. 1891, 219. — Garden and Forest, rv. 264 (1891), as S. tomentilla. — Bonvalot, De Paris au Tonkin a travers le Tibet in- connu, 474 (1892). — Mouillefert, Traite Arb. Arbris. 11. 1002, footnote (1) (1892-1898). — Bretschneider, Hist. Europ. Bot. Discov. China, 914 (1898). — Bois in Jour. Soc. Nat. Hort. France, ser. 4, 1. 226 (1900); Nouvelles Especes d'Arbres et d'Arbrisseaux du Yunnan et du Su-tchuen, reprint, 43 (1900). — L. Henry in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, n. 755 (1901). — Schneider in Wien. 111. Gartenz. xxvni. 101 (1903), as S. tanen- tella; in Engler, Bot. Jahrb. xxxvi. Beibl. no. 82, p. 89 (1905), under S. emodi Wallich; in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. ix. 81 (1910); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 227, 230 (191 1); HI. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 782, figs. 489 a, 490 i-k (191 1); n. 1064 (191 2); in Sargent, PI. Wilson. 1. 300 (1912); in. 433 (1917); in Gartenschonheit, vm. 144, fig. (p. 142) (1927). — M. Smith in Hemsley in Jour. Linn. Soc. London, xxxvi. 524 (Ind. Fl. Sin. in.) (1903-1905). — Koehne in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 19, 113, fig. 8 B a-c (1910), excluding synonym 5. velutina Komarov; in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. xi. 529, fig. b a-e (1913) (extract from Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 19, 1. c). — Wilson, Natu- ralist in western China, 1. 181 (1913); in Gard. Mag. xxin. 154 (1916); Aristocrats of the Garden, 223 (1917). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. n. s. 1. 31 (1915); 111. 42 (1917); iv. 26 (1918); v. 27 (1919); vm. 23 (1922). — Goeze in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 25, 172 (1916). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vr. 3302 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 753 (1927). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 81 (1920). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922). — A. 0[sborn] in Garden, lxxxvii. 302 (1923). — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 485 (1923). — Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 830. — Stipp in Gartenwelt, xxvni. 413, fig. 4 (1924); in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. XL. 399, fig. iv. (1925); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 37, 147, fig. (1926). — Stares, Cerines {Syringa L.), 25 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). S\yringa] velutina Bureau and Franchet according to Franchet in Rev. Hort. 1891, 308 (July 16), 333 (August 1); in Garden, xl. 157 (August 15), 202 (August 29) (1891). — L. Henry in Jardin, ix. 76 (1895); in Jour- Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, n. 755 (1901). — Schneider in Wien. 111. Gartenz. xxviii. 101 (1903). — M. Smith in Hemsley in Jour. Linn. Soc. London, xxxvi. 524 (Ind. Fl. Sin. m.) (1903-1905). — Niemetz in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 17, 191 (1908). — Not Komarov. S\yringa] Emodi var. vilosissima Schneider in Wien. 111. Gartenz. xxviii. 107 (1903). S\yringa] Emodi var. pilosissima Schneider in Engler, Bot. Jahrb. xxxvi. Beibl. no. 82, p. 89 (1905), as a synonym. Syringa Rehderiana Schneider in Sargent, PL Wilson. 1. 299 (191 2); m. 433 (191 7), under 5. Wilsonii Schneider; 111. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 1064, fig. 628 a (1912). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3302 (1917). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold 115 116 THE LILAC Arb. n. s. IV. 25 (1918). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 83 (1920). — Stares, Cerines {Syringa L.), 4> 25 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). Syringa Wilsonii Schneider in Sargent, PI. Wilson. 1. 300 (1912); in. 433 (1917); 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 1064 (1912). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 19, April 25 (1912). — Gamier in Rev. Hort. 1913, 118. — Wilson, Naturalist in western China, 1. 203 (1913). — Hesse in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 25, 128 (1916). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3302 (1917). — Bean in Bot. Mag. cxliii. t. 8739 (1917). — Lingelsheim'in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 8^ (1920). — Garden, lxxxiv. 35, fig. (1920). — A. 0[sborn] in Garden, lxxxvii. 51, fig. (1923). — Olm- sted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 485 (1923). — Gartenwelt, xxviii. 278 (1924). — Mottet, Arb. Arbust. Orn. 341, t. 7,3 (1925). — Stipp in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xl. 399 (1925); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 37, 147 (1926). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.) , 4, 25 (1926); reprinted from Darzkopibas, n. (1926). Syringa alborosea N. E. Brown in Kew Bull. Misc. Inform, xxvn. no. 5, 187 (1914). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. i-n. 83 (1920). Syringa Adamiana Balfour fil. and W. W. Smith in Notes Bot. Gard. Edinburgh, ix. 131 (1916). S[yringa] tomentosa Gartenwelt, xxviii. 278 (1924). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 4 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). Syringa tomentella var. Rehderiana Rehder in Jour. Arnold Arb. vn. 34 (1926); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 753 (1927). A shrub up to 15 ft. tall; branches upright or arching, slender, gray, smooth, lenticel- late; branchlets yellow-green or brown, sometimes quadrangular, glabrous or pubescent, lenticellate. Winter-buds oblong with acuminate apex, flower bud J^ in. long more or less, scales reddish brown with dark brown margins, acuminate, glabrous or with puberu- lous margins, keeled and forming a four-sided bud. Leaf-scar much raised, shallow shield-shaped, inconspicuous, small; bundle-trace only slightly curved. Leaves elliptic to oblong-lanceolate, 1-7 in. long, ^-3 in. broad, acute or acuminate, base cuneate, ciliolate, yellow-green, glabrous or slightly pubescent or sparingly pilose above, pale, pilose or pubescent beneath; midrib conspicuous; petiole \i-Yi in. long, stout or slender, glabrous or pubescent or pilose near the juncture with leaf. Inflorescence borne on leafy or non-leafy shoots, normally terminal but frequently lateral, upright, 4-10 in. long, 2-5 in. broad; rhachis sparingly or densely puberulent, sometimes glabrous, tinged Dark Indian Red (xxvn.), lenticellate; pedicel short, glabrous or puberulent, tinged like rhachis; calyx glabrous or puberulent, with short acute teeth, tinged like rhachis; corolla- tube slightly widened above the middle, 5/i2-7/i2 in. long; corolla-lobes spread- ing at right angles to corolla-tube, pointed, rarely cucullate; corolla 1U~b/u in. in di- ameter; color in bud Rhodonite Pink (xxxviii.) tinged on lobes Olive-Buff (xl.) to Pale Rhodonite Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Rhodonite Pink to Pale Rhodonite Pink fading to white on corolla-lobes without, white tinged near throat Rhodonite Pink (xxxviii.) within; anthers Primrose Yellow (xxx.), J/g in. long, inserted just below the mouth of corolla-tube. Capsule oblong, dark brown, smooth, sometimes sparingly lenticellate, V12 in. long, acuminate or acute. (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant (no. 6627) growing in the Arnold Arboretum.) SYRINGA TOMENTELLA 117 Habitat: China: provinces of Szechuan; Yunnan. Syringa tomentella was first described by Edouard Bureau and Adrien Franchet in "Plantes Nouvelles du Thibet et de la Chine occidentale receuillies pendant le voyage de M. Bonvalot et du Prince Henri d'Orleans en 1890" which was pub- lished in 1891 in the "Journal de Botanique." The two type specimens, both of flowering branches, collected by these travelers, are in the herbarium of the Museum of Natural History, Paris, and came from the province of Szechuan, China, "entre Ta-tsien-lou et la frontiere du Yunnan." According to Bretschneider (Hist. Europ. Bot. Discov. China, 912, 1898) Bonvalot and Prince Henri d'Orleans left Ta tsien lu on July 13, 1890, and traveled south through Fu lin and Ning yuan. The locality is given as Ta tsien lu in Bonvalot's account of his travels with Prince Henri d'Orleans (De Paris au Tonkin a travers le Tibet inconnu, 474, 1892). The original description, translated from the Latin, reads: "Shrub; branches gray, sparingly lenticellate, above short-hispid; leaves ovate-lanceolate, acuminate, narrowing into a hispid slender petiole, above everywhere pubescent with short sparse hairs, beneath gray- velvety; panicle thyrsoid, ovate, large, with hispid branchlets; the short pedicels and the calyx finely villose; the calyx campanulate with truncate mouth, with almost inconspicuous teeth; corolla slightly expanding from the base to the mouth, with lobes 4 times shorter than the tube, lanceolate, sub- acute, spreading; capsule. . . . Petiole 10-15 mm- l°ng> limD 4-7 cm- l°ng> 25~3° mm. broad; pedicels 1-2 mm.; corolla 15 mm. long." No new material was described until E. H. Wilson collecting for the Arnold Arboretum in 1908 gathered specimens which in 191 2 were determined by Schneider as 5. tomentella. These specimens, now in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum were gathered in western Szechuan. One (no. 2584) collected on June 24, at Pan Ian shan, west of Kuan hsien, at an altitude of 12,000 ft., is described as a bush 4-10 ft., with rose-pink flowers, growing in thickets; another (no. 1237b), collected in July, north of Ta tsien lu, was taken from a bush 12-15 &■ tall, growing at an altitude of 10,000 ft., with white or pink flowers. A fruiting specimen (no. 4408) was collected in the same locality in October, 1910, from a bush 10-15 ft. tall, growing in thickets. The Syringa velutina mentioned by Franchet in 1891 as having been described by Bureau and Franchet is probably merely a misnomer for the species S. tomentella which these authors had described a few months earlier in the same year. The name is handed on by L. Henry in "Le Jardin" for 1895 wno mentions this S. velutina, without citing the author of the name, among Lilacs not yet introduced into cultivation; later (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 755, 1901) he lists as distinct species 5. tomentella Bureau and Franchet and S. velutina Bureau and Franchet as appearing in "Pl[antes] Nouv[elles] du Thibet." Miss M. Smith (Hemsley, Ind. Fl. Sin. in.) also mentions both in the "List of the Genera and Species discovered in China since the publication of . . . the 'Enumeration'. . . ." The S. velutina mentioned by Schneider (Wien. 111. Gartenz., 1. c.) is the same. The S. velutina 118 THE LILAC Komarov, which Niemetz states was introduced into trade by Simon-Louis freres, is undoubtedly S. velutina Bureau and Franchet, or S. tomentella, for Niemetz mentions its similarity to S. Emodi rosea [=S. villosa], and to S. Josikaea rosea [see S. Josikaea rosea] to both of which S. tomentella is more closely related than is the true S. velutina of Komarov. Koehne gives as a synonym for S. tomentella, S. velutina of Komarov, but he is undoubtedly confused in regard to this plant and the 5. velutina Bureau and Franchet; he is referring to the latter when he states that according to Niemetz the plant was introduced by Simon-Louis freres, and to the true S. velutina of Komarov when he states that it was in cultivation in the arboretum of M. von Sivers at Roemershof, Russia. With the above exceptions the S. velutina of Bureau and Franchet, so far as I know, is everywhere given as a synonym of S. tomentella. Schneider for a time considered this species to be merely an extremely pilose variety of S. emodi Wallich, calling it (Wien. 111. Gartenz., 1. c.) S. Emodi var. vilosissima. He later cites this name as a synonym of S. tomentella but in the form S. Emodi var. pilosissima showing that the form in which the name had earlier appeared was an error in printing which he had presumably overlooked. Other misspellings appear in this article of Schneider's in the "Wiener Illustrierte Garten-Zeitung," — for example S. tomentella, when first mentioned, is spelt S. tanentella. Schneider based his species S. Rehderiana Schneider, which he later suggests may be only a variety of S. tomentella, on a specimen (no. 1273 a) now in the Arnold Arboretum which was collected by Wilson in July, 1908, at Ta tsien lu in western Szechuan. Schneider writes: "This seems to be an extremely beautiful shrub, most nearly related to S. tomentella Franchet, but the dense pubescence of the branches and the very short petioled broad elliptic leaves distinguish S. Rehder- iana at once from the allied species." The shape of the leaf and the short petiole I have found also present in the specimens considered by Schneider to be S. tomen- tella; the pubescence on the branchlets is pronounced, but this character is extremely variable in the Lilacs of this group and I here include the pubescent in the typical form. Rehder retains Rehderiana as a variety of 5. tomentella. S. Wilsonii Schneider, which Schneider himself later reduced to S. tomentella, was described from specimens (no. 1273) in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum. They were collected by Wilson at Ta tsien lu; two, dated June, 1908, are of flowers, and were taken from a bush 6-20 ft. tall; their color is noted as white or lilac; another, dated October, 1908, is of fruit, and a third, dated September, 1908, shows a portion of the bark. It is stated that the bush grew in thickets at an altitude of 9000 to 10,000 ft. It was characterized by the presence of pubescence only on the veins beneath, by a nearly glabrous inflorescence and calyx. Here again and for the reason mentioned under the synonym 5. Rehderiana I have included this in the typical form. The name S. Wilsonii was much used in England, Mr. A. Osborn writing in "The Garden" for 1923: "S. tomentella is at present better known SYRINGA TOMENTELLA 119 in British gardens as S. Wilsoni. Dried wild specimens showed S. tomentella to have a pubescent undersurface to the leaves and inflorescence, as distinct from the slightly hairy S. Wilsoni, but under cultivation these differences do not hold good." In nursery catalogues of the United States this species is sometimes listed as S. Wilsonii. Mr. E. Lemoine wrote me on July i, 1925 : "D'apres les premiers tomes parus de Plantae Wilsonianae, le Syr. Wilson no. 1273 avait ete appele S. Wilsoni, ce nom a ete change plus tard en S. tomentella. J'ai toujours conserve le premier nom. Car j'ai recu autrefois de M. Max von Sivers, de Riga, un Syringa tomentella, tr&s distinct, et qui n'a jamais pu fleurir convenablement ici; les boutons a fleurs, tres precoces, etaient regulierement geles tous les ans. J'ai supprime cette plante." This plant was apparently not S. tomentella Bureau and Franchet. S. alborosea N. E. Brown was, according to the author of the name, "Described from a living plant raised by Messrs. J. Veitch and Sons from seed collected by E. H. Wilson in China, and presented by them to Kew in 1913, where it flowered in June, 1914." Brown relates it to S. Rehderiana but states that it differs in its glabrous branches, in its leaves green beneath, in its somewhat small and loose inflorescence, and in its calyx distinctly toothed. A type specimen is in the herbarium of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and bears the number 1739 under which Wilson's seed was received by Messrs. Veitch in 1905; Wilson, according to his field book, gathered this seed in the mountains around Ta tsien lu in October, 1904. It was therefore in 1905 that S. tomentella was introduced into cultivation. Lingelsheim retains S. alborosea as a distinct species, noting that he has not seen the specimen, but most authors at the present time consider it to be identical with S. tomentella. S. Adamiana Balfour fill, and W. W. Smith was described in 1916 from a plant raised from seed collected by C. M. Watson, without date, near Ta tsien lu and cultivated in the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh. The type specimens taken from this garden plant are in the herbarium at Edinburgh and one of them, through the courtesy of the Regius Keeper, was forwarded to the Arnold Arboretum for examination; it proved to be S. tomentella. A footnote to the description of 5. Adamiana states: "By the specific name it is desired to hold in memory Private Thomas Adam, 2nd Scots Guards, a gardener of the staff of the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, who fell in action in Flanders on 16th May 1915." The S. tomentosa, mentioned in "Die Gartenwelt," is presumably merely a misnomer for S. tomentella, as is that of Stares; the latter cites the name correctly in the text. According to Lingelsheim the Forrest specimens (nos. 2294 and 2636) referred by Diels (Notes Bot. Gard. Edinburgh, vn. no. 32, 116, 149, 191 2) to S. yunnanensis Franchet, and which I have not seen, are closely related to S. tomentella. In the Arnold Arboretum herbarium are two sheets (no. 22,309), both of fruit and foliage, which were collected in September, 1922, by George Forrest on the Chienchuan-Mekong Divide, northwestern Yunnan, at an altitude of 11,000 ft. 120 THE LILAC This has been identified with S. tomentella and the range of the plant therefore extends into Yunnan. The specimen is noted as "Syringa sp. aff. reflexa." W. J. Bean writes that S. Wilsonii [=S. tomentella] was collected by A. E. Pratt in western Szechuan about twenty years earlier than the Wilson collections of 1908 and at about the same elevations, 8000-10,500 ft. The material for his plate in the "Botanical Magazine" was taken from a plant presented to Kew in 1910 by Professor Sargent. According to Bretschneider (Hist. Europ . Bot. Discov. China, 804, 1898) Pratt collected chiefly around Ta tsien lu, in the years 1889 and 1890, and at elevations ranging from 9000 to 13,500 feet. On June 24, 1890, he met the travelers Prince Henri d'Orleans and Bonvalot at Ta tsien lu and was entrusted with their collections which he took out with him to Shanghai. Pratt's botanical specimens were presented to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Two specimens (nos. 185 and 224) collected by Pratt are in the Gray Herbarium. Both came from western Szechuan and the Tibetan frontier, "chiefly near Tachienlu" and grew at 9000-13,500 ft. elevation. The firm of V. Lemoine et fils, of Nancy, offered S. tomentella for sale in France under the name 5. Wilsonii Schneider (Cat. no. 182, 6, 1912). Lemoine's plants were raised from Wilson's no 1273. A plant of S. tomentella (no. 6625 Arn. Arb.) was first received at the Arnold Arboretum in November, 1907, from Messrs. James Veitch and Sons, as Syringa no. 1739 Wilson, from the mountains of Ta tsien lu. Wilson writes in his "Aristocrats of the Garden": "I saw this plant in flower for the first time on July 9, 1908, on the frontiers of eastern Tibet at an altitude of nine thousand feet, and I thought then that I had never before seen such a handsome species of Lilac. It had foot-high, broad panicles of pink to rosy lilac colored flowers and on other bushes they were white. The plants were from eight to fifteen feet high, much-branched yet compact in habit, and the wealth of flower clusters made it conspicuous from afar." Growing as a cultivated plant in the Arnold Arboretum 5. tomentella quite justifies Mr. Wilson's description. From a narrow base it spreads above into a broad, round-topped shrub about fifteen feet tall and of equal breadth, with many well-f oliaged branchlets ; each year it is covered about mid- June with a great number of showy flower clusters whose beauty is accentuated by the contrast between the dark stalks of the inflorescence and the pale pink flowers. These clusters are long, narrow and interrupted, or occasionally broad near their base with spreading sub- divisions. The individual flower is symmetrically formed, in color a pale pink fading to white, and in its open throat the yellow anthers are clearly visible. The flowers fall as they fade, leaving an always fresh cluster; unfortunately they lack the fragrance of the Common Lilac. The leaves unfold late in the spring and are, on most plants, retained until well into the autumn. One of the most characteristic features of this Lilac is its smooth pale gray bark marked with dark lenticels. In the Arnold Arboretum, where several plants of this species are now growing, it has SYRINGA TOMENTELLA 121 proved entirely hardy. It has the advantage of flowering late, after the Common Lilac and its forms have faded and at about the same time as 5. villosa Vahl. An unsigned article in "The Garden" for 1920 notes its value in England for city gardens: ". . . Its value as a town shrub was abundantly demonstrated during the summer of 191 9, a specimen growing and flowering freely in a Camber- well villa front garden. Seeds ripen in this country." What is probably the same Camberwell plant is mentioned by A. O [shorn] in an article in the same period- ical for 1923; he also mentions its value as a town shrub. S. tomentella is nearly related to S. villosa Vahl and to S. Sweginzowii Koehne and Lingelsheim. In general appearance it is less stiff and sturdy than the former, and slightly less delicate and slender than the latter. Bureau and Franchet noted, when first describing S. tomentella, that it had considerable affinity to S. pubescens Turczaninov: "Espece tres florifere; ayant beaucoup d'affinites avec le S. pubescens Turcz. (S. villosa Decaisne, not Vahl); elle en differe par ses feuilles plus longues et relativement plus etroites, par sa pubescence plus abondante et plus serree, surtout en dessous, ou elle rend les feuilles veloutees, par son calice tronque au sommet et dont les dents sont a peine visibles; elles sont triangulares dans le 5. pubescens." The two species belong however to different groups of Lilacs, — the flower clusters of S. pubescens appearing from lateral buds, on non-leafy shoots, while those of S. tomentella appear from terminal buds, on leafy shoots; moreover the anthers of 5. tomentella are yellow while those of S. pubescens are bluish. Nash (Jour. N. Y. Bot. Gard. xx. 234, 1919) calls S. tomentella the Little Hairy Lilac, and 6". Wilsonii, Wilson's Lilac. Felty Lilac has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names"; for S. Wilsonii, which they still retain as a species, they adopt the approved common name of Wilson Lilac. Ac- cording to the present classification the latter name should be dropped. In a letter dated August 21, 1927, Mr. Emile Lemoine writes: "J'ai quelques hybrides provenant du croisement du 5. Henryi Lutece avec 5". Wilsonii (Wilson 1273) que vous nommez maintenant S. tomentella je crois. lis ont le meme aspect, et le meme mode de vegetation et de floraison que les precedents [Mr. Lemoine refers to S. Henryi Lutece, Eximia ( = S. Josikaea Eximia), H. Zabel ( = S. Josikaea H. Zabel)], et si je les mets un jour au commerce, ce sera sous la meme rubrique [S. Henryi], car ils forment, pratiquement du moins, un groupe assez homogene." See S. nanceiana for the statement of Mr. Lemoine's position in regard to the retention of the name S. Henryi. Plate LV SYRINGA SWEGINZOWII (Arnold Arboretum no. 17,360) Winter buds, enlarged. January, 1925. Plate LYI SYRINGA SWEGINZOWII (Arnold Arboretum no. 17,361) Expanding buds, enlarged. May 12, 1026. Plate LVII o O W en < O CO C 3 (U V ■r. 3 o if} i Plate LVIIT o I-* vO O t-H PO HH £ r^ O HH t^. N M o c 3 O r- 3 w c 3 1- t— > CO >-I o 4) <: Xi * S5 1-1 < O i— i "O c Pi o c • ^H JH -t-> CO e < c3 S Plate LIX SYRINGA SWEGINZOWII (Arnold Arboretum no. 17,360) Fruit, enlarged. Picked August, 1924. SYRINGA SWEGINZOWII (Arnold Arboretum no. 17,361) Bark. November, 1925. SYRINGA SWEGINZOWII Syringa Sweginzowii Koehne and Lingelsheim in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. vm. 9 (1910). — Koehne in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 19, 112, fig. 8 A a-e (1910) (fig. reprinted in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. xi. 529, fig. 1 a a-e, 1913). — Schneider, HI. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 780, figs. 487 a-c, 490 a-d (191 1); 11. 1063 (191 2); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 227, 230 (191 1); in Sargent, PI. Wilson. 1. 301 (191 2); 111. 433 (1917); in Silva Tarou- ca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 361 (1913); in Gartenschonheit, vm. 144, fig. (1927). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 59, June 18 (1914); n. s. 1. 36 (1915); iv. 25, 26 (1918); v. 27 (1919); vi. 34, 52 (1920); vm. 23 (1922). — Gard. Chron. ser. 3, lvh. 345, fig. 117 (1915). — Bois and Grignan in Rev. Hort. 1915, 562. — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxiii. 155 (1916); Aristocrats of the Garden, 225 (1917). — Goeze in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 25, 173 (1916). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3302 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 752 (1927). — Gard. Chron. ser. 3, lxiv. 27, (1918). — Kache in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 28, 249 (1919). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 81 (1920). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 405 (1922). — Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 830. — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 485 (1923). — Gartenwelt, xxviii. 278 (1924). — Stipp in Gartenwelt, xxviii. 411, fig. 3 (1924); in M oiler's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xl. 399, fig. 11. (1925); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 37, 146, t. 19 (1926). — Mottet, Arb. Arbust. Orn. 340 (1925). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 4, 23 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926) S[yringa\ pubescens Hort. according to Schneider in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 230 (191 1), as a synonym. Syringa tetanoloba Schneider in Sargent, PI. Wilson, 1. 299 (191 2); 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 1063 (1912). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 82 (1920). Syringa Sweginzowii superba Lemoine, Cat. no. 189, 23 (1925). — Gard. Chron. ser. 3, lxiv. 27, fig. n (1918). — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 488 (1923), as a synonym. — Rehder, Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 752 (1927). A broad shrub up to 15 ft. tall; branches upright, slender, gray-brown, glabrous, lenticellate ; branchlets numerous, sometimes quadrangular, lenticellate, when young sometimes pubescent and tinged Hay's Maroon (xin.). Winter-buds oblong with acumi- nate apex, flower bud 5/8 in. long more or less, lower scales dark brown, upper reddish brown with dark brown margins, acuminate, glabrous, keeled and forming a four-sided bud. Leaf -scar much raised, semicircular, not conspicuous, medium size; bundle-trace semicircular. Leaves oblong, ovate or lanceolate, 1-4 in. long, 3^-2 in. broad, acuminate, acute, often cuspidate, base cuneate or rounded, ciliolate, bright green, glabrous, or when young sometimes pubescent, and tinged Hay's Maroon (xm.) above, pale green, rarely glabrous, usually pilose near the base and on midrib beneath; petiole slender or stout, Yl in. long, occasionally pilose near the juncture with leaf and tinged Hay's Maroon 123 124 THE LILAC (xiii.) . Inflorescence borne on leafy or non-leafy shoots, normally terminal but frequently lateral, upright, 7-12 in. long, 4-5 in. broad; rhachis frequently quadrangular, puberulous or glabrous, lenticellate, color Hay's Maroon (xiii.) to Burnt Umber (xxviii.) ; pedicel short, tinged like rhachis; calyx short, truncate or with short acute teeth, frequently tinged like rhachis; corolla-tube slender, cylindric, 7/i6 in. long; corolla-lobes narrow, pointed, cucullate, spreading at right angles to corolla-tube and curling backward; corolla 5/i6 in. in diameter, color in bud Orange- Vinaceous to Hydrangea Pink to Pale Vinaceous (xxvii.) tinged on corolla-lobes with Deep Olive-Buff (xl.) ; when expanded Pale Vina- ceous turning to white on corolla-lobes without, white tinged Pale Vinaceous (xxvii.) near throat within; anthers Primrose Yellow (xxx.), inserted slightly above the middle of corolla-tube. Capsule oblong, smooth, lustrous, V12 in- long, obtusish, each valve terminating in a short tip. (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant (no. 17,360) growing in the Arnold Arboretum.) Habitat: China: province of Szechuan. Koehne and Lingelsheim based their description of Syringa Sweginzowii, published in 19 10, upon a living plant growing in the arboretum of Max von Sivers, at Roemershof, near Riga, Russia, which they believed to have come, in all probability, from eastern Asia. They stated that it is nearly related to S. rosea (Cornu) Lingelsheim [ = 5. villosa Vahl] but differs in the color of its flowers and in its smooth, pointed fruit. The original description, in Latin, translated, reads: "Branches gray or gray- ish-brown, sparingly lenticellate with round lenticels, entirely glabrous. Buds about 3 mm. long, ovate-conical, brown, glabrous. Leaves papery, oblong or ovate in outline, with base slightly attenuate, with apex often abruptly caudate-acuminate, 5-7 cm. long, 2-3.5 cm- broad, brownish green above, entirely glabrous, beneath paler, along the primary veins white-pilose, ciliolate, with petiole 0.75 cm. - 1 cm. long, brownish. Panicles terminal or lateral, loose, elongated, 15-25 cm. long, few-bracted. Flowers yellowish-red. Calyx campanulate, subtruncate, 2 mm. long. Tube of corolla narrowly cylindrical, 8 mm. long, 2 mm. in diameter; lobes oblong-ovate, subacute. Stamens included. Fruit smooth, longitudinally striated, acute, 1 cm. long, 3 mm. in diameter." They refer to it as hardy at Roemershof. According to Bretschneider (Hist. Europ. Bot. Discov. China, 1020, 1898), G. N. Potanin, on his expedition of 1891-1894, made on behalf of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society, crossed the Ya lung river in western Szechuan at Nagachuka [Hokeou] in the middle of May, 1893, and again in early June of the same year, as he traveled between Batang and Ta tsien lu. As is noted later it was in this precise neighborhood that E. H. Wilson in 1904 collected S. Sweginzowii (no. 4080) and it is not unlikely that the plant growing in the arboretum of Max von Sivers was raised from seed collected in the same district by Potanin. Schneider (111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 780, 191 1) states that he has seen no wild example of S. Sweginzowii but adds that close to it is a specimen in the herbarium of the Botanic Garden at St. Petersburg which was gathered in "desertum Sumpan," SYRINGA SWEGINZOWII 125 also spelled Sungpan, in Szechuan, on June 1 1, 1894, by Berezovski. Mr. Wilson tells me that he considers the use of the word desert as strange since Sungpan is a most fertile region. Schneider mentions the flowers as undeveloped and the fruit as scarcely different. According to Bretschneider (Hist. Europ. Bot. Discov. China, 1023, 1898) Michael Michaelovich Berezovski was zoologist of the Potanin expedi- tion of 1 891-1894, and was at Sungpan from February 23 to October 15, 1894. Bretschneider writes: "The Botan. Garden, St. Petersb. received from Berezovski a small but interesting collection of herbarium specimens and seeds from this expedition. Some of these plants have been raised there." Wilson, as noted later, in August, 1910, collected S. Sweginzowii (no. 4569) at Sungpan, and it is probable that the specimen noted by Schneider was the same species. It is possible therefore that either Berezovski or Potanin presented to Max von Sivers the material from which was grown his plant of S. Sweginzowii. Koehne in 1910 describes the flowers of S. Sweginzowii as salmon-colored, and the fruit capsules as smooth like those of 5. Josikaea, Bretschneideri [ = S. villosa], Emodi, Giraldiana, persica, chinensis and vulgaris. He complains that the specimens which he studied were cut off so short that it was impossible to tell whether they were terminal or lateral although he believes them in this species to be typically terminal as in S. Josikaea, Bretschneideri [ = S. villosa], Giraldiana and Emodi. Possibly Koehne was writing, not of S. Giraldiana Schneider, but of the plant here called S. oblata var. Giraldii Rehder. This has smooth fruit capsules while those of S. Giraldiana are marked with lenticels. Both bloom from lateral buds. Schneider, as here noted under S. Giraldiana, placed that species in the wrong group of Lilacs (Villosae) for its flower clusters are produced from lateral, not from terminal, buds. It was not until 191 2 that Schneider identified the specimen (no. 4080) collected for Messrs. James Veitch and Sons by E. H. Wilson in June, 1904, with this species. He writes that the country of the typical 5. Sweginzowii is still unknown and that the Wilson specimen "differs only in the leaves being glabrous beneath, in the distinctly but minutely puberulous inflorescence and branchlets, and in the nearly truncate calyx." I have found, on other herbarium material and on the living plants in the Arnold Arboretum collection, that the leaves are pilose along the veins beneath, not glabrous, while the puberulous character of "the inflorescence and branchlets" is rarely present, these in general being glabrous. As mentioned under the nearly related 5. tomentella Bureau and Franchet, pubescent and glabrous forms, often connected by intermediate plants, are to be found in many Lilac species, and in this genus pubescence does not appear to be a consistent character. Exami- nation of the specimen (no. 4080) described by Schneider, shows the calyx to be sometimes truncate, sometimes finely toothed. Nor does this appear, in other specimens, to be a fixed character. Mr. Wilson's field notes state that the plant (no. 4080) was growing in a ravine at an elevation of 11,000 ft., and was a bush 6 ft. tall. His diary more specifically 126 THE LILAC records that he collected it in a ravine in the descent to the Ya lung river at Naga- chuka, the Tibetan name for Hokeou, on June 13, 1904. A second specimen of S. Sweginzowii (no. 4569) also collected by Wilson and now in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum, was a bush 6 ft. tall, growing in thickets at an altitude of 8000 to 10,000 ft. ; this was found in northern Szechuan, towards Sungpan, in August, 1910. It was this specimen which Schneider in 191 2 described as S. tetanoloba; he writes: "Though the specimen is rather meager, this form can be easily distinguished from S. Sweginzowii Koehne and Lingelsheim and from all other species of this group by the extremely long lobes of the corolla." In 1 91 7 he writes: "This species described from a meager specimen proves identical with 5. Sweginzowii Koehne and Lingelsheim. It comes from the Sungpan region from which seeds of the type probably have been introduced to Petrograd by Russian botanists." Lingelsheim in 1920 retains 5. tetanoloba as a species but notes that he has not seen the Wilson material. In 191 1 Schneider writes that he has seen 5. Sweginzowii in bloom in the Jardin des Plantes, Paris, in 1909, and has himself received it in 1908 from Max von Sivers. He states in two instances (111. Handb. Laubholzk., 1. c; Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges., 1. c.) that the plant is found in gardens under the name 5. pubescens. In the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum are rive specimens of S. Sweginzowii from Schneider's herbarium: one (unnumbered) from the Jardin des Plantes; a second (no. 1) from the arboretum of Max von Sivers at Roemershof, Russia; a third and fourth (nos. 761 h and 244 a) from the Imperial Botanic Garden, St. Petersburg; and a fifth (no. 1063) from the Forestry Institute, St. Petersburg. On most of these Schneider has noted that the plant was grown "sub nomine pu- bescens.," Silva Tarouca and Schneider also mention that it is sometimes culti- vated under that name. Bois and Grignan state that this species was introduced to France from central China through the Museum of Natural History, Paris. In England S. Sweginzowii was exhibited for the first time at a meeting of the Royal Horticultural Society on June 8, 191 5, by Mr. Vicary Gibbs, when it re- ceived an Award of Merit. "The Gardeners' Chronicle" of 191 5, where this exhibit is noted, gives an excellent figure of this species, which, although only a small pot-plant, was flowering abundantly. The Arnold Arboretum received its first plant (no. 17,360 Arn. Arb.) in November 1910, from the nursery of Regel and Kesselring of St. Petersburg. It flowered for the first time in 191 2 (Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 59, 1. c). Although, like many other Lilac species, S. Sweginzowii does not produce the extremely large individual flowers associated with the modern garden forms of the Common Lilac, yet they possess a delicacy and refinement which makes them extremely beautiful. It is one of the loveliest of all the Lilacs. The plant in the Arboretum is about ten feet tall, with graceful, slender branches, arching, when in bloom, under the weight of many clusters; these appear normally from terminal, but frequently also from lateral buds on the same branchlet. The dark color of the leafy shoots upon which the SYRINGA SWEGINZOWII 127 clusters are borne, and the dark rhachis, contrast noticeably with the pale yellowish pink flowers. The clusters are open, never crowded, so that the beauty of the individual flower with its slender tube and narrow, spreading lobes, is seen to full advantage. The anthers are hidden. The flowers have a pleasant and delicate fragrance. In winter the gray bark, marked with dark lenticels, is a noticeable feature of this shrub and at this time the plant is seen to be extremely "twiggy." The leaves unfold late in the spring and fall early in the autumn. Each year the species blooms profusely and in the Arboretum has proved entirely hardy. Professor Sargent (Bull. Am. Arb. n. s. vi. 51, 1920) in mentioning the eighteen best new shrubs for northern gardens introduced up to 1920 includes S. Swegin- zowii. He considers it hardy in southern New England and the middle United States. The species was named for Sweginzov, governor of the Russian province of Livonia, of which Riga was the capital city. See von Schwerin in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 34, 351 (1924). The approved common name of Chengtu Lilac has been adopted by "Standard- ized Plant Names." I know of no specimen which has been collected at Chengtu. S. Sweginzowii is closely related, and bears a striking resemblance, to 5. tomen- tella Bureau and Franchet, although it is more slender in habit and inflorescence. It is close also to S. villosa Vahl although the two differ widely in general ap- pearance. The 5. Sweginzowii superba which was introduced by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, in 191 5, I believe to be identical with the typical form. In a letter of December 8, 1925, which is quoted under the hybrid 5. nanceiana, Mr. E. Lemoine states that in 1907 he received branches of this plant from the Museum of Natural History, Paris, where it was cultivated under the number 5576 and where it did not flourish. After it had flowered he recognized its nearness to the S. Sweginzowii which he had received from the late Max von Sivers of Riga. In the English edition of the Lemoine catalogue no indication is given that this variety is in any respect different from typical S. Sweginzowii. It states: "This superb plant was introduced from central China through the Paris Museum. Its leaves, of moderate size, are dull green and sharply pointed; its flowers, borne in long ramose clusters covering the whole shrub in June, are of a soft flesh colour and deliciously fragrant; it is one of the loveliest shrubs we possess." S. Sweginzowii superba was figured in "The Gardeners' Chronicle" for 1918, but in the illustration no differences from the type are apparent, nor are any noted in the text. The article, which is unsigned, states that "Mr. Turner, of Slough, showed an improved form named superba at the meeting [of the Royal Horticultural Society] on May 28, last and the variety also received an Award of Merit." This may indicate the origin of the approved common name Turner adopted for S. Sweginzowii superba by "Standardized Plant Names." So far as I know Mr. Turner merely exhibited the plant. Specimens from a plant (no. 689) of this name growing in 128 THE LILAC the collection of the Department of Parks, Rochester, New York, show flower clusters varying in length from nine to eleven inches. Upon one specimen, what appears to be one extremely large inflorescence, is produced by five flower-clusters, four of which are lateral, and one terminal. These specimens show no characters which are not to be found in plants of typical S. Sweginzowii when grown under good conditions. Rehder (Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 1. c.) retains 5. Swegin- zowii superba as a variety but notes that it is "scarcely different" from the type. SYRINGA GIRALDIANA Syringa Giraldiana Schneider in Engler, Bot. Jahrb. xxxvi. Beibl. no. 82, p. 88 (1905) ; 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 779, figs. 488 a-b, n-o, 489 f (191 1); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 227, 230 (1911). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 84 (1920). — Kache in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 28, 249 (1919). — Stares, Cerines {Syringa L.), 4, 23 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). A shrub apparently in habit like S. villosa of the subsect. Villosae. Branches gray- brown, very glabrous, with yellower branchlets, sparingly lenticellate. Leaves narrow at the base, broad elliptic or oblong, short-acuminate at the apex, more rarely rotundate- acuminate, 4-8 cm. long, 1.5-4 cm. broad, brownish green (in dried specimens) and very glabrous above, paler, white-villous along the veins, petiole 1 cm. long, sparingly pilose above. Inflorescence (fruiting only known) more or less loose, about 10 cm. long, very glabrous, minutely lenticellate. Calyx rather small, campanulate, 1 mm. long and equally broad, open sinuate-denticulate. Fruit falcate, 1-1.5 cm- l°ng, acute, conspicu- ously covered with numerous lenticels. Flowers unknown. (Translation of description given by A. Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 84, 1920.) Habitat: China: province of Shensi. C. K. Schneider first wrote of Syringa Giraldiana from a fruiting specimen (no. 4405) collected by the Rev. Giuseppe Giraldi, a Roman Catholic missionary, in the province of Shensi, China. All the Giraldi collections are in the Biondi- Giraldi Herbarium in the Botanical Museum, Florence, Italy. Dr. Pampanini kindly sent me a complete record of all Giraldi material with their notations and this record shows that S. Giraldiana (no. 4405) was collected in August, 1899, "in cacumine Lin-sui-san prope Ngo-san," in northern Shensi. According to Dr. Bretschneider (Hist. Europ. Bot. Discov. China, 928, 1898) Giraldi collected from 1890 to 1895 in the province of Shensi, especially in Mt. Tai pai shan in the Tsin ling Range. Giraldi's labels frequently note his collections as made in northern Shensi but this range of mountains runs more nearly through central, or south of central, Shensi. Fragments and a photograph of this specimen were kindly sent me by Dr. Pampanini. Schneider briefly described it as a shrub, resembling in habit S. villosa, but differing from that species in the more pilose branches of the infloresence, in the shorter pedicels and in the verrucose fruit capsules. He notes that in these latter S. Giraldiana seems to bear some relation to 5. Dielsiana and to S. microphylla, — two species which have since been united. At fruiting time he states that the calyx is more or less deformed and almost glabrous. The flowers he has not seen. 129 130 THE LILAC In his "Illustriertes Handbuch der Laubholzkunde" he gives the locality where the plant was collected as the Tsin ling Range, which Lingelsheim in his monograph points out is incorrect. Later (Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges., 1. c.) Schneider classifies the plant as close to 5. reflexa, as well as to S. villosa but he here places it in the wrong group of Lilacs, for its flower clusters are produced from lateral, rather than from terminal buds and not upon leafy shoots. I have not seen the original speci- men but it was examined by Mr. Alfred Rehder when in Florence, and he then noted that S. Giraldiana "belongs to the 5. pubescens group." Lingelsheim also states that Schneider classified it wrongly, and he identifies with this species another unnumbered specimen collected on July 14, 1897, by Giraldi at Kiu tou san, Shensi, which is also in the Biondi-Giraldi Herbarium. I have seen but a fragment of the type specimen; the fruit is similar to that of the other species of this group, — slender, sparingly and slightly verrucose, with an acute to acuminate apex. The leaves, in form elliptic to oblong, are short acuminate at their apex, glabrous above, paler and villose on the midrib and at the base of the lower veins beneath. The petiole is about %/% in. long. As noted under S. pinetorum W. W. Smith, S. Giraldiana and certain other Lilacs classified in the same group need further study. Plate LXI H SYRINGA JULIANAE (Arnold Arboretum no. 6624) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1925. Plate LXII SYRINGA JULIANAE (Arnold Arboretum no. 6624) Expanding buds, enlarged. May 3, 1926. Plate LXIII 01 c p in - o o W < < I— i r- h-> E o c O CO o l-l o C l-l o 4-3 '53 o o o c M C M c Plate LX1Y ■* >-l < o tH 1— t < o i CO i -t-> M < k3 Plate LXV SYRINGA JULIANAE (Arnold Arboretum no. 6624) Fruit, enlarged. Picked August, 1924. Plate LXVI 10 ZA~^XA in. broad, acute or acuminate, base cuneate, occasionally rounded, ciliolate, dark green, short-pubescent, rarely almost glabrous above, paler, villous or pubescent, rarely only pilose on the veins beneath; petiole \irY2 in. long, slender, pubescent, rarely pilose, tinged Dark Indian Red (xxvn.). Inflorescence lateral, rarely terminal, upright, 2-5 in. long, Yi m- broad; rhachis puberulent, rarely glabrous, Dark Indian Red (xxvn.), sparingly lenticellate; pedicel short, pubescent, rarely glabrous; calyx spreading at top, glabrous, with acute teeth, Dark Indian Red (xxvn.); corolla-tube slender, cylindric, 5/i6 in. long; corolla-lobes spreading at right angles to corolla-tube, frequently 5 or 6 in number, pointed, cucullate; corolla Y%m. in diameter; color in bud Dull Indian Purple to Vinace- 181 < 132 THE LILAC ous-Lilac (xliv.); when expanded Light Vinaceous-Lilac to white tinged with Pale Vinaceous-Lilac without, white with eye of Light Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) within; anthers Light Brownish Drab (xlv.), inserted just below the mouth of corolla-tube. Capsule oblong, dull, dark brown, sometimes smooth when immature, generally verrucose, Yi in. long, acuminate. (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant (no. 6624) growing in the Arnold Arboretum.) Habitat: China: province of Hupeh. Syringa Julianae was first discovered in late October or early November, 1901, at Fang hsien in the northwestern part of the province of Hupeh, China, by E. H. Wilson. His field book states that it was a bush 10 ft. tall, growing at an altitude of about 8000 ft. and somewhat uncommon. Seed, no. 1220 a, Mr. Wilson tells me, was sent by him in that year to Messrs. James Veitch and Sons, Coombe Wood, who raised and distributed plants under the name S. villosa. The "Botanical Magazine" for 191 2 notes that "The plant which supplied the material for our plate was obtained from Messrs. Veitch in 1909 under the name S. villosa." One plant was sent to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; another to the Arnold Arboretum where it was received in November, 1907, and first flowered in 1909. Schneider's original description, based on Wilson's no. 1220 a (ex Hort. Veitch), translated, reads: Apparently a short and densely branched shrub, height?; the young to two-year-old branches more or less densely villose, setose, one year bran chiefs blackish gray; leaves about like fig. 487 m, the point sometimes less distinct, above deep dull green, more or less short- villose, beneath somewhat grayish green, more densely pubescent especially along the chief veins, also the petiole pubescent, [the leaves] 2.5 x 1 to 4.3 x 2.3 cm. on flowering branchlets. The in- florescence small, about 6 cm. long, axis and pedicels pubescent like the branches, flowers pale or whitish lilac, calyx violet, glabrous, distinctly toothed, corolla-lobes spreading, about 2-2.5 Toam.. long; the fruit unknown. There is in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum an immature fruiting speci- men sent from Kew which was taken from the type plant (no. 1220 a) and which shows the fruit capsules at that stage to be non- verrucose. Verrucose fruit capsules are now considered to be characteristic of this species. Specimens in the same herbarium collected over a period of years from both a plant at Holm Lea, Brook- line, Massachusetts, and from the Arboretum plant, indicate how imperfectly one can estimate the true worth of an immature plant ; for flowering specimens taken in 1909, the first year of blooming, show short, compact flower-clusters, resembling only in botanical characters the more open and larger ones produced on the same plants in 1910, 191 2 and 191 7. In the same herbarium is a specimen (no. 2579) of unopened flowers and of old fruit, which was collected by E. H. Wilson in western Hupeh during his expedition to China of 1 907-1 908, and upon which Schneider based his species Syringa verru- cosa. Upon it at a later time Schneider changed the determination to S. Julianae. It was collected on a cliff on the summit of Wem tsao Mt., Hsing shan hsien, SYRINGA JULIANAE 133 in western Hupeh, at an altitude of about 7000 ft., and is noteworthy because of the glabrous branches, rhachis and pedicels; the leaves are merely pilose on the veins beneath, rather than as commonly, short-pubescent. Wilson writes in his "A Naturalist in Western China": "On the summit Box is a common shrub and growing with it I discovered a new species of Lilac, S. verrucosa." Of S. verrucosa [ = 5. Julianae] Schneider states: "This species seems to be nearly allied to 5. yunnanensis Franchet, of which I have not yet seen ripe fruits, and it is not impossible that it is identical with 5. yunnanensis, but in that species the leaves are much paler, rather whitish beneath, and the inflorescence is finely pilose. S. verrucosa and S. yunnanensis require further study." S. Julianae differs from the species 5. yunnanensis, among other respects, in the fact that the leaves are epapillose on the under surface and the anthers violet, not yellow. Moreover in 5. Julianae the flower clusters appear from lateral, rather than from terminal buds as in 5. yunnanensis, and the two species belong therefore to different groups of Lilacs. This species is most nearly related to S. velutina Komarov and to me bears a striking resemblance in habit and inflorescence to old plants of S. velutina (no. 5473-1 Arn. Arb.) growing in the Arnold Arboretum since 1902 which until recently were considered to be a distinct species, S. Koehneana Schneider, although when received from Regel and Kesselring they bore the name 5. velutina. See 5. velutina. Schneider notes that he named S. Julianae for his wife. Juliana Lilac has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names." Growing in the Arnold Arboretum S. Julianae (no. 6624 Arn. Arb.) forms a hemispherical shrub ; it is well covered with small foliage, velvet-like to the touch, and, during the first and second weeks of June, with many clusters of pale flowers of a not very pleasing fragrance; the branchlets bearing them are dark reddish purple. These flower-clusters are frequently produced, on the same branchlet, from several pairs of lateral buds, sometimes from as many as four, and as they mingle with each other have the appearance of one large inflorescence. When open the individual flower is noticeably darker without than within and the pale grayish blue anthers are noticeable in the throat. It is not unusual to find flowers with five or six corolla-lobes, rather than the customary four. The leaves unfold moderately early in the spring and are retained, still green, until late October. The bark of the old wood is interestingly marked with dark-edged fissures, net-like in effect. The habit of the plant is such that it can be grown to better advantage as an isolated specimen than in a mixed planting. Plate LXYII SYRINGA VELUTINA (Arnold Arboretum no. 10,955) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1925. Plate LXVIII SYRINGA VELUTINA (Arnold Arboretum no. 10,955-6) Expanding buds, enlarged. April 30, 1926. Plate LXIX 5 t/3 ■— 3 cd s < Cfl o 3 < O en 3 Plate LXX SYRINGA VELUTINA (Arnold Arboretum no. 9320) Flower clusters. June 7, 1924. Plate LXXI o •< f*5 a * 1— 1 d t^. H c a> & <—* c u £ 3 w 3 •— » > O o « < o a < o o cq SYRINGA VELUTINA Syringa velutina Komarov in Act. Hort. Petrop. xviii. 428 (1901) (Sp. Nov. Fl. As. Or., p. 12); in Act. Hort. Petrop. xxv. 254, 1. 11. (Fl. Mansh. in.) (1907). — M. Smith in Hemsley in Jour. Linn. Soc. London, xxxvi. 524 (Ind. Fl. Sin. in.) (1903-1905). — Schneider, HI. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 778, figs. 488 e-h, 489 n-o (1911); 1062 (1912); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 227, 229 (1911). — Nakai in Jour. College Sci. Univ. Tokyo, xxxi. 91 (Fl. Kor. pt. 11.) (1911); in Tokyo Bot. Mag. xxxii. 129 (1918); Fl. Sylv. Kor. x. 49, t. xx., fig. a (p. 50) (1921). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 57, June 5 (1914); n. s. viii. 23 (1912). — Bean, Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, 11. 569 (1914), under S. Julianae Schneider. — Goeze in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 25, 173 (1916). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3302 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 754 (1927). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 86 (1920), excluding synonym S. Potanini Schneider. — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922), under S. Koehneana Schneider. — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 485 (1923). — A. 0[sborn] in Garden, lxxxvii. 302 (1923). — Horti- culture, n. s. iv. 67 (1926). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 4, 21 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). Ligustrum patulum Palibin in Act. Hort. Petrop. xvm. 156 (Consp. Fl. Kor. pt. 11. 10) (1900). — Nakai in Tokyo Bot. Mag. xxxn. 124 (1918); Fl. Sylv. Kor. x. 61 (1921). Syringa tomentella Koehne in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 19, 113 (1910), in part, as to the synonym S. velutina Komarov. Syringa Fauriei Nakai in Tokyo Bot. Mag. xxxii. 129 (1918). — Not Leveille. S\yringa) Koehneana Schneider, 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 1063, fig. 627 a-e (191 2); in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 361 (1913). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. n. s. in. 32 (1917); v. 27 (1919); vm. 23 (1922). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3302 (191 7). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922). — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 485 (1923). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 4, 22 (1926); reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). Syringa velutina Hort. according to Schneider, 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 1063 (1912), as a synonym of S. Koehneana Schneider. Syringa Palibiniana Nakai in Tokyo Bot. Mag. xxvn. 32 (1913); Rep. Veg. Diamond Mts. Corea, 182, t. m. fig. b (1917); Fl. Sylv. Kor. x. t. xxi. (1921). — Wilson in Jour. Arnold Arb. 1. 41 (1919). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. i-n. 116 (1920). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. n. s. vni. 23 (1922). — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PL Names, 485 (1923). — Rehder, Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 754 (1927). — C. S. in Garden, xci. 594, fig. (1927). Syringa villosa var. lactea Nakai in Tokyo Bot. Mag. xxvin. 330 (1914); xxrx. no. 349, 109 (1915); Rep. Veg. Mt. Chirisan, 64, 79 (1915). Syringa villosa Nakai, Rep. Veg. Mt. Chirisan, 43, 64 (1915); in Tokyo Bot. Mag. xxrx. no. 348, 109 (1915). — Not Vahl. 135 136 THE LILAC Syringa micrantha Nakai in Tokyo Bot. Mag. xxxii. 129 (1918); Fl. Sylv. Kor. x. 49, t. xix. (1921). Syringa Fauriei var. lactea Nakai in Tokyo Bot. Mag. xxxii. 130 (1918). Syringa Kamibayashii Nakai in Tokyo Bot. Mag. xxxii. 130 (1918). Syringa venosa Nakai in Tokyo Bot. Mag. xxxii. 130 (1918); Fl. Sylv. Kor. x. 53, t. xxin. (1921). Syringa venosa var. lactea Nakai in Tokyo Bot. Mag. xxxii. 131 (1918); Fl. Sylv. Kor. x. 53 (i921)- Syringa Palibiniana var. lactea Nakai, Fl. Sylv. Kor. x. 52 (1921). Syringa Palibiniana var. Kamibayashii Nakai, Fl. Sylv. Kor. x. 52, t. xxii. (1921). — Render, Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 754 (1927). A shrub up to 10 ft. tall; branches upright, slender, lenticellate; branchlets slightly pubescent, puberulous or nearly glabrous, often glandular, lenticellate, tinged at first Dark Vinaceous-Brown (xxxix.). Winter-buds ovoid with acute apex, flower bud Y% in. long more or less, scales often loosely appressed, dark purplish brown with reddish brown margins, acuminate, puberulous, sometimes glabrous, third pair of scales frequently longer than fourth pair. Leaf-scar much raised, shallow shield-shaped, conspicuous, small; bundle-trace raised, semicircular. Leaves elliptic to ovate-elliptic to broad-elliptic, 1-4 in. long, %-2 in. broad, acuminate, short-acuminate or obtusish, base broad-cuneate or rounded, ciliolate, slightly pubescent to glabrous above, densely or slightly pubescent or glabrous and pilose on the midrib and primary veins beneath; petiole yi~% in. long, pubescent or pilose; sometimes tinged Dark Vinaceous-Brown (xxxix.). Inflorescence lateral, upright, 2^-8 in. long; rhachis, pedicel and calyx pubescent, puberulous or glabrous, tinged Dark Vinaceous-Brown (xxxix.); pedicel short; calyx with shallow, rounded or acute teeth; corolla-tube funnelform, Vio-3/io in. long; corolla-lobes remaining upright or expanding to a right angle with corolla-tube, sometimes curling backward as they fade, short, broad at base, acute or obtuse at apex, usually cucullate; corolla 1/h~3/w in. in diameter, color in bud Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) or white tinged same; when expanded white tinged with Light Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) without, white within; anthers Dark Slate-Purple to Vinaceous-Purple (xliv.), inserted just below the mouth of corolla-tube, small. Capsule slender, oblong, %-% in. long, obtusish, acuminate or acute, marked with few or numerous small lenticels, each valve terminating frequently in a short, slender tip. (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant (no. 10,955) growing in the Arnold Arboretum.) Habitat: Korea. Syringa velutina was collected in 1897 in northern Korea by V. L. Komarov who, in his "Species Novae Florae Asiae Orientalis" published in 1901 in the "Acta Horti Petropolitani," described it for the first time as a shrub 6-12 ft. tall, branched, with slender erect branches, with gray bark marked by many lenticels; the leaves papery, petioled, blade ovate, 3-6-nerved, cuneate or attenuate at the base, rarely rounded, the apex more or less acuminate, the margins ciliolate, above dull green, minutely pilosulous, beneath pale, very densely velvety (rarely villose), with small beards along the veins, the petioles white-pilose and glandular; the inflorescence all densely short-pilose and minutely glandular, the panicle unin- SYRINGA VELUTINA 137 terrupted, pyramidal, the pedicels almost lacking or as long as calyx, the calyx velvety white-pilose, glandular at the base, the bracts minute, glandular, lanceolate, obtuse, the corolla slender, up to i cm. long, fragrant; the capsule obliquely elon- gated, warty, the seeds oblong, winged. Komarov cites three unnumbered specimens: the first collected on June 23, in the district of Musang, in the valley of Kosari pi at the rocky summit of the mountains; the second on July 1, among the rocks of the mountains following the valley of Un czchen gan, below the small town of U czen po, in the district of Kap san; the third, with mature seed, on August 31, in the valley of the river Jalu dsian, above the mouth of the river Cza schin gan (Cze son gan) in the province of Kenge, district of Cze son. Komarov notes that this species differs from S. pubescens Turczaninov in its gray bark, in its larger leaves, pilosulous above and velvety beneath, in its inflorescence with glandular-pilose calyx, and in its corolla ten times longer than the calyx; and from S. villosa Vahl in its uninterrupted in- florescence, its gray bark, its fruit capsules acute when mature, its leaves pilose (not glabrous) above, and in its entire habit. 5. velutina is closely related to S. pubescens, but belongs to a different group of Lilacs from S. villosa which produces its flower clusters, leafy at the base, from terminal rather than from lateral buds as in S. velutina. In a second description of S. velutina which appeared in his "Flora Manshuriae," also published in the "Acta Horti Petropolitani" in 1907, Komarov states further that the plant differs from S. villosa in its elliptic acuminate leaves, puberulous above, in its uninterrupted inflorescence, in its fruit which is often beaked, and in its always smaller stature; and from S. microphylla Diels, a species to which it is closely related, in its leaves very attenuate at the base, in its pinnate, not reticulate veins, and in its most dense velvety pubescence. He tells us that the plant occurs quite frequently among rocks, rocky slopes, or mountain gravel. Fragments from a specimen of 5. velutina collected by Komarov, no. 1259, which is in the Biondi-Giraldi Herbarium, Florence, Italy, were sent me by Dr. Pam- panini. It is dated May 22, 1897, and came from "Fluvium Turingan (?), Dis- trictus Musang, Trajectus Czao-rieng," in northern Korea. It was received at Florence from the herbarium of the Imperial Botanic Garden, St. Petersburg. Lingelsheim cites this specimen. Dr. Takenoshin Nakai also found the plant in northern Korea and he cites (Tokyo Bot. Mag., 1. c), in addition to Komarov's specimen (no. 1259), three others which he himself had found: one (no. 2185) at Cho dado, another (same number) from the mountain Ba jo rei, and a third (no. 2183) from Tai ko ri. He cites as a Japanese name for this species "Usuge-hashidoi" or "Birodo-hashidoi." Mr. E. H. Wilson, on his expedition to eastern Asia made for the Arnold Arbo- retum in 1917-1918, had the opportunity to observe the plant growing wild in Korea, and from seed (nos. 9128 and 9320) which he gathered in September, 191 7, numer- ous plants have been raised, now flowering yearly in the Arnold Arboretum collection. 138 THE LILAC The Ligustrum patulum of Palibin is based upon a specimen collected by Miss A. Sonntag, who, according to Bretschneider (Hist. Europ. Bot. Discov. China, 095, 1898), resided at the Russian Legation at Seoul, Korea. Her collections were given to the Botanic Garden, St. Petersburg. In the herbarium of the Museum of Natural History, Paris, is a specimen which bears the label: "Ligustrum patulum Palib[in]. Korea, Seoul: prope Tap Tong, 20 Majo 1895 (Sontag)." This notation is identical with that given by Palibin for his type specimen, and the example in Paris is presumably a co-type. It was received from the Botanic Garden, St. Petersburg. In his description of this new species Palabin does not mention the color of the flowers; he states that the leaves are villose beneath along the midrib and margins. There is nothing in the description which is not applicable to a Lilac; he had not seen the berries, — "Baccae non visae." I examined the Sonntag specimen which is in Paris and believe it to be identical, both in flowers and in foliage with S. velutina Komarov; it is an example of the less pubescent form, classified by Nakai as S. Palibiniana (here considered to be a synonym of S. velutina), a plant with leaves glabrous above but pilose along the midrib and primary veins beneath. In writing of Ligustrum patulum Palibin, Nakai (Tokyo Bot. Mag., 1. a), without enumerating it among the species which he records, states that this species, which he has not seen, is said to have leaves cordate at the base. He cites no specimen and I do not know upon what he based this opinion for Palibin describes the leaves as ovate, ovate-elliptic, acuminate, and makes no mention of a cordate base. The leaves of the Paris specimen are not cordate. Nakai states that Ligu- strum patulum is the same as Ligustrum acutissimum Koehne, but after examining the Paris specimen he recognized it as a Syringa as is shown by his note on the specimen a photograph of which is in the Arnold Arboretum. Koehne (Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges., 1. c), in writing of S. tomentella Bureau and Franchet, gives as a synonym S. velutina Komarov, and bases his description upon a living plant cultivated in the arboretum of Max von Sivers. He is confusing the Komarov plant with the S. velutina of Bureau and Franchet [ = S. tomentella] when he states that it was introduced, according to Niemetz (Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 17, 191, 1908), by Simon-Louis freres, but he is writing of the true S. velutina Komarov when he notes that it was growing in the arboretum of Max von Sivers at Roemershof, Russia. Lingelsheim mentions the plant as cultivated in that collection. The S. velutina of Bureau and Franchet is discussed under S. tomentella. Under the name S. velutina a plant was received at the Arnold Arboretum in November, 1902, from the nursery of Regel and Kesselring, St. Petersburg, and two plants (no. 5473-1 Arn. Arb.) now in the collection were raised from grafts, taken February, 1907, from that original plant. These first flowered in 1914 (Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 57, June 5, 1914) and since 191 7 have done so each year. Schneider, who first described 5. Koehneana in 191 2, basing it upon Koehne's S. tomentella just mentioned, in 1916 identified with this species an herbarium SYRINGA VELUTINA 139 specimen now in the Arnold Arboretum which was taken from one of these plants, and the name under which the plant had arrived, — S. velutina, — was then, and until recently, abandoned. Schneider's S. Koehneana is now very generally con- sidered to be only a synonym of S. velutina from which, according to his description and figures, it differs in no important particular. Both Schneider and Rehder mention S. velutina Hort. as a synonym of S. Koehneana Schneider. Dr. Nakai was evidently for a time confused in regard to the S. Fauriei of Leveille for (Tokyo Bot. Mag. xxxn. 129, 1918) he gives as a synonym of that species 5. Palibiniana Nakai, and still later (Fl. Sylv. Kor. x. 51, t. xxn., 192 1) cites S. Fauriei Nakai (not Leveille) as a synonym of S. Palibiniana. In describing (Tokyo Bot. Mag. xxxn. 129, 1918) this S. Fauriei [ = S. velutina] he names the Wilson specimen (no. 8602) which is here later noted as an example of the white- flowered form of S. velutina. He cites also six specimens of his own collecting (nos. 64, 658, 393) from Mt. Chirisan and (nos. 5751, 5755, 5758) from Kum gang san; also the Faurie (no. 715) and B. Maruyama (no. 929) specimens from Kum gang san. The plant's Japanese name is given as " Chosen-hashidoi " and its Korean name as "No-dul-mok." A Faurie specimen (no. 715) from the Diamond Mountains is in the Arnold Arboretum herbarium. With S. Palibiniana he also (Fl. Sylv. Kor. x. 51, 1921) identifies the S. villosa Nakai (not Vahl) which he had mentioned earlier, under the name S. villosa Vahl, as growing at Mt. Chirisan. Dr. Nakai has described as distinct species four Lilacs which I have here included in the species S. velutina, — S. Palibiniana, S. micrantha, S. Kamibayashii (which he later classifies as a variety of his 5. Palibiniana) and S. venosa. In Syringa many species have glabrous and pubescent forms between which exist intermediate examples. For that reason I consider pubescence to have no great value in a classification of Lilacs, and have included in 5. velutina, both the pubescent, the glabrous, and the intermediate forms. Pubescence is, moreover, a character which in Lilacs varies with the age of the plant and is more in evidence in the spring than in late summer. According to Nakai (Tokyo Bot. Mag., 1. c.) his S. Palibiniana is closely related to S. velutina and to S. oblata Lindley, differing from the former in its broader and glabrous leaves and in the narrower lobes of the calyx, and from both species in the few-flowered inflorescence, and in the distinct bracts, and from S. oblata in the form of the stigma. It was described from a single specimen, no number is given, collected in September, 1 901, by Urbain Faurie in Korea, without precise locality, and named for Dr. I. Palibin. In his next description (Fl. Sylv. Kor. x. 51, 1921) Nakai modifies this description and states that the leaves of S. Palibiniana are glabrous above but pilose along the midrib and primary veins beneath. Of its occurrence he states: "Hab. in montibus Peninsulae praeter boreali- et australi-extremas." When at the Arnold Arboretum in 1924, Dr. Nakai 140 THE LILAC determined as S. Palibiniana two herbarium specimens taken from cultivated plants (nos. 10,956, 11,704 Arn. Arb.) which were raised from seed (no. 9128) col- lected by E. H. Wilson in Korea in September, 191 7. In both of these specimens the leaves are pubescent above, while beneath they are pubescent and pilose along the midrib and primary veins. To me these examples appear to be intermediate, as far as their pubescent character is concerned, between the extremely pubescent plants of 5. velutina (no. 5473-1 Arn. Arb.) to which reference has already been made, and other plants, more nearly glabrous, which are growing in the Arboretum collection. From seed (no. 9320) collected by Wilson in Korea on September 21, 191 7, were raised numerous plants (no. 10,955 Arn. Arb.) which are of good size and have bloomed for a number of years. Two of these, as can be seen upon herbarium material, are glabrous above and pilose merely on the midrib and primary veins beneath, — being close therefore to Nakai's 5. Palibiniana, — while a third is intermediate in amount of pubescence and belongs, strictly speaking, neither to S. velutina nor to S. Palibiniana, although it more nearly approaches the former. While it is probable that Mr. Wilson's seed (no. 9320) was collected from more than one plant, yet he tells me that in the field these were certainly adjacent and, according to his judgment at the time, of one species. In no important respect, other than in their pubescence, do the cultivated plants raised differ from one another. Mr. Wilson, who has had the opportunity to observe S. velutina and 5. Palibiniana growing spontaneously, is of the opinion that they represent extreme forms of one species, connected by intermediate examples. The Arboretum is fortunate in possessing in its herbarium sufficient wild and cultivated material to substantiate this opinion. Most of the spontaneous specimens collected by Mr. Wilson approach more nearly to the glabrous form; such are: no. 10,741, from the province of Keiki (fruit and foliage, September 24, 1918); no. 10,491, from the province of Kogen (flowers and foliage, July 6, 1918); and no. 8796, from the province of N. Heian (flowers and foliage, June 22, 191 7). Other specimens, however, such as no. 9128 from the S. Kankyo and N. Heian divide (fruit and foliage, September 5, 191 7), and no. 9320, from the province of Kogen (foliage, October 9, 191 7), more nearly approach, in their pubescence, the typical form of 5. velutina. In the catalogue of the Lemoine firm for 1922-1923 (no. 196, 20) S. Palibiniana appears as "A new species introduced from Korea by E. H. Wilson." In first describing his S. Kamibayashii, Dr. Nakai (Tokyo Bot. Mag., 1. c.) states that it is related to S. Fauriei [ = S. Palibiniana Nakai, not 5. Fauriei Leveille], but differs in its subrotundate leaves, in its densely flowered inflorescence, and in its acute or obtusish fruit marked with larger lenticels. He described his plant from a specimen, no number is given, collected by Keijiro Kamibayashi "in rupibus Dohosan" and states that its Japanese name is "Maruba-hashidoi." Later (Fl. Sylv. Kor., 1. c.) he reduces it to a variety of his 5. Palibiniana, a classification followed by Rehder (Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 1. c). In 5. velutina, and SYRINGA VELUTINA 141 indeed in many of the species closely related to it, the form of the leaf varies so considerably that it is possible to find widely divergent examples; the size and density of the inflorescence also are variable and are presumably determined by soil, light, altitude, and other conditions; the fruit capsules also vary somewhat, possibly for the same reasons, in size and to a certain extent in form, some being longer, more slender, and marked with a slightly greater number of small lenticels than others. At their apex they vary from obtusish to acute or acuminate, and frequently, but not always, are terminated by a short, slender tip or beak. I consider that 5. Palibiniana var. Kamibayashii, in the form of its leaves, in the density of its inflorescence, and in the form of its fruit, offers no characters sufficiently distinct to separate it from the extremely variable S. velutina. The specimens (nos. 10,712, 10,664) collected by E. H. Wilson, in Korea (1917-1918), the former at Kongo san, province of Kogen, the latter at Pokadong, Unsan district, province of N. Heian, have been considered to represent this variety Kamibayashii. In first describing his 5. micrantha, Nakai states that it is intermediate between S. microphylla Diels and S. velutina Komarov, but differs from the former in its larger leaves and smaller flowers and from the latter in its three times smaller flowers. He described the species from a specimen collected by Masatomi Furumi (no. 65) in northern Korea, where it was common on the slopes of Ko sui in. Its Japanese name is given as "Hime-hashidoi". A fragment of a co-type specimen is in the Arnold Arboretum and was collected at Kosuin (Kankyonando Hasangun) in the province of N. Kankyo, on June 24, 1918. This specimen in its pubescent inflorescence and foliage approaches closely 5. velutina and I have found no character separating it as a distinct species. The flowers are small but, as already noted, this may be the result of soil or other conditions. Nakai, in describing S. venosa, relates it to his S. Fauriei [-S. Palibiniana Nakai, not S. Fauriei Leveille], but distinguished therefrom by its most glabrous branches and inflorescence, by its broader leaves with veins distinctly impressed above, — more noticeably so on living material. Its habitat is given as the island of Oryongto, Korea, and the species was described from specimens (nos. 4505 and 4193-5) collected there by Nakai, and (no. 123) by Tsutomu Ishidoya. Its Japanese name is given as "Takeshima-hashidoi." I have not seen these specimens but others in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum, which, in company with Dr. Nakai, were collected by Mr. Wilson at Oryongto (Dagelet Island), in May, 191 7, (nos. 8527 and 85 2 7 a) and which bear the determination S. venosa, do not differ in any important respect from S. velutina; the veins are not noticeably impressed nor are the leaves larger than those found on other specimens determined by Dr. Nakai as 5. Palibiniana. Moreover, for reasons already noted, the more glabrous branches, and inflorescence need not be considered in differentiating this species from S. velutina. Lingelsheim identifies with 5. velutina the species 5. Potanini Schneider from western China. While the two are without doubt closely related I have, because of 142 THE LILAC the following differences, retained them as distinct species. In S. Potanini the corolla- tube is long, slender, and cylindric; the anthers, judging from herbarium material, are yellow, and, with rare exceptions, inserted just above the middle of the corolla- tube ; in form the corolla-lobes are commonly long, narrow, and cucullate and they expand at a right angle to the corolla-tube and curl backward. In S. velutina the corolla-tube is funnelform with a wide throat; the anthers are bluish and are inserted just below the mouth of the corolla-tube; the corolla-lobes are short, broad at their base and narrow abruptly to an acute or obtuse apex; they remain more or less upright though finally expanding to a right angle with the corolla-tube and, as they fade, sometimes curl backward. The foliage of 5. Potanini is densely gray- villous-pubescent beneath while that of S. velutina even in its most pubescent form is not conspicuously so. As noted under S. Potanini it is possible that these two Lilacs, geographically widely separated, may, by the discovery of intermediate plants, at some future time be classified as extreme forms of one species. Wild plants of this species have produced white flowers. Dr. Nakai (Tokyo Bot. Mag., 1. c.) first noted a variety, which he calls 5. villosa var. lactea, distin- guished by its white flowers and bright green calyx. Its habitat is given as southern Korea, Mt. Chirisan, where it was collected by Nakai, no number is given, on July i, 1913, at an altitude of 1200 meters. Later (Tokyo Bot. Mag., 1. c.) he classifies S. villosa Nakai, not Vahl, as a synonym of S. Fauriei Leveille and mentions this white variety as 5. Fauriei var. lactea Nakai. He notes here that the corolla-tube is 10-13 mm- l°ng> and the plant's Japanese name "Shirobana-chosen-hashidoi." Its habitat is again given as Mt. Chirisan (T. Nakai no. 381). As already noted Nakai (Fl. Sylv. Kor. x. 51, 192 1) cites as a synonym of his S. Palibiniana, S. Fauriei Nakai, not Leveille, therefore the 5. Fauriei var. lactea Nakai is identical with the S. Palibiniana var. lactea Nakai (Tokyo Bot. Mag., 1. c). Again (Tokyo Bot. Mag., 1. c.) Nakai mentions a S. venosa var. lactea Nakai which he had collected (no. 4192) on the cliffs of the island of Oryongto, Korea. I have included in 5. velutina Nakai's two species S. Palibiniana and S. venosa, and also this white variety which is rather doubtful and not in cultivation. In the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum are four specimens, three of flowers and foliage and one of fruit and foliage, (no. 8602) collected by E. H. Wilson in June, 1917, at the French mine, Taiyudo, province of N. Heian, Korea, at an altitude of 330-1000 meters. The shrub is described as 5-10 ft. tall, with white to pale lilac, very fragrant flowers, abundant in woods and thickets. Mr. Wilson noted these as a white flowered variety of S. velutina but his short description calls them "white to pale lilac." The flowers of S. velutina fade to an exceedingly pale lilac or to almost white and it is doubtful whether the white flowered variety can be considered to be very distinct. In their pubescence these specimens more nearly approach the glabrous than the extremely pubescent examples of S. velutina. A photograph (Arn. Arb. no. 898) of the bark of this species which was taken by C. K. Schneider in 1915-1919 is in the Arboretum collection. It SYRINGA VELUTINA 143 represents one of the plants (Arn. Arb. no. 5473-1) long grown under the name S. Koehneana. In habit 5\ velutina differs considerably from S. microphylla Diels, another species to which it is closely related. The latter is of slenderer growth, producing each year long "whispy" branchlets; its flower-clusters appear from a great number of lateral buds on the same branchlet, causing it to bend gracefully under the weight. In S. microphylla the corolla-tube is cylindric, not funnelform as in 5. velutina, and the anthers are inserted near the middle of the corolla-tube, rather than near the mouth as in S. velutina. Nor does S. velutina show any tendency to bloom twice in the same season as does the species S. microphylla. In the Arnold Arboretum the two old plants (no. 5473-1 Arn. Arb.) of S. velutina to which reference has already been made are not heavy bloomers. They are broad-spreading, well-foliaged shrubs. The more recently acquired plants, raised from Mr. Wilson's seed (no. 9320 and 9128), up to the present time appear to be of more compact habit, and bloom more abundantly, possibly because of their more open and sunnier situation. Their flower-clusters are well filled, of good size, and have an exceedingly pleasant fragrance. S. velutina appears to be entirely hardy in the neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts. Goeze mentions 5. velutina as growing at Plantieres [the Simon-Louis Nurseries near Metz] in 1907; this is undoubtedly S. tomentella. See S. tomentella. "Standardized Plant Names" has adopted as approved common name for S. Koehneana, which they retain as a species, Schneider Lilac; of S. velutina they state that "the name S. velutina is often misapplied to S. Koehneana." This reference is undoubtedly to S. velutina Hort., here given as a synonym of S. Koehneana Schneider [ = 5. velutina]. Since the approved common name of Ko- marov Lilac, which might appropriately have been applied to the species S. velutina, has already been used- by Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey as approved common name for S. Komarowi, it would seem, according to my classification, that a common name such as Korean Lilac might have more significance than Schneider Lilac, the name adopted. The same work also retains S. Palibiniana as a species. Mr. F. L. Skinner of Dropmore, Manitoba, Canada, has attempted to cross this species and 5. pubescens. See S. pubescens Turczaninov. SYRINGA POTANINI Syringa Potanini Schneider in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. ix. 80 (1910); 111. Handb. Laub- holzk. 11. 777, figs. 487 1-m, 488 a-c, s-u (191 1); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 229 (1911); in Sargent, PI. Wilson. 1. 297 (1912). — Wilson, Naturalist in western China, 1. 184 (1913). — Goeze in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 25, 173 (1916). — A. 0[sborn] in Garden, lxxxvii. 301 (1923). — Notes Bot. Gard. Edinburgh, xrv. 144, 163, 273 (PI. Chin. Forrest.) (1924). — O. S[tapf] in Bot. Mag. cl. t. 9060 (1924). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 4, 21 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). — Rehder, Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 754 (1927); in Jour. Arnold Arb. ix. 109 (1928). Syringa sp. (F[arrer] 330) Farrer in Jour. Hort. Soc. London, xliii. 112 (1916). Syringa velutina Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 86 (1920), in part, as to the synonym S. Potanini Schneider. — Not Komarov. A shrub to 18 ft. in height; branchlets short-pubescent. Leaves broad-elliptic to oblong-elliptic, sometimes rhombic, suborbicular or obovate, 1-2% in. long, 3^-i% in- broad, acuminate, short-acuminate or obtuse, base cuneate or broadly cuneate, rarely rounded, rather densely pubescent with short stiff hairs above, densely light-gray villous- pubescent beneath; petiole Vi6_3/i6 in. long, villous-pubescent. Inflorescence from lateral buds, sometimes fascicled, upright, 3-7 in. long, 2-3 in. broad; rhachis short- pubescent; pedicel subsessile or up to x/i6 in. long, short-pubescent; calyx short-pubes- cent or sometimes pilose, margin undulate or with short, acute, or rounded teeth; corolla- tube slender, cylindric, % in. long; corolla-lobes spreading at a right angle to corolla- tube or curling backward, commonly long, narrow, cucullate, usually with a pronounced hook; corolla Y% in. in diameter; anthers usually small, rarely }/g in. long, inserted just above the middle of corolla-tube, rarely inserted slightly higher and just reaching the mouth. Capsule oblong, lustrous, smooth or sometimes minutely and slightly verru- cose, % in. long, acuminate. Habitat: China: provinces of Kansu; Szechuan; Yunnan. C. K. Schneider first described Syringa Potanini from a specimen collected on June 18, 1885, by G. A. Potanin at the river Tschi lo ku in the mountains of south- eastern Kansu, China. According to Bretschneider (Hist. Europ. Bot. Discov. China, 1013, 1898) who traces Potanin's expeditions with accuracy, this collector was, on June 18, 1885, at T'an ch'ang, a little town on the northern affluent of the Hei shui kiang River. This town, spelt also Tanchang, is in the mountains south of the Tsin ling Range and southeast of Min, or Minchow. Schneider describes 5. Potanini as a shrub up to 12 ft. tall, in habit resembling S. pubescens but differing from it in the ovate-elliptic leaves, 3-6.5 cm. long, 1.7-3.2 cm. broad, green, minutely pilose above, almost silvery pubescent beneath, at the 144 SYRINGA POTANINI 145 apex more or less acuminate ; the pedicels [ = petioles] 2-4 (-5) mm. long ; the in- florescences up to 9 cm. long, loose, in all parts short-pilose; flowers whitish-lilac (?); corolla-tube about 11 mm. long, calyx 1.5-2 mm. long with truncate margin, pedicels almost lacking; anthers deep violet; fruit unknown. In 191 1 Schneider considers it closely related to S. Dielsiana Schneider, now considered to be identical with S. microphylla Diels. In 1 91 2 he identified with S. Potanini two specimens collected by E. H. Wilson in western Szechuan. One (no. 4080 a) of flowers, was gathered in May, 1904, at Tachien lu, or Ta tsien lu, while Mr. Wilson was collecting for Messrs. James Veitch and Sons; the second (no. 2583), was taken from a bush 6-10 ft. tall, with rose-purple flowers. It came from Monkong ting, descent of Hsao chin ho, at an altitude of 7000-9000 ft. and was found in June, 1908, during Mr. Wilson's expedition for the Arnold Arboretum. Of these specimens Schneider writes: "... Wilson's specimens seem to differ from the type, of which I have seen mature leaves, only in the larger inflorescence attaining 13 cm. in length." Reginald Farrer, collecting in 1914 near the Tibetan border in southeastern Kansu, found a Lilac which he lists as no. 330 and described as follows: "... a tall, slender, and very graceful Lilac of 6-8 feet, which I have only once seen, far up, on the shady side in a collateral of the great Siku gorge, growing in a big colony amid blocks of mossy detritus from cliff-wall overhead. Its flower, so far as I could judge it at the end of June, seemed small and rather poor, in small insignificant panicles; it may however improve in cultivation." 0. Stapf, in the "Botanical Magazine" for 1924, gives a colored plate which was taken from a plant grown from seed (no. 330) collected by Farrer; it was cultivated in the "chalk-garden at High- down near Goring-on-Sea, Sussex" belonging to Major F. Stern. Stapf writes, referring to Farrer's description just quoted: ". . . it may be that the 'insignificant' panicles were merely the last of the season. At any rate the inflorescences of the plant raised by Major Stern from Farrer's seed hardly warrant the term 'insig- nificant.' I have not been able to identify this lilac with any species now in cultivation, but I have come to the conclusion that it is the same plant which the Russian explorer Potanin collected nearly thirty years before in the same district, but fifteen miles to the north and at a higher level (2,200 to 2,300 m.), and which Camillo Schneider named after him Syringa Potanini. Potanin gives the date as June 18 (Old Style), that is the first day of July of our calendar, and the locality as Tan'chang, a village to the south of Minchow, in the deeply dissected loess- country of Southern Kansu. He says nothing about the colour of the flower of his plant and the dried specimens are so far discoloured that it is unsafe to predict on this point, but the dark purple calyx and the faintly purple anthers suggest the presence of more anthocyanine in the corolla than occurs in Major Stern's plant. In every other respect Potanin's and Farrer's plants agree sufficiently to suggest their specific identity, although they may represent slightly distinct colour-strains. The extent to which the shape of the leaves varies — often on the same branch — 146 THE LILAC is remarkable, but the characteristic pubescence — very few and minute hairs on the upper side which indeed often appears glabrous to the naked eye, and a conspicuous silvery-greyish down on the underside — is always the same whatever the shape or size of the leaf. In this respect 5*. Polanini much resembles S. tomentella ... no doubt its nearest ally. It differs from it in the scanty and minute pubes- cence of the upper side of the leaves, in the slender corollas and their relatively long and narrow lobes, and also in the colour of the flowers. 6*. Potanini is perfectly hardy in this country. . ." Although in the text Stapf states that the anthers of this species are "faintly purple," in his botanical description he describes them as "faintly purplish, yellow or whitish, or the connective orange." Their color, so far as I have been able to learn from the examination of herbarium specimens, is yellow. Schneider in first describing the species states that they are dark violet; later he describes them as rose, and after the examination of the Wilson specimens, he writes: "The anthers of S. Potanini are yellow as in the nearly allied S. Dielsiana Schneider, and not violet or distinctly rosy as indicated by me in the original description. The only hitherto known species with dark violet anthers are S. pubescens Turczaninow and S. Jidianae Schneider." Among the Lilacs closely related to S. Potanini, this species is, in this particular, exceptional, for, in addition to the two Lilacs mentioned by Schneider, S. velutina, S. microphylla, and S. Meyeri have all bluish anthers. In relating S. Potanini to S. tomentella Dr. Stapf places it in the wrong group of Lilacs, for the latter produces its flower-panicles, which are leafy at their base, from terminal buds, while the former produces them from lateral buds and they are not borne on leafy shoots. In "Plantae Chinenses Forrestianae" are listed three specimens of 5. Potanini which were collected by George Forrest in Yunnan; all are represented in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum and with the exception of slight differences later noted, these resemble in every respect not only the type, of which there is a small fragment in the same herbarium, but also the specimens collected in Szechuan by E. H. Wilson. The collector's notes upon these three specimens, all identified with S. Potanini, read as follows: "No. 20135 . . . Shrub of 6-12 ft. Flowers white, flushed purple exterior, fragrant. In thickets by streams on the Yang-dza Shan, Mekong-Salwin divide. Lat. 280 18' N. Long. 980 43' E. Alt. 7-8,000 ft. March, 1 92 1. N. W. Yunnan"; "No. 20336. . . Shrub of 9-18 ft. In fruit. Open, dry situations on the Mekong-Salwin divide. Lat. 280 20' N. Long. 980 43' E. Alt. 7-8,000 ft. Sept. 1921. N. W. Yunnan"; "No. 21606 . . . Shrub of 8-16 ft. Flowers fragrant, pale creamy-rose. In thickets by streams on the Yangtze-Mekong divide, near Da-mu-chong. Lat. 270 18' N. Long. 99°48' E. Alt. 8,000 ft. March 1922. N. W. Yunnan." Other Forrest specimens, of which there are also examples in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum and which must be identified with this species, are nos. 14,157, 16,329, 16,348 and 17,237. On the two first of these is writ- ten "5. Potaninii Schneider vel aff[inis]"; I cannot see that they differ from typical S. Potanini. They were collected in Yunnan but no locality is given. S. Potanini SYRINGA POTANINI 147 was also collected in 1923 by J. F. Rock (no. 8710) on the mountains above Tseku and Tsehchung, Mekong-Salween watershed, in northwestern Yunnan. This is in the same herbarium. Lingelsheim considers typical S. Potanini, the specimen of which he has seen, to be identical with S. velutina; he does not state that he has seen the Wilson specimens which Schneider determined as identical with typical S. Potanini. I have found between the two species, which are undoubtedly nearly related, certain differences. In S. Potanini, and judging only from dried material as already stated, the anthers are yellow and are inserted as a rule just above the middle of the corolla- tube; in length they are ordinarily Vi6 of an inch; in two of the Forrest specimens (nos. 21,606 and 16,348) they are Vs in. long, and because of their greater length reach to the mouth of the corolla-tube. In 5*. velutina the anthers are bluish, and are inserted near the mouth of the corolla-tube. With the exception of the two Forrest specimens of 5. Potanini just noted, where the corolla-lobes are slightly broader and less cucullate, I have found them to be narrow with a pro- nounced hook; after being expanded for a short time they curl backward. The corolla-tube is long, slender and cylindric. In S. velutina the corolla-lobes are broad at their base and narrow abruptly near the apex to a sometimes cucullate tip; they remain for a considerable time more or less upright, finally expanding to a right angle with the corolla-tube, only sometimes and as they fade, showing a tendency to curl backward. The corolla-tube is funnelform, with a wide throat. The foliage of S. Potanini is densely gray-villous-pubescent beneath while that of S. velutina, even in its most pubescent form, is not so conspicuously so to the naked eye. In both species the fruit capsules are very similar. The two are closely related and it is possible that intermediate forms may eventually bridge the great territorial distance which intervenes and permit their classification as extreme forms of one species. SYRINGA RUGULOSA Syringa rugulosa McKelvey in Jour. Arnold Arb. vi. 153 (1925). A shrub about six ft. tall or a small tree; branchlets with dense villous tomentum persisting to the second year. Leaves ovate or elliptic, 1^-2% in. long, Y^-^A in. broad, acuminate or acute, base cuneate, with margins often slightly irregularly undulate, densely villous and rugulose, with midrib, veins and veinlets impressed above, densely soft-villous, with midrib and 4-6 pairs of veins conspicuously raised beneath; petiole Vi6_3/i6 in. l°ng) densely villous. Flowers subsessile, fascicled, in lateral or some times terminal panicles, 2^-4% in. long; rhachis densely villous; calyx campanulate, densely villous, mostly distinctly dentate, with ovate-triangular, acute, or acuminate teeth; corolla-tube slender, cylindric, V^-1/* in. long, corolla-lobes ovate, Vie-Vs in. long, acutish or sometimes cucullate; stamens inserted slightly below the mouth; anthers not extending beyond the mouth. Fruit unknown. Habitat : China : province of Yunnan. This species was described from a specimen (no. 169) in the herbarium of the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, which, through the courtesy of the Regius Keeper, was sent for examination to the Arnold Arboretum. It was collected by E. E. Maire in July, 1914, in the undergrowth of the mountains at Tchao ho in Yunnan, at an altitude of about 9000 feet. The collector's notes describe it as an "arbuste buissonnant," about 6 ft. tall, with rose-violet flowers. Another specimen (no. 503) of this Lilac, collected by Maire in June, no year is given, is in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum. It came from the mountains of Te long tsin, Yunnan, and was growing at an altitude of 9,000 ft. The color of the flowers is noted as white. This species is most nearly related to S. Potanini Schneider which differs in the not distinctly rugulose leaves, less densely pubescent branchlets and inflores- cence, in the minute, appressed pubescence of the usually truncate calyx, in the longer and narrower corolla-lobes and in the stamens being usually inserted much below the mouth. As far as it is possible to judge from herbarium material the color of the anthers in both S. Potanini and S. rugulosa is yellow. S. rugulosa is not in cultivation and needs further study. 148 SYRINGA PINETORUM Syringa pinetorum W. W. Smith in Notes Bot. Gard. Edinburgh, rx. 132 (1916). — Rehder, Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 754 (1927). A shrub 4-8 ft. tall; branchlets slender, pilose to tomentose; young leafy shoots densely pilose. Leaves thin in texture, ovate to ovate-lanceolate, acute, abruptly acuminate or acuminate, base cuneate, slightly pilose or glabrous above, paler, pilose on the veins beneath, %-^A in. long, Yr^A in. broad, with 3-5 pairs of slender primary veins, spread- ing, slightly raised, margins ciliolate; petiole Vie-1/* m- long> slender, pilose. Flowers sub-sessile, frequently fascicled, in pyramidate panicles 2-4 in. long, 2 in. broad or less; calyx glabrous, cup-shaped, with sometimes ciliolate margins and deeply cut teeth; corolla-tube slender, cylindric, x/i~Y% in. long; corolla-lobes rounded or acute at apex, sometimes cucullate, expanding at a right angle to corolla- tube ; corolla 3/i6-5/i6 in. in diameter; anthers inserted slightly above the middle of corolla-tube. Fruit unknown. Habitat: China: province of Yunnan. Syringa pinetorum was described by W. W. Smith from a specimen (no. 12,472) collected in June, 1914, by George Forrest "in open pine forests on the Lichiang Range, Yunnan," at an altitude of 10,000 to 11,000 ft., and at Lat. 270 40' N. The collector records that it was a shrub 4-8 ft. tall, with pale lavender-rose flowers. Professor Smith notes that it is a species with small leaves related to S. microphylla Diels though differing in the shorter petioles and in the glabrous calyx with some- what longer ciliolate teeth. He describes it as a shrub 3 to 9 feet tall, younger branches densely spreading gray-pilose, older branches glabrescent, gray; the leaves 2-3.5 cm- l°ng> I-I-5 cm- broad, ovate, rarely lanceolate-ovate or sub- elliptic, apex acute or rarely obtuse, more or less rounded at the base, above spar- ingly pilose or glabrous with ciliolate margins, beneath paler, with somewhat long, white pilose hairs along the midrib and veins, elsewhere glabrous; veins 3-4 pairs, conspicuous or reticulate beneath; petiole 2-5 mm. long, pilose; the inflores- cences 10-18 cm. long, 7-8 cm. broad, erect, somewhat loose, more or less densely white-pilose; pedicels very short, about 1 mm. long or almost lacking; flowers pale-lavender-rose according to the collector; calyx about 2 mm. long, divided for a third or a fourth part of its length into triangular teeth, glabrous except for ciliolate teeth ; tube of corolla 8-9 mm. long, toward the apex slightly dilated ; lobes oblong to obtusish, 3 mm. long; anthers inserted in the upper part of the tube but hardly reaching the mouth of the corolla; fruit unknown. Through the courtesy of the Regius Keeper of the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, a co-type specimen was sent to the Arnold Arboretum for examination. 149 150 THE LILAC Upon this the ciliolate character of the calyx teeth appears but rarely; if this character is more prominent on the type specimen it would seem to relate the species more closely to S. microphylla than had it been entirely glabrous. The length of the petioles is variable and to me does not appear of sufficient impor- tance to distinguish S. pinetorum as a species. The anthers of .5. microphylla are a bluish gray color, as are those of S. Julianae} another Lilac to which 5. pinetorum is closely related. Examination of the anthers of dried specimens shows that those of 5. pinetorum are yellow. In this the species resembles S. Potanini, another Lilac which has been found in Yunnan. The posi- tion of the anthers in these two species, as well as the form of their flowers is the same. 5. pinetorum is less pubescent than S. Potanini both in foliage and in- florescence, but in this group of Lilacs pubescence appears to be very variable. The fruit of S. pinetorum I have not seen. The Lilacs in the group in which S. pinetorum is classified are in many respects similar and certain of them, such as S. pinetorum, S. rugulosa, S. Wardii and S. Giraldiana, need to be better known, both from additional herbarium material and as living plants, before their classification as distinct species, or their identity with better known species, can be felt to be satisfactorily determined. There are in cultivation in this country plants bearing the name S. pinetorum, which were propagated at the Arnold Arboretum from seed collected by Forrest and distributed by the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh. These plants are clearly S. yunnanensis. A year after the seed was received, the Arboretum also was sent from the same source a number of seedling plants, presumably raised in Edinburgh from the same lot of seed. One of these (Arn. Arb. no. 18,341) is also S. yunnanensis. Plate LXXIV f'^i SYRINGA MICROPHYLLA (Arnold Arboretum no. 7199) Winter buds, enlarged. January, 1926. Plate LXXV SYRINGA MICROPHYLLA (Arnold Arboretum no. 7199) Expanding buds, enlarged. April 30, 1926. Plate LXXVI < x a, o « < s CO 5J OJ § | t: o O < P fcfi Plate LXXVII < ►J w a, o en o o o g < g T3 2 ° oo M ed (/J 3 0) o Plate LXXVIII SYRINGA MICROPHYLLA (Arnold Arboretum no. 7199) Fruit, enlarged. Picked August, 1924. Plate LXXTX ■MMVB SYRINGA MICROPHYLLA Syringa microphylla Diels in Bot. Jahrb. xxrx. 531 (1901). — Smith in Hemsley in Jour. Linn. Soc. London, xxxvi. 524 (Ind. Fl. Sin. in.) (1903-1905). — Schneider in Wien. HI. Gartenz. xxvm. 101 (1903); in Bot. Jahrb. xxxvi. Beibl. no. 82, p. 87 (1905); HI. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 778, figs. 486 z-z2, 487 n-p (1911); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 227, 229 (1911); in Sargent, PL Wilson, m. 453 (1917). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. n. s. 1. 28 (1915); in. 64 (1917); rv. 26 (1918); vi. 34 (1920); vni. 23 (1922). — Goeze in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 25, 172 (1916). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 86, fig. 5 (1920). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922). — Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 799. — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 485 (1923). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 4, 21 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, n. (1926). — Rehder, Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 754 (1927); in Jour. Arnold Arb. ix. 109 (1928). Syringa persica Kanitz in Ertek. termesz. korebol, Magyar Tudom. Akad. Class m., vol. xv. no. 2, 8 (1885); in Math. Naturw. Ber. Ungarn, in. 7 (1886); in Szechenyi, Keletazs. Utjan. Tudom. Ered. n. 824 (Noven. Gyujtes. Ered. 37) (1891); in Szechenyi, Wissensch. Ergeb. Reise Ostas. n. 715 (1898). — Not Linnaeus. Syringa pubescens var. tibetica Batalin in Act. Hort. Petrop. xm. 378 (1894). — Schneider in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. rx. 80 (1910); 111. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 776 (1911). — Bretschneider, Hist. Europ. Bot. Discov. China, 1030 (1898). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 20 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, n. (1926). Syringa villosa Diels in Bot. Jahrb. xxrx. 532 (1901). — Not Vahl. Syringa pubescens var., Smith in Hemsley in Jour. Linn. Soc. London, xxxvi. 524 (Ind. Fl. Sin. in.) (1903-1905). Syringa Dielsiana Schneider in Bot. Jahrb. xxxvi. Beibl. no. 82, p. 88 (1905); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 227, 229 (191 1); 111. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 778, figs. 487 g-k, 488 a-d (1911). — Pampanini in Nuov. Giorn. Ital. n. s. xvn. 690 (1910). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 4, 21 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). Syringa tsinlingsana Schneider in Bot. Jahrb. xxxvi. Beibl. no. 82, p. 88 (1905), name only; and on Giraldi specimen no. 7193 (as Syringa tsinglingsana) . Syringa microphylla var. glabriuscula Schneider in Sargent, PI. Wilson. 1. 301 (191 2). Syringa Dielsiana Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 85 (1920), in part, as a synonym of 5. pubescens Turczaninov. Syringa Schneideri Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 86 (1920). A small, spreading shrub to 5 ft. or more tall; broader than tall; branches spreading or upright, glabrous, smooth, lenticellate; branchlets slender, pubescent, puberulous or sometimes glabrous, lenticellate, sometimes tinged Burnt Umber (xxvm.). Winter- buds ovoid or globose with acute apex, flower bud 3/i6 in. long more or less, scales dark brown with narrow reddish margins, lustrous, abruptly acuminate, keeled, pubescent. Leaf-scar much raised, shallow shield-shaped, conspicuous, small; bundle-trace slightly 151 152 THE LILAC curved. Leaves orbicular-ovate to elliptic-ovate, sometimes orbicular, H-2/^ in. long, M_iM in. broad, acute or acuminate, sometimes obtuse, base somewhat cuneate or rounded, ciliolate, dark green, glabrous or slightly pilose above, paler, pubescent, puberu- lous, or glabrous except on veins near base beneath; petiole Ye-6/ 12 in. long, glabrous or puberulous, sometimes tinged Burnt Umber (xxvin.). Inflorescence sometimes leafy, lateral, upright, sometimes fascicled, ^-3 in. long, %-z in. broad; rhachis pubes- cent, puberulous or glabrous, sometimes tinged Burnt Umber (xxvin.); pedicel short, pubescent, puberulous or glabrous, sometimes tinged Burnt Umber (xxvin.); calyx short, densely pubescent, puberulous or glabrous, with short, usually acute, sometimes rounded teeth, rarely truncate, sometimes tinged Burnt Umber (xxvm.); corolla-tube slender, cylindric, K~M in. long; corolla-lobes expanding at right angles to corolla-tube, pointed, cucullate; corolla \i in. in diameter, color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Helle- bore Red to Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxvin.); when expanded Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) marked with white without, white within; anthers Light Vinaceous- Drab (xlv.), inserted slightly above the middle of corolla-tube. Capsule oblong, slender, V2-7/i2 in. long, acuminate, rarely obtuse, verrucose. (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant (no. 7199) growing in the Arnold Arboretum. Habitat: China: provinces of Shensi; Shansi; Hupeh; Honan; Kansu. Syringa micro phylla was first described in 1901 by Ludwig Diels in his work "Die Flora von Central-China," which appeared in Engler's "Botanische Jahr- bticher." He states that all new or young growth is short-pilose, the petiole slender, the blade small, broad-ovate, at base scarcely narrowed, obtuse or acuminate, above deep green, beneath pale glabrescent, on both sides and especially beneath short-pilose with reticulate veins, the calyx campanulate, very short-dentate, pilose; the fruit short-stalked, conical-spindle-shaped, acute at apex, scarcely compressed, verrucose. The pedicels 6-8 mm. long; the blade 2.5-3 by 1.5-2 cm. large; the panicles 5-7 cm. long; the calyx 1-1.5 by 0.7 mm. large; the fruit 15 by 4 mm. large. The description was based upon two fruiting specimens (nos. 1644, 1645) collected by the Italian missionary, the Rev. Giuseppe Giraldi, in the province of Shensi, China. Dr. R. Pampanini kindly sent me, on December 1, 1926, a complete record of all the Giraldi specimens in the Biondi- Giraldi Herbarium in the Botanical Museum, Florence, Italy, with their notations. He writes: "The Rev. Giraldi sent all his collections here to our Botanical Museum. Only to the Botanical Museum of Berlin we have once given duplicates. . . the whole collection is here." The nota- tion upon the first of the specimens (no. 1644) cited by Diels states that the plant was found at "Tui-kio-shan, monti del Lao-y-huo" in northern Shensi in October, 1896. Upon the second (no. 1645) tne locality is noted as "Quasi sulla cima del Tui-kio-san a sud di Si-ngan-fu"; this is also in northern Shensi and the date is given as September, 1893. Fragments and photographs of these two specimens were sent me by Dr. Pampanini. Schneider four years later, also writing in Engler's "Botanische Jahrbucher" SYRINGA M1CR0PHYLLA 153 enlarged upon Diels' description which he was enabled to do after the examination of thirteen additional Giraldi specimens, nine of which were of flowers. All were gathered in northern Shensi and the dates upon which they were collected, as sent me by Dr. Pampanini, were as follows: no. 739 (of which there were two specimens), in May, 1892; no. 4388, in July, 1894; no. 742, in August, 1894; nos. 4391, 740, in May, 1895; nos. 4389, 4390, in September, 1897; nos. 4392, 4393, 4394, 4400, in May, 1899; and no. 7192, in May, 1900. I have not seen any of these sheets. At the same time Schneider described a new species, S. Dielsiana Schneider, from two specimens also collected by Giraldi in northern Shensi. One of these (no. 7193) was of flowers, and the inscription states that it was collected on July 10, 1900, "in montibus Tsin-ling-san." The second (no. 741) was of fruit (which is noted as obtuse), and was collected on August 29, 1895, at "Monte Hua-san, presso Gniu-ju." Of these only the latter belongs to this species according to Lingelsheim who classifies the former (no. 7193) as 5. pubescens, citing as a synonym the 5. tsinglingsana [sic] of Schneider. Fragments and photographs of these two specimens were sent me by Dr. Pampanini. Upon the number 7193 he noted: "Certamente non e le S. Dielsiana." The short corolla-tube, in .5. pubescens considerably longer, and the small leaves differing little in form or in pubescence from those of S. microphylla (in which I include 5. Dielsiana), satisfy me that this specimen represents S. microphylla and not 5. pubescens Turczaninov. There is no record, either according to notes upon the Giraldi specimens sent me by Dr. Pampanini or according to labels on the specimen, that Schneider recorded there his determination and name, S. Dielsiana. On the label he gives the name as S. tsinglingsana but elsewhere as S. tsinlingsana. I believe this name to be synonymous with his S. Dielsiana [ =S. microphylla] not with S. pubescens. Later (111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 778, 191 1) Schneider included under S. Dielsiana Wilson's flowering specimen (no. 2024) from western Hupeh and [Dr. Augustine] Henry's fruiting specimen (no. 6985) from Hupeh. I have seen a co- type specimen in the Gray Herbarium; the S. villosa of Diels is based on this Henry specimen (no. 6985). Still later (PI. Wilson. 111. 433, 191 7) Schneider com- bined S. Dielsiana with ,5. microphylla, writing: "To this species belongs Wilson's specimen from western Hupeh, June, 1901 (Veitch Exped. No. 2024). S. micro- phylla is in cultivation in this Arboretum, where plants were raised from seeds collected by Purdom (no. 583). ..." A co-type specimen is in the Arnold Arbo- retum herbarium. According to Dr. Bretschneider (Hist. Europ. Bot. Discov. China, 774, 1898) Dr. Augustine Henry was, in 1882, appointed Medical Officer and Assistant at Ichang in the province of Hupeh; he remained there from April, 1882, to April, 1889; "it was here he began, in 1885, to collect plants, with the idea of identifying Chinese names of trees, herbs, medicines, etc., with their scientific appellations. His first collection was sent to the Kew Gardens in the spring of 1886." Dr. R. Pampanini named as S. Dielsiana a specimen (no. 1805) collected in 154 THE LILAC August, 1907, by P. C. Silvestri at Ou tan scian, in Hupeh, at an altitude of 2050 meters. He very kindly sent me fragments and a photograph of this specimen. Lingelsheim also cites it as an example of S. microphylla. In 1912 (PI. Wilson. I. 310, 1912) Schneider described for the first time Syringa microphylla var. glabriuscula, differing, he notes, from the type in its almost glabrous or glabrous, nearly toothless, calyx. This variety was based upon one part (b) of a specimen collected in 1898 by the Rev. Frjater] Hugh [Scallan] at Mt. Miao uan san, in northern Hupeh. This is in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum and was received with two other Scallan specimens from the herbarium of the British Museum; all are from north Central China; the remainder of this Scallan material Schneider noted as typical S. microphylla. In the same publication five years later Schneider writes: "This variety is scarcely distinct and is connected by many intermediate forms with the type. ..." Lingelsheim bases upon Wilson's specimen no. 2024, already noted, a new species, S. Schneideri Lingelsheim. Upon examination this does not appear to differ from typical S. microphylla. The S. pubescens var. tibetica of Batalin was founded upon a flowering specimen in the herbarium of the Imperial Botanic Garden, St. Petersburg, collected on May 7, 1885, by G. A. Potanin near the town of Hui dui, district of Amdo, in western Kansu, China, where it was growing at an altitude of 7200 ft. The leaves are described as ovate, obtuse, subcordate or slightly narrowed at the base, slightly pilosiusculous along the midvein beneath, ciliate; the young shoots, the flower cluster, pedicel and calyx as densely pubescent, the teeth of the calyx as triangular. Schneider's description of this variety is based upon the same herbarium specimen and he was uncertain whether another description had already appeared, writing "an jam descripta?." Bretschneider mentions it among new plants discovered by Potanin, and Miss M. Smith (Hemsley, Ind. Fl. Sin. m.) lists it without description among plants which have been "noted since the publication of the 'Enumeration'." In the Arnold Arboretum is a co-type specimen. I refer this variety to 5. micro- phylla because of the character of the pubescence of the leaves (in S. pubescens this is long villose along the midrib, in S. microphylla short pubescent) ; because of the densely pubescent calyx (frequently present in S. microphylla and rarely in S. pubescens) ; and because of the pubescence of the branchlets, petioles and inflores- cence (in S. pubescens as a rule glabrous). As stated under S. pubescens the two species are very similar; the corolla- tube in S. pubescens is very long but on speci- mens of S. microphylla we find variation in length and that of this variety tibetica might be classed as a long S. microphylla or a short 5. pubescens. The identity of the specimen has been hard to determine. The fact that, apart from Batalin's specimen, I have seen none of S. pubescens from Kansu, while S. microphylla is indigenous there, seems a sufficient reason, since the specimen is of difficult determination and in view of the reasons given above, to attribute it to the species known to be found in that locality. SYRINGA MICROPHYLLA 155 Under S. persica var. laciniata Weston is mentioned a specimen now in the herbarium of the Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum, Budapest, which was collected at Tsing tschou, or Tsin chow, in Kansu by Ludwig Loczy (no. 175 c) while on the Bela Szechenyi expedition. Kanitz and Lingelsheim determined this as S. persica. Through the courtesy of Dr. Filarsky the specimen was sent to the Arnold Arbore- tum for examination. Although the flowers grow on a leafy shoot, appearing therefore to belong to the group of the Villosae, yet this sometimes occurs, abnor- mally, on plants of the Vtdgares. This specimen was collected on August 29, 1879, and represents therefore a second blooming. Mr. Rehder determined it as S. micro phylla and his notation on the specimen reads: "Syringa microphylla Diels. Inflorescentia anormalis, ut saepius in plantis cultis hujus speciei per aestatem et autumnum occurrit." See S. persica var. laciniata. A photograph of this specimen is in the Arnold Arboretum herbarium. In the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum are two specimens of S. microphylla (no. 378) collected in 1 910 by William Purdom in Shensi northwest of Hancheng hsien. Curiously, one of these was determined by Mr. Schneider as S. pubescens, the other by Mr. Rehder as S. microphylla. This is an example of the difficulty encountered, already mentioned, when an attempt is made to distinguish these two species. It has also been collected on many occasions by Joseph Hers in Honan : no. 252, on April 23, 1919, at Teng feng, Yu tai shan, at an altitude of 800 meters, the local name "sunglo cha," the flowers used as a substitute for tea; no. 201, same date and locality, the Chinese name "yeh ting siang," "wild syringa;" no. 201 bis, probably from the same plant as no. 201, on June 17, 1919, at Teng feng hsien, Yii tai shan, where the date seems strange in view of the freshly matured fruit; no. 67, August 20, 1919, at Mienchih at an altitude of 800 meters; no. H-1719, September 20, 192 1, at Tsi yuan hsien, Tien tan shan, with Chinese name "pai ma shu;" no. H-1792, September 21, 1921, at Tsi yuan hsien, Tien tan shan, with Chinese name 'chang yeh pai;" no. 2485, April 25, 1923, at Chengchow, Chinese name "siu kiu ting siang." Hers also collected the plant (no. H-1855) in Shansi, at Hia hsien, Huang lai kow on October 2, 192 1, where the Chinese name is given as "huang hua hu"; K. Ling (herb. no. 9290) found it on July 12, 1892, in the same province, no precise local- ity is cited, and he notes that it is a shrub 3 ft. tall growing under Quercus at an altitude of 5600 ft. Hers also collected it (no. 2424) in eastern Kansu at Fu kiang hsien, Hin yeh shan, on August 22, 1922; it was growing at an altitude of 1400 meters and the Chinese name is given as "tze ki ting siang," "four season syringa," said to flower all the year round. In China it is found as a cultivated plant as evidenced by the J. F. Rock speci- mens (nos. 12,203, * 3 7698) collected respectively in June and September, 1925, at a lamasery at Choni, in the T'ao River basin, at 8500 ft.; the first was taken from a tree 15-20 ft. tall, with pink flowers lacking fragrance; the second from a 156 THE LILAC shrub 6-8 ft. tail, with lavender flowers and small leaves. J. Hers found it (nos. H-199, 312, 2484, 2571, 2483, 2584) much cultivated in Honan: the first specimen at Kai feng, with Chinese name "tze ting siang"; the second at Yu tai shan, with Chinese name "yeh ting siang," "wild syringa," the flowers dark lilac, very sweet scented; the third at Chengchow, with Chinese name "siao yeh ting siang," and noted as "the common lilac of Honan gardens where it takes the place of 5. oblata which is so common farther north"; the fourth, again from Chengchow, much like no. 2584 in appearance, bears about the same inscription; the fifth, from Chengchow, "introduced from the hills," with Chinese name "ting siang"; the sixth, from Chengchow, is noted as a bush about 2 m. high, with "straight stems close together," the specimen representing a second blooming. There are in the same herbarium specimens (Peattie nos. 65, 66, 70, 79) from the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Field Station at Bell, Maryland, collected by A. Rehder in 1924 of which no original source is mentioned, as well as specimens which he collected in 1922 and 1923 from other plants, (S. P. I. 38, 829). One of these, collected in September, shows both a flower cluster (a second blooming is characteristic of this species) and fruit. These were raised from F. N. Meyer's no. 2102 a, collected in 1914 at Nantochu, Shensi. There are also numerous specimens taken from a plant (no. 7199 Arn. Arb.) which was raised from Purdom's seed (no. 583). The Syringa microphylla offered for sale by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France (Cat. no. 189, 21, 1924-1925) is evidently not S. microphylla, for the description mentions it as "A new species of the section Ligustrina; tall panicles of white flowers in June." I have seen no specimen of this plant but Mr. E. Lemoine, after seeing a photograph of the flowers of S. microphylla (no. 7199 Arn. Arb.) wrote me on July 1, 1925: "D'apres celle du Syringa microphylla, je vois que la plante que j'avais sous ce nom est bien differente; du reste j'ai recu de l'Arnold Arboretum une petite plante dont les pousses ne ressemblent pas a celles de nos plantes." The plant of S. microphylla (no. 7199 Arn. Arb.) now growing in the Arnold Arboretum was received in December, 1913, from Messrs. James Veitch and Sons, who raised it from Purdom's seed (no. 583). Although now over twelve years old it is only about five feet tall, although its breadth is considerably greater. Near the ground the stout, twisted, brownish-gray branches spread horizontally, but the branchlets, yellow-green in color, are long, "whispy," and so slender as to droop under the weight of the flower-clusters when the plant is in bloom. Early in April the somewhat small foliage expands and it does not fall until well into October, or in mild seasons even later. The flower-clusters are small, rarely over three inches long, but, as is the case with most of the Lilacs of the group which produce their flower-clusters from lateral buds, they appear from many pairs of buds on the same branchlet and intermingle, producing what appear to be large and showy inflores- cences, sometimes ten inches or more long. Small leaves often appear at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescence, and pairs of leafy shoots occasionally alter- SYRINGA MICROPHYLLA 157 nate with pairs of flower panicles. Sometimes also one bud of a pair may produce flowers, the other foliage. The individual flower is pale in color tone and small, symmetrically formed, with pointed, cucullate corolla-lobes and slender tube and has a very sweet fragrance. This plant has the curious habit of blooming twice in one season, — some of what would normally be the next year's flower clusters expanding prematurely during the late summer or autumn months (generally those near the top of the branchlet), — and this second flowering period lasts over a con- siderable number of weeks. It is not so showy as the first; moreover the shrivelled rhachis frequently remains the following year and mars somewhat the perfection of the spring flower clusters. This second blooming has been noted at various times by Professor C. S. Sargent in the Arnold Arboretum Bulletins; it is not, how- ever, peculiar to the Arboretum plant. The same thing may be seen on a specimen, already mentioned, in the Arboretum herbarium which was collected by Mr. A. Rehder on September 26, 1923, from a plant (S. P. I. no. 38,829; no. 2102a F. N. Meyer) growing at the U. S. Department of Agriculture Field Station at Bell, Maryland. I have noted the peculiarity on two plants growing in a New Jersey garden, and John Dunbar (Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 799) has written that it "produces a few blossoms in August and September." The same thing frequently occurs on the plant of 5. Meyeri Schneider (no. 6623 Arn. Arb.) but to a less noticeable extent and accounts for the flat-topped appearance of the next spring's inflorescences which are, as in the case of S. microphylla, made up of a number of clusters although they appear as one. See also S. Meyeri. S. microphylla is nearly related to S. velutina. In the latter species the corolla- tube is funnelform, and the anthers are inserted near the mouth, while in the former the corolla-tube is cylindric and the anthers are inserted just above the middle of the corolla-tube. In habit S. microphylla is more slender, and the branches arch under the weight of the flower-clusters while those in the sturdier S. velutina are held more upright. Nor does the Korean plant, so far as I have observed, bloom more than once in a season. S. microphylla is also exceedingly closely related to S. pubescens and the individual flowers of the two species look much alike although the corolla-tube is, as a rule, shorter in S. microphylla which appears to be the more pubescent plant; nor is the fragrance of the flowers the same. In habit the two differ considerably, S. pubescens being of sturdier, more upright and taller growth. In herbarium material they are frequently difficult to distinguish and it is possible that at some future time they may be united as forms of one species. Littleleaf Lilac has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names." Plate LXXX SYRINGA PUBESCENS (Arnold Arboretum no. 1594) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1025. Plate LXXXI SYRINGA PUBESCENS (Arnold Arboretum no. 1504) Expanding buds, enlarged. April 30, 1926. Plate LXXXII SYRINGA PUBESCENS (Arnold Arboretum no. 1594) Two flower clusters. May 30, 1924. Plate LXXXIII SYRINGA PUBESCENS (Arnold Arboretum no. 1594) Flower clusters. May 30, 1924. Plate LXXXIV T m Inllil - Ott ^^K1 Li/ W^K SYRINGA PUBESCENS (Garden of Mr. M. Delano, Orange, N. J.) Fruit, enlarged. Picked October, 1926. Plate LXXXV w u-> o- £ H M W 6 o w pq c > < 0) M . o i- Pi < O P ■ O c/) "o * — c ■*-> >- < C Plate XC \ SYRINGA MEYERI (Arnold Arboretum no. 6623) Fruit, enlarged. Picked October, 1926. Plate XCI ro o to o 55 o o •— i <; * >h 2 ^ Cfl o Ih rj cd M 25 < SYRINGA MEYERI Syringa Meyeri Schneider in Sargent, PL Wilson, i. 301 (1912); in. 433 (1917); 111. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 1062, fig. 628 c (191 2); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 29, 162 (1920); in Gartenschbnheit, vm. 142, fig. (p. 141) (1927). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 40, May 9 (1913); n. s. 11. 15 (1916); hi. 15 (1918); vm. 23 (1922). — Render in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. VI. 3302 (191 7); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 755 (1927). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 85 (1920). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 404 (1922). — Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 799. — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PL Names, 495 (1923). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 4, 20 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, n. (1926). A compact shrub up to 5 ft. tall; branches upright, sturdy, gray-brown, slightly fissured, lenticellate ; branchlets frequently tinged Dark Livid Brown (xxxix.), some- times slightly quadrangular, glabrous or puberulous, lenticellate. Winter-buds globose or ovoid with obtuse or acute apex, flower bud 5/i6 in. long more or less, scales reddish or yellowish brown, often loosely appressed, acuminate, glabrous except for ciliolate margins, prominently keeled and forming a markedly four-sided bud. Leaf -scar much raised, semicircular, conspicuous, small; bundle-trace raised, slightly curved. Leaves elliptic-ovate or elliptic-obovate, sometimes ovate, K_IM in- long, 3^_IH in. broad, acute, acuminate, obtusish or rounded, base cuneate or broad-cuneate, ciliolate, dark green, glabrous, occasionally minutely puberulous especially along veins above, paler, glabrous, occasionally villous on veins near base beneath, with two pairs of veins from base paralleling the margins; petiole slender, \i~Yi in. long, glabrous or puberulous, fre- quently tinged Dark Livid Brown (xxxix.) . Inflorescence lateral, rarely terminal, upright, with flowers frequently fascicled, 1-4 in. long, 1-1^ in. broad; rhachis glabrous or puberu- lous, frequently tinged Dark Livid Brown (xxxrx.); pedicel V12 in. long, glabrous or puberulous, frequently tinged Dark Livid Brown (xxxix.) ; calyx glabrous or puberulous with short acute teeth, frequently tinged Dark Livid Brown (xxxrx.) ; corolla-tube very slender, cylindric, Yi in. long; corolla-lobes spreading at right angles to corolla- tube, cucullate, with raised margins; corolla M in. in diameter, color in bud Dahlia Carmine (xxvi.) to Light Perilla Purple to Purplish Lilac (xxxvh.); when expanded Argyle Purple or Purplish Lilac with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac without, Argyle Purple to Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvn.) within; anthers Ramier Blue (xlih.), }/g in. long, inserted slightly above the middle of corolla-tube. Capsule oblong, slender, 3^~M in. long, acuminate, verrucose. (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant (no. 6623) growing in the Arnold Arboretum.) Known only as a cultivated plant and first found in a garden at Fengtai near Peking, Chihli, China. 169 170 THE LILAC Frank N. Meyer, collecting for the Bureau of Plant Industry of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, sent from Chihli, China, two sets of Syringa cuttings which appeared in the Department's Bulletin (no. 142, 57, 1909) as S. P. I. nos. 23,032 and 23,033. The first of these came from Fengtai near Peking and the collector notes: "(no. 694, Mar. 31, 1908). A small-leaved lilac, bearing many panicles of purple flowers, grafted upon a small-leaved privet. Much used in forcing; quite rare and expensive; not hardy. Chinese name 'Shau ting hsien.' " The second came from Tientsin and the notation reads: "(no. 695, Apr. 3, 1908). A small-leaved lilac, the same species as the preceding number (S. P. I. no. 23032), but apparently of slightly different colors. There are two white-flowering ones among them; otherwise the same remarks apply to it as to no. 694 (S. P. I. no. 23032). Keep them protected from heavy frosts. Has a future for the western people as a very graceful, spring-flowering shrub of dwarf y habits." From Meyer's cuttings of no. 23,032, distributed by the Department of Agri- culture in Washington in December, 1908, a plant (no. 6623 Am. Arb.) was raised at the Arnold Arboretum. It was upon a flowering specimen from this plant (now in the herbarium) that Schneider in 191 2 founded his description. Translated, it reads: A shrub apparently of the habit of S. pubescens, the young branches quadrangular, the older ones minutely pubescent; the leaves ovate-elliptic or slightly obovate, acute at both ends or at the apex obtusish, above green, very glabrous, beneath hardly paler, toward the base on the nerves pubescent, ciliate, 2-5 cm. long and 1.8-3 cm- broad, with 2 pairs of lateral veins running toward the apex; petiole 5-1 1 mm. long, pilose like the branchlets. Inflorescence similar to that of 5. pubescens, toward the base furnished with leaves incompletely de- veloped, branches with minute pubescence; flowers violet, with long tube; pedicel hardly 1 mm. long, puberulous; calyx violet, about 1.5 mm. long, glabrous, short- toothed; tube of corolla 15-16 mm. long, hardly dilated toward the apex; lobes of corolla to 4 mm. long, acute, spreading; anthers inserted in tube about 6 mm. below the mouth of corolla, probably violet. Fruit unknown. Schneider further writes : "This species is very closely allied to S. pubescens Turczaninow, but differs in the longer tube of the corolla, the minutely but distinctly puberulous branches and in the different venation of the leaves. I am in doubt whether the anthers are violet as in S. pubescens or rose as in S. Potaninii." While the venation, as Schneider notes, differs in the two species, yet I find the length of the corolla-tube frequently the same, and the branchlets of both sometimes glabrous, sometimes puberulous. In 191 7 Schneider writes: "This species is not yet known in a wild state. ... It is apparently a slow-growing species, forming a densely branched small bush." The number S. P. I. 23,033 (Meyer no. 695) was evidently applied — according to Meyer's notes already quoted — to more than one plant. In the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum are flowering specimens from the Plant Introduction Field Station (U. S. Department of Agriculture) at Chico, California, which were col- lected in 1916 and 1918, from plants raised from this number. One of these (field SYRINGA M.EYERI 171 no. 5733) notes that the "flowers are white," with a "good lilac odor." In this specimen the venation of the leaves is not the same as that of the typical S. Meyeri but more nearly resembles in this and other particulars, S. pubescens to which species I refer it. Another specimen, also field no. 5733, but referred to as "Bush no. 2" is noted as having flowers "Mauvette, Ridgway" and of "very good lilac odor." Apart from the record of the plant's fragrance, which in S. Meyeri is slight and not especially pleasing, this specimen appears to be identical with typical S. Meyeri. In the same herbarium is a flowering specimen (no. 85 Hers) collected on April 20, 1920, by Joseph Hers at Chengchow in northern Honan, China. The note states that the Chinese name is "nan-ting-siang (South Syringa)," that the plant was "cultivated. A slow grower, never higher than 4 or 5 feet; very scented, dark lilac. Rarely found on its own roots, more often grafted on Ligustrum. Its name seems to imply a foreign or southern origin." In his "Liste des Essences ligneuses observers dans le Honan septentrional" (30, 1922) J. Hers again cites as Chinese name for S. Meyeri "nan ting siang." S. Meyeri (no. 6623 Arn. Arb.) now nearly twenty years old in the Arnold Arboretum has only reached a height of about five feet, and justifies the opinion of its collector and others that it is slow growing. Contrary to Meyer's statement it has so far proved entirely hardy. Its smooth branches are upright and sturdy and form a symmetrical, neat bush with a somewhat flat top. It is well foliaged from mid-April to mid-October, and the flowers appear in late May or early June, rather earlier than do those of most of the Lilac species from China, and at about the same time as those of S. pubescens. The plant has a curious and abnormal habit, also observed, though to a greater degree, in S. microphylla, of blooming twice in one season ; the spring flowering is the showier, but in September, October, or thereabouts, flower-clusters, which should normally open the following spring, unfold, generally from one or more pairs of lateral buds near the top of the branchlet; when the remaining clusters on the branchlet expand the following spring the absence of these topmost flower panicles gives a somewhat truncated look to what appears to be one inflorescence composed, however, not of one cluster, but of numerous small ones, which as a rule are not over four inches long and very often with fascicled flowers. These small clusters appear frequently from as many as five pairs of lateral buds on the same branchlet, and, intermingled, seem to produce one effective panicle five or more inches long and four or more broad. These combined clusters are held stiffly erect and lack grace and neither their dark color, nor their slight fragrance is particularly pleasing. A curious character of the individual blossom is the tiny, pocket-like corolla-lobe, formed by the cucullate apex and raised margins. The corolla-tube is exceptionally long and slender. The venation of the leaves, paralleling the margins, appears to be the character most clearly distinguishing 5. Meyeri from other nearly related Lilacs. The leaves are retained until late autumn. 172 THE LILAC As noted by Schneider, this species is closely allied to S. pubescens; the dark, bluish anthers are present in both and are inserted in the same position in the long and slender corolla-tube, or slightly above the middle. The flowers of the two species differ, however, both in color and in fragrance, and, as already noted, the leaves in their venation. It is possible that further study may lead to the con- clusion that S. Meyeri, which is not yet known as a wild plant, is merely a selected form of S. pubescens. Meyer Lilac has been adopted as approved common name by " Standardized Plant Names." SYRINGA WARDII Syringa Wardii W. W. Smith in Notes Bot. Gard. Edinburgh, ix. 132 (1916). A shrub about 0-15 ft. tall; branchlets slender, when young covered with pale gray pubescence. Leaves rotundate, z/%-i in. long, %-% m- broad, obtusish or rarely short-acuminate, base rounded or slightly cuneate, glabrous above, slightly paler, glabrous beneath, with conspicuous midrib and primary veins; petiole 1ls-5lie in. long, slightly pubescent near juncture with the blade. Inflorescence lateral, 2^-3^ in. long, 1^-2% in. broad; rhachis pale-gray-pubescent; pedicel Y% in. long or less, pale-gray-pubescent; calyx cup-shaped, short, with pronounced, acuminate teeth, glabrous or minutely pubes- cent; corolla-tube V4-7/i6 in. long, cylindric; corolla-lobes rounded or slightly pointed at apex, sometimes cucullate, with a pronounced hook; corolla }4r% hi. in diameter; anthers yellow, inserted slightly above the middle of corolla-tube. Fruit unknown. Habitat: China: province of Yunnan. W. W. Smith first described Syringa Wardii from a specimen (no. 312) collected in 1913 at Tung chu ling, in the province of Yunnan, by F. Kingdon Ward who records that it was a "small tree or shrub of 10-15 ft.; arid region, 10,000 ft." The date of collection is not given. Smith states: "The collector notes that the same plant is found in the Mekong Valley and near Atuntsu at 12,000 ft." His description, translated, reads: A small tree or shrub 3-5 m. tall; the young branches dense grayish pubescent; the older branches glabrescent, gray; the leaves of flowering branches 1-2 cm. long, 1-2 cm. broad, suborbicular or rather broadly ovate, rounded or obtuse at the apex, base more or less rounded, above deep green, glabrous, beneath paler, glabrous or subglabrous with slender veins distinctly reticulate; petiole 2-3 mm. long, minutely pubescent or glabrescent; the inflorescence about 10 cm. long, about 7 cm. broad, erect, rather loose, densely white pubescent, minutely glandular; pedicels 1-3 mm. long, pubescent, minute shining glandular; flowers pale on dried specimens ; calyx about 2 mm. long, glabrous or subglabrous, sparingly minutely glandular, with truncate mouth and minute teeth, or almost lacking teeth; tube of corolla 9-13 mm. long, dilated above the middle; corolla-lobes ovate, obtuse, about 4 mm. long; anthers inserted slightly above the middle of corolla-tube with apex removed by 2-3 mm. from mouth of corolla; fruit lacking. Professor Smith states that this species is nearly related to Syringa oblata Lindley and to Syringa affinis Henry [ = S. oblata var. affinis] but differs from these in its smaller leaves, generally rounded at the apex. 173 174 THE LILAC Through the courtesy of the Regius Keeper of the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, the type specimen of flowers was sent for examination to the Arnold Arboretum. S. Wardii is most closely related to S. microphylla. As far as is possible to judge from herbarium material the anthers of the former are yellow while those of 5. microphylla are bluish. In both species they are inserted in the same position in the corolla-tube. The fruit of S. Wardii is unknown to me. As noted under S. pinetorum, S. Wardii and certain other Lilacs classified in this group need further study. Plate XCII SYRINGA OBLATA (Garden of Mr. H. H. Richardson, Brookline, Mass.) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1925. Plate XCIII SYRINGA OBLATA (Garden of Mr. H. H. Richardson, Brookline, Mass.) Expanding buds, enlarged. May 3, 1926. Plate XCIV SYRINGA OBLATA (Garden of Mr. H. H. Richardson, Brookline, Mass.) Flower clusters. May 7, 1925. Plate XCV SYRINGA OBLATA var. GIRALDII (Arnold Arboretum no. 20,200) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1925. Plate XCVI SYRINGA OBLATA var. GIRALDII (Arnold Arboretum no. 20,200) Expanding buds, enlarged. April 30, 1926. Plate XCVII SYRINGA OBLATA var. GIRALDII (Arnold Arboretum no. 20,200) Flower cluster. May 13, 1925. Plate XCVIII SYRINGA OBLATA var. GIRALDII (Arnold Arboretum no. 20,200) Fruit, enlarged. Picked October, 1926. Plate XCIX p < o o o o 6 o l-H < m o < O o a £ CO 3 « ON g > o Plate C SYRINGA OBLATA var. DILATATA (Arnold Arboretum no. 10,202) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1925. Plate CI SYRINGA OBLATA var. DILATATA (Arnold Arboretum no. 10,202) Expanding buds, enlarged. April 27, 1926. Plate CII SYRINGA OBLATA var. DILATATA (Garden of Mr. Walter Hunnewell, Wellesley, Mass.) Flower clusters. May n, 1925. Plate CI1I SYRINGA OBLATA vax. DILATATA (Garden of Mr. Walter Hunnewell, Wellesley, Mass. Flower clusters. May n, 1925. Plate CIV Cj > H <: PQ O -l o s a> > o 1-4 PQ SYRINGA OBLATA Syringa oblata Lindley in Gard. Chron. 1859, 868. — De Talou in Hort. Francais, 1859, 133. — Regel in Gartenflora, ix. 106 (i860). — Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. in. 34 (i860). — [Carriere] in Fl. Serres, xin. 126 (year 1858; issued i860); in Rev. Hort. 1874, 280; 1875, 240. — Jager, Ziergeholze, 529 (1865). — [K. Koch] in Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xn. 44 (1869); Dendr. n. pt. 1. 266 (1872). — Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 564 (1875). — De Vos in Nederl. Fl. Pom. 201 (1876). — Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 169 (1877). — Bon Jard. 1878, 809. — De- caisne in Nouv. Arch. Mus. Paris, ser. 2, 11. 40 (1879). — Lauche, Deutsch. Dendr. 170 (1880). — Franchet in Nouv. Arch. Mus. Paris, ser. 2, vi. 85 (1883); PI. David. 1. 205 (1884); in Bull. Soc. Philom. Paris, ser. 7, ix. 121 (1885); Observations sur les Syringa du nord de la Chine, reprint, 3, 5 (1885). — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. in. 536 (1887). — Sargent in Garden and Forest, 1. 221, fig. 39 (1888) ; in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 23, May 22 (1912); no. 40, May 9 (1913); n. s. ni. 22 (1917). — Nagy in Gartenflora, xxxvn. 587 (1888). — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 113, fig. 65 (1889). — Hemsley in Jour. Linn. Soc. London, xxvi. 83 (Ind. Fl. Sin. n.) (1889). — J. G. J[ack] in Garden and Forest, in. 322 (1890). — P. C. in Garden and Forest, iv. 343 (1891). — E. Lemoine in Garden, xxxrx. 91 (1891); in Jardin, vi. 152 (1892). — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 379 (1892). — Mouillefert, Traite Arb. Arbris. 11. 998 (1892-1898). — Koehne, Deutsch. Dendr. 500 (1893). — L. Henry in Jardin, vui. 88, 102, 161 (1894); xv. 280 (1901); in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, n. 727, 730 (1901). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 653 (1896). — Bretschneider, Hist. Europ. Bot. Discov. China, 480, 1058 (1898). — Bean in Garden, Lni. 276 (1898); Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, 11. 569 (1914). — Dunbar in Amer. Garden- ing, n. s. xx. 183, fig. 44 (1899); in Gard. Mag. 1. 234 (1905). — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xrv. 206 (1899); in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (191 7); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 755 (1927). — Diels in Bot. Jahrb. xxix. 531 (1900). — Foussat in Jardin, xv. 280 (1901). — J. D. Hooker in Bot. Mag. exxvn. t. 7806 (1901). — Lobner in Gartenwelt, v. 548, fig. (1901). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laub- holz-Ben. 414 (1903). — Schneider in Wien. 111. Gartenz. xxviii. 100 (1903); Dendr. Winterstudien, 220, 265, figs. 210 f-m (1903); in Bot. Jahrb. xxxvi. Beibl. no. 92, p. 86 (1905), in part, excluding Giraldi specimens no. 738, 1643, 4395, 4397, 4399; in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 226 (1911); HI. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 772, figs. 485 d-f, 486 a-e (1911); in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 361 (1903). — Komarov in Act. Hort. Petrop. xxv. 252 (Fl. Mansh. in.) (1907). — Mottet, Arbust. Orn. 245 (1908); Arb. Arbust. Orn. 340 (1925). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxni. 153, 154 (1916); Aristocrats of the Garden, 215, 219, 220 (1917). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233, fig. (1917). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 88 (1920). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922). — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 485 (1923). — Stares, Cerines {Syringa L.), 4, 5, fig. 1 (1926), 175 176 THE LILAC reprinted from Darzkopibas, n. (1926). — G. Hegi, 111. Fl. Mittel-Eur. v. pt. 111. 191 1, 1912 (1927). Syringa chinensis Bunge in Mem. Sav. Etr. Acad. Sci. St. Petersb. 11. 116 (i835)(Enum. PL Chin. Bor. 42, 1833). —Not Willdenow. Syringa japonica Hort. according to [K. Koch] in Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xii. 44 (1869), as a synonym. Syringa vulgaris Hemsley in Jour. Linn. Soc. London, xxvi. 83 (Ind. Fl. Sin. n.) (1889). — Not Linnaeus. Syringa vulgaris var. oblata Franchet in Rev. Hort. 1891, 330; in Garden, XL. 173 (1891). Syringa oblata var. a typica Lingelsheim in Engler, Pfianzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 88 (1920), in part, excluding Giraldi specimens nos. 737, 738, 1643, 4395> 4396, 4397, 4398, 4399 and Faurie specimen no. 516. — G. Hegi, 111. Fl. Mittel-Eur. v. pt. rn. 1911 (1927). A compact shrub or small tree up to 12 ft. tall; branches upright, sparingly lenticel- late; branchlets stout, smooth, sparingly lenticellate. Winter-buds globose with acute apex, flower bud B/i6 in. long more or less, scales dark reddish brown with paler, more yellow- brown margins, acute or rounded, glabrous or rarely minutely puberulous, keeled, form- ing a four-sided bud. Leaf-scar much raised, shield-shaped, conspicuous, large; bundle- trace only slightly curved. Leaves orbicular-ovate or reniform, frequently broader than long, %~4 in. long, 1-4^ in. broad, abruptly acuminate, base cordate or subcordate, rarely truncate, glabrous, only rarely pubescent, when young tinged on margins Burnt Umber (xxviii.); petiole }4r% in. l°ng, glabrous, rarely pubescent, tinged at first Burnt Umber (xxviii.). Inflorescence from lateral buds, upright, 2-5 in. long, iHr~3 in. broad; rhachis, pedicel and calyx covered with short, glandular-tipped pubes- cence; pedicel short; calyx with acuminate teeth; corolla-tube cylindric, 3^3-^ in. long; corolla-lobes spreading at right angles to corolla-tube, rounded at apex, slightly cucullate; corolla Yi in. in diameter; color in bud Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) to Purplish Lilac (xxxvii.) ; when expanded Pale Lilac (xxxvii.) tinged with Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) ; anthers Deep Colonial Buff (xxx.), inserted slightly above the middle of corolla- tube. Capsule obo- void-oblong, abruptly contracted near apex, Yr^A m- l°ng, smooth, acuminate. (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant growing at Mr. H. H. Richard- son's, Brookline, Massachusetts.) Known only as a cultivated plant and first found in a garden in northern China. Alexander von Bunge, the Russian botanist and traveler, in his enumeration of the plants which he had observed in northern China in the year 1831, mentions a Lilac, common in gardens, which he identifies with S. chinensis Willdenow. His reference reads: "241. Syringa chinensis W. Frequens in hortis; vix a S. vulgar i distincta. Floret Aprili." Joseph Decaisne, although he does not state that he has seen Bunge's material, considers this to be 5. oblata, as does Franchet in 1883 (Plantae Davidianae), although in his "Observations sur les Syringa du nord de la Chine" published two years later, he states that he has seen in Mr. Cosson's herbarium two specimens (no. 341) collected by Bunge and believes one to be 5. chinensis or the Lilas Varin of gardeners. He bases this opinion upon its lanceolate SYRINGA OBLATA 177 leaves, narrowly attenuate at the base; the other specimen, with larger, though not fully developed leaves, he believes may be 5. oblata. I have not seen Bunge's material. On my behalf Mr. C. K. Schneider examined this specimen in June, 1927, and writes: "this is undoubtedly S. oblata" The specimen with lanceolate leaves according to Schneider appears to be 5. chinensis. He notes that it "may be a cultivated plant from Europe." See 5. chinensis. Although there are two speci- mens, one S. oblata and the other S. chinensis, it is apparent that Bunge is applying the name 5. chinensis to the S. oblata specimen for he notes its similarity to S. vulgaris and its frequent cultivation in Peking gardens. 5. chinensis seems to be in cultivation in China at the present time for there is in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum a specimen (no. H-196) collected on April 24, 192 1, by Joseph Hers, in a garden at Chengchow in northern Honan, which appears to be identical with this hybrid. Hers notes the Chinese name as "ting siang" and states that it is "one of the Syringas cultivated in this province." Robert Fortune, who, according to Bretschneider, visited China four times, brought back Syringa oblata to England at the end of his third trip (185 3- 185 6). John Lindley quotes him as follows: "The Chinese informed me it came from the North and was common in the gardens of Pekin. Full grown specimens are about the size of our English Lilac but more tree-like in the general outline; the leaves also are very striking, being large, rather fleshy, and oblately cordate. The species blooms profusely, and its fine bunches of purple flowers are very ornamental. There is a white variety equally interesting [see 5. oblata var. affinis] found in the same country which I have succeeded in getting home alive. . . . Both these varieties will be found perfectly hardy in England, and will no doubt prove attractive objects in our parks and gardens. I may mention that the Chinese nurserymen propagate them by grafting on the Privet (Ligustrum lucidum)." Lindley's description reads: "It differs from the common Lilac in its leaves being as broad or even broader than they are long, and in the flowers, which are not more than half the size, forming a thin loose panicle nearly destitute of the down of the common Lilac. The cup of the calyx is also more acutely four- toothed." The naturalist Pere Armand David, who was attached to the Mission of the Lazarists in Peking, also collected this species from a cultivated plant in Peking and it was upon his specimen (no. 2378) that Decaisne and Franchet based their descriptions. This specimen, dated 1865, is in the herbarium of the Museum of Natural History, Paris, and David's note reads: "Lilas cultive dans le jardin. Odeur forte, moins agreable que celle du Lilas ord[inaire] de France." William B. Hemsley in 1889 notes in addition to the David specimen of S. oblata, one in the herbarium at Kew Gardens, which was collected at Peiling in the province of Shingking, or Shengking, by Webster. He writes: "Webster's specimen differs from the cultivated ones in the branches of the inflorescence and the calyx being pulverulent. Assuming this to be wild, it is the first known." J. D. Hooker in 1 901 writes: "more recently it has been collected in a wild state in Western 178 THE LILAC Kansu by Potanin, and at Moukden in Shingking by the Rev. J. Webster." Ac- cording to Bretschneider (Hist. Europ. Bot. Discov. China, 765, 1898) the Rev. James Webster was a missionary of the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland Mission, and was stationed at Moukden in Manchuria. His collections were sent to Kew and recorded in Hemsley's "Index Florae Sinensis." This Webster speci- men, of flowers and foliage, was forwarded for examination through the courtesy of Dr. A. W. Hill, Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. On the same sheet is the Potanin specimen referred to by Hooker. While the former specimen is clearly S. oblata, the latter was determined by Mr. Rehder as the wild plant S. oblata var. Giraldii. Of the S. vulgaris specimen collected by "Ross (?)" at Shingking, Chienshan, Hemsley notes: "The Chinese specimen is recorded as this species without doubt; but we regard it as insufficient for satisfactory determination." This is presumably S. oblata. [K. Koch] (Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xn. 44, 1869) writes: "Vielleicht ist sie aber mit einer Art identisch, welche wir unter dem Namen Syringa japonica in einigen Garten gefunden haben, obwohl sich diese durch langere Blatter unterscheidet. Die ebenfalls kleineren Bluthen besitzen eine violettblaue Farbe und bilden kleinere und schlaffere Rispen, welche zum Theil aus dem Winkel der oberen Blatter entspringen." I have cited this S. japonica as a possible synonym of S. oblata. For his S. oblata var. a typica Lingelsheim cites eight Giraldi specimens, frag- ments and photographs of all of which were sent me by Dr. Pampanini. They are: nos. 737, 738, 1643, 4395, 4396> 4397, 4398> 4399- Lingelsheim's variety is dis- tinguished by its very glabrous, larger leaves up to 10 cm. long and broad. He does not distinguish the variety Giraldii. Schneider (Bot. Jahrb., 1. c.) cites as examples of S. oblata the Giraldi nos. 738, 1643, 4395> 4397> 4399 given by Lingels- heim and also a Giraldi no. 4308 which he states is a fruiting specimen collected in September at Tui kio shan. This I have been unable to find among a complete list of Giraldi specimens which were sent me by Dr. Pampanini who states: "the Rev. Giraldi sent all his collections here to our Botanical Museum [Florence, Italy]. Only to the Botanical Museum of Berlin we have given duplicates." Schneider cites (Bot. Jahrb., 1. c.) the Giraldi no. 737 as an example of S. affinis L. Henry [ = 5. oblata var. affinis]. The leaves of none of the specimens noted by Lingelsheim show the cordate or subcordate base which we find in those of S. oblata, nor are the flower clusters as compact as those ordinarily associated with that species. The specimens more nearly resemble the wild variety Giraldii to which I refer them. The other specimens cited by Lingelsheim (Fortune, without number, and Sargent, without number) are undoubtedly S. oblata. The Faber (no. 1552), the von Trotha (no number), the Wawra (no. 1101) and the Krug (from Shantung) specimens I have not seen. The Faurie plant (no. 516) from Korea I refer to S. oblata var. dilatala. SYRINGA OBLATA 179 Lindley writes of S. oblata: "We refrain from giving a specific character to this plant on account of the uncertainty under which we labour as to its distinctness as a species from S. vulgaris." Professor C. S. Sargent in 1888 writes in "Garden and Forest": "S. oblata differs but slightly in botanical characters from some forms of S. vulgaris, a geographical variety of which, it should, perhaps, be con- sidered, although from a garden point of view, quite distinct." J. D. Hooker also notes its close relationship to the Common Lilac, as does Franchet in 1891, — calling it S. vulgaris var. oblata. W. J. Bean in 1898 writes that it is more nearly related to S. villosa Vahl, but later, in 1914, he approaches it to S. vulgaris. The fact that S. oblata produces its flower clusters, which are non-leafy at the base, from lateral buds, while S. villosa normally produces them upon leafy shoots from terminal buds, places these two species in different groups of Lilacs. Lindley in 1859 writes: "Mr. Glendinning's nursery contains the only specimens of the purple variety of this species alive in Europe." This nursery was at Chis- wick. Whether the specimens distributed at first on the continent, in England, and in America, came from these specimens, I have been unable to ascertain, for no mention of its early distribution is found in the literature of this species. Hooker states that "A plant of it was obtained by the Royal Gardens, Kew, in 1899, from Mr. Lemoine's Nurseries of Nancy"; he records that "It flowered in the Temperate House in April of this year [1901]." Possibly many of the plants of this Lilac had their origin in seed sent by Dr. Bretschneider to St. Petersburg. He writes: "Syringa oblata Lindl[ey] . . . principally characterised by its large broad leaves and treelike growth, is much cultivated at Peking; lilac or white flowers; not observed in a wild state in the Peking mountains. But it seems to grow wild in Manchuria. Ind[ex] Fljprae] Sin[ensis] n. 83. — The plant was raised from my seeds in Bot. Garden, St. Petersburg, where it flowered in April, 1888." Henry (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 731, 1901) refers to it as "Espece assez rare et confinee dans les collections." The "Index Kewensis" (in. 1026, 1895) cites "Syringa oblata, Lindley ex Carriere in Fl. des Serres, xni. (1858) 126." This is incorrect since Carriere does not cite the author. Even had this volume been issued in 1858 Carriere's name could not be considered a valid publication because without a descrip- tion. Under the year 1858, printed on the title page, it is stated "Paru en i860." The Arnold Arboretum first received S. oblata, as grafts, from Holm Lea, Brookline, Massachusetts, in March, 1882. The original source of these plants is not known. Although at one time there were numerous specimens of 5. oblata in the neighborhood of Boston, at the present day these, as well as the old plants in the Arnold Arboretum, have disappeared. Mr. H. H. Richardson of Brookline, who, so far as I know, possessed the only large plant of this Lilac in the neighbor- hood, lost a large part of it in the ice storm of November, 1921. Professor Sargent (Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 23, May 12, 191 2) notes: "In gardens this plant becomes a 180 THE LILAC tall, broad shrub, but the brittleness of the branches, which are often broken down by snow or ice, reduces its value." Mr. Victor Lemoine tells (Garden and Forest, n. 326, 1889; Hamburg. Gart. Blumenz. xlv. 459, 1889; Gard. Chron. ser. 3, vi. 152, 1889) of using 5. oblata to pollinize Azurea plena, the early double-flowered form of the Common Lilac. Lemoine's hybrid, 5. hyacinthiflora, with double flowers, was the product of this cross. Many references to this early hybridization work with the Lilac which was carried on with great difficulty by Mr. Lemoine have appeared in garden periodicals. S. oblata is distinguished, among other particulars, by the fact that it produces its flowers earlier than does any other Lilac species with the exception of 5. pin- natifolia Hemsley, flowering in mid-May in the neighborhood of Boston. In France the flowers are said to open in mid-April. Professor Sargent (Bull. Arnold Arb. n. s. ni. 23, 191 7) writes: "This is one of the earliest Lilacs to bloom here, but unfortu- nately the flower-buds are often injured or destroyed by late frosts. For this reason . . . this plant cannot be recommended for general cultivation in this part of the country." W. J. Bean notes of the plant in England, "My experience of it is, that it is the most unsatisfactory of all lilacs except S. amurensis. It is excited into growth by mild weather in early spring, only to have its young leaves and flowers destroyed by later frost. Probably in higher localities it may succeed better, for the shrub itself is perfectly hardy, and in climates with a more settled winter than ours flowers abundantly." Herbarium specimens taken from the plants at one time growing in the Arnold Arboretum and at Holm Lea, show that the two lateral flower buds at the top of the branchlet are often entirely destroyed, the bloom appearing only from the second or third pairs of flower-buds. Carriere (Rev. Hort. 1874, 280) suggested its value as a forcing, rather than as a garden plant, for the reason that the same injury occurred frequently in Paris. J. D. Hooker in 1901 had never seen the fruit of S. oblata and it is probable that it is not plentifully produced in certain localities because of this injury to the flower buds. P. C. (Garden and Forest, iv. 343, r89r) writes: "There is a Chinese Lilac, however, which is not troubled by mildew. This is the plant found in gardens under the name S. oblata. . . ." J. G. J[ack] (Garden and Forest, 111. 322, r89o) however states: "It has been claimed that these [S. oblata] are not attacked by the mildew which often seriously injures some other kinds of Lilacs, but, in some localities at least, the foliage of this species is by no means exempt from the disease." Professor Sargent in the same magazine (11. 492, 1889) tells of certain plants of S. oblata being affected while others were uninjured. In the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum are the following specimens taken from cultivated plants in China: J. Hers (no. 3047) from Huashan, Shensi, October 31, 1924; C. S. Sargent (2 sheets, unnumbered) from the gardens of the Korean Legation and of the Imperial Palace, Peking, September, 1903; N. H. Cowdry SYRINGA OBLATA 181 (no. 1327) from the Temple grounds, Hsih hsia, Chihli; also specimens from plants cultivated in Europe: H. Zabel (2 sheets) from the Botanic Garden of the Forest Academy, Muenden, Hanover, dated 1870 and 1872; Bornmuller, from Zoschen, dated 1896; A. Rehder (no. 2142) from the Botanic Garden, Gottingen; C. K. Schneider, from [the Simon-Louis nurseries] Plantieres, 1922, and from Eisgrub in Czechoslovakia, 1904; also specimens collected in this country from plants at one time growing in the Arnold Arboretum and at Holm Lea, Brookline, Massa- chusetts. In the collection of the Arnold Arboretum are two photographs (no. 7735) of S. oblata taken by F. N. Meyer on April 23, 191 5, in the grounds of the German Legation at Peking, China. A note states that this shrub is "very resistant to drought and alkali." Meyer in his "Chinese Plant Names" (19, 1911) under plant no. 219, cites for S. oblata (?) the common name of "Pai Ting Hsiang, " and, under the plant no. 220, which he calls 5. oblata without a question, "Tzu Ting Hsiang." Pai Ting Hsiang is one of the Chinese names for the variety affinis. In his "Liste des Essences ligneuses observees dans le Honan septentrional" (31, 1922) J. Hers cites as Chinese name for S. oblata "tze ting siang." The plant of S. oblata growing on Mr. Richardson's place produces somewhat globular, compact flower clusters, whose purplish flowers have little fragrance. The leaves are distinguished by their form, which is broader than long, with an acute apex and cordate base, by their short pedicels and by their color which is bronzed both when they unfold and in the autumn; the foliage falls considerably earlier than that of the Common Lilac. As has been noted 5. oblata is most nearly related to S. vulgaris. It would be interesting to raise this Lilac, known only as a culti- vated plant, from seed, and see what reversion, if any, is made to its wild varieties 5. oblata var. Giraldii or S. oblata var. dilatata. It has been propagated, so far as I have been able to learn, exclusively from cuttings and by grafting, seed being rarely produced. S. oblata was offered for sale in the catalogues of such nurserymen as: in Belgium, Van Houtte (no. 117, 12, 1867); in France, Dauvesse (no. 36, 46, 1872), A. Leroy (1890, 24); in England, Anthony Waterer (1872-1873, 36); in Germany, Dieck (1885, 77), Spath (no. 69, 114, 1887-1888); in the United States, Parsons (1890, 94). The plant was probably offered earlier by most of these firms, as well as by others. It has frequently been called, by K. Koch, Lauche, Dippel, and others, the Rundblatteriger Flieder; Hartwig and Rumpler vary- this to Flieder mit breit- rundlichen Blattern; Baudriller calls it the Lilas de Chine; Mouillefert the L[ilas] a feuilles elargies; L. Henry, Mottet and others mention it as the Lilas de Fortune. Bretschneider in his text refers to it as North China Lilac. Nash (Jour. N. Y. Bot. Gard. xx. 234, 191 9) gives it the common name of Lindley's Lilac. Broadleaf Lilac has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names." 182 THE LILAC A spontaneous variety from northern China is : Syringa oblata var. Giraldii (Sprenger) Rehder in Jour. Arnold Arb. vn. 34 (1926) ; rx. no (1928); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 755 (1927). Syringa oblata Diels in Bot. Jahrb. xxrx. 531 (1901), in part, as to Giraldi specimen no. 1643. — Schneider in Bot. Jahrb. xxxvi. Beibl. no. 82, p. 86 (1905), in part, as to Giraldi specimens no. 738, 1643, 4395, 4397, 4399- — Not Lindley. Syringa villosa Giraldi Sprenger, "3rd List of Plants," 2 (1903), name only. Syringa Giraldi Lemoine, Cat. no. 155, vni. (1903). — Sprenger in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 16, 68 (1907). — Mottet, Arbust. Orn. 246 (1908); Arb. Arbust. Orn. 338 (1925). — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1909, 335, figs. 135, 136, 137. — Goeze in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 25, 172 (1916). Syringa villosa Sprenger according to Lemoine, Cat. no. 155, vni. (1903), as a synonym. Syringa affinis Schneider in Bot. Jahrb. xxxvi. Beibl. no. 82, p. 87 (1905), in part, as to Giraldi specimen no. 737. Syringa affinis var. Giraldi Schneider in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. ix. 80 (1910); 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 774 (1911); 11. 1062 (1912); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 228 (1911); in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 360 (1913). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 23, May 22 (1912); no. 40, May 9 (1913); no. 54, May 14 (1914). — Wilson, Gard. Mag. xxin. 154 (1916); Aristocrats of the Garden, 219 (1917). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (1917). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922). — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PL Names, 485 (1923). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 6 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, 11. (1926). S[yringa] oblata var. a typica Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 88 (1920), in part, as to Giraldi specimens nos. 737, 738, 1643, 4395, 439°, 4397> 4398> 4399- S\yringa] affinis Geraldiana [sic] Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. n. s. vni. 23 (1922). See Plates xcv., xcvi., xcvri., xcvth., xcix. A shrub or small tree of more open, taller habit than S. oblata. The leaves in general more gradually acuminate, truncate or very broad-cuneate at the base rather than cordate or subcordate, minutely puberulous or sometimes pubescent beneath, and cilio- late when young, glabrous at maturity; the flower-clusters larger and more open than those of 5. oblata. In habit it closely resembles the variety affinis but differs in its more open flower-clusters, frequently leafy, and in the color of its flowers which are in bud Vinaceous-Purple to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.); when expanded Argyle Purple without, Lobelia Violet marked with white at throat and with Argyle Purple (xxxvu.) near margins of corolla-lobes within. The winter-buds ovoid or globose with acuminate or acute apex, the flower bud % in. long more or less, the scales purplish with reddish brown margins, lustrous, the three lower pairs acute, the fourth pair acumi- nate, glabrous, prominently keeled and forming a markedly four-sided bud. The leaf- scar slightly raised, shallow shield-shaped, inconspicuous, small; the bundle-trace only slightly curved. (The notes on the color of the flowers and on the winter-buds were taken from the plant (no. 20,200) growing in the Arnold Arboretum.) Habitat: China: provinces of Shensi; Shansi; Kansu; Hupeh (?). In the "3rd List of Plants" issued in 1903 by the nurseryman C. Sprenger of SYRINGA OBLATA 183 Naples, Italy, appears without description a Syringa villosa Giraldi from North China. This is the plant here classified as 5. oblata var. Giraldii. Sprenger's plant was undoubtedly raised from seed gathered by the Italian missionary, the Rev. Giuseppe Giraldi, who brought from Shensi many botanical specimens of this wild variety of S. oblata. These are now in the Biondi- Giraldi Herbarium, Botanical Museum, Florence, Italy. Giraldi's seed collections bore no numbers, so it has been impossible to identify the Sprenger plant with any particular specimen. Although considered by Sprenger to be a variety of S. villosa the two plants are not closely related, — S. villosa producing its flower clusters from terminal buds on leafy shoots, while those of S. oblata and its varieties appear from lateral buds on non-leafy shoots. Sprenger in 1907 states that the flowers of this plant, which he then calls S. Giraldi, are borne in terminal panicles and because of this state- ment Lingelsheim (Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 88, 1920) tells us, in a note under S. oblata, that he does not consider Sprenger's plant to be an Oleacea. This does not seem sufficient reason to exclude the plant for the rest of Sprenger's de- scription holds good, nor is such an error unusual. It may have been due to superficial observation or he may have called the two opposite buds at the end of the branchlet terminal. Possibly his description was based upon an abnormal specimen, for exceptions occur on most of the Lilac species, — flower clusters which should normally come from lateral buds appearing occasionally from terminal ones and vice versa. In my possession is a flowering branch taken from a plant of the variety Giraldii growing in the Arnold Arboretum, where, although the panicles appear from lateral buds, one of the clusters grows at the top of just such a long leafy shoot as is produced on S. villosa and on other Lilacs of the Villosae group. The first description of this variety was taken from a cultivated plant and appeared in the catalogue issued in 1003 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France. It reads: "Syringa Giraldi (Syringa villosa Sprenger). Cette espece nouvelle, qui a 6t€ introduite du Nord de la Chine par le Pere Giraldi, a les tiges cylindriques, brunes, couvertes d'un tomentum blanchatre; les feuilles moyennes, cordiformes ou triangulaires, souvent plus larges que longues, sont couvertes sur les deux faces et sur le petiole, d'un fin duvet serre qui les rend douces au toucher et tout a fait veloutees. Cet arbuste n'a pas encore fleuri en Europe." It is prob- able that many of the plants of this variety now in cultivation were distributed from this source. The Potanin specimen collected on May 5, 1885, in western Kansu and received at Kew from the Botanic Garden, St. Petersburg, was referred by Hooker (Bot. Mag. cxxvn. t. 7806, 1901) to S. oblata and by Schneider to S. affinis Henry. Through the courtesy of Dr. A. W. Hill this was forwarded to the Arnold Arbore- tum for examination where it was determined by Mr. Rehder as the wild plant S. oblata var. Giraldii. The year 1885 may, therefore, have been the date when this Lilac was first collected, although its discovery has generally been attributed to Giraldi who found it first in 1891 as indicated in the following paragraph. 184 THE LILAC Through the kindness of Dr. Pampanini a complete list of the Giraldi specimens in the Biondi-Giraldi Herbarium in the Botanical Museum, Florence, Italy, was sent me with their notations. Schneider determined as S. oblata the following specimens: nos. 738, 1643, 4395, 4397, 4399, while Lingelsheim classified these, as well as the additional nos. 737, 4396, 4398, as his 5. oblata var. a typica. Dr. Pampanini also very kindly sent me fragments and photographs of all these speci- mens. All, I believe, because of their truncate or very broad cuneate leaves and their more open inflorescence, should be identified with S. oblata var. Giraldii rather than with S. oblata. All were collected in Shensi and on the following dates : no. 737 (March 25, 1891); no. 4398 (September 15, 1893); no. 738 (July, 1895); no. 1643 (July 27, September 10, 1896) ; no. 4396 (summer, 1896) ; no. 4397 (Septem- ber 25, 1897); no. 4395 (summer, 1898); no. 4399 (May, 1899). As noted on the Giraldi specimens the first, no. 737, was collected in 189 1. It is possible that seed was sent to Europe before this date. In the Arnold Arboretum is a specimen (no. 43) from the H. Zabel Herbarium, which was taken in 1910 from a plant in cultivation at Gotha, Germany; Zabel's note states that this was received, whether as seed or living material is not stated, from the French nursery of Barbier, in 1895. Rehder (Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 1. c.) gives the date of introduction as "about 1895." This date Mr. Rehder tells me, he took from an entry in H. Zabel's manuscript catalogue of the Botanic Garden of the Forest Academy, Muenden, Hanover, purchased by the Arnold Arboretum with Zabel's herbarium. The entry records, in a list of Syringa, that Giraldii was received in October, 1895, from the French nursery of Barbier. I have not had access to any Barbier catalogue of earlier date than that of 1 896-1 897 but in the one of that year and in those of succeeding years down to 1900-1901, I have found no reference to S. Giraldii. In addition to the Giraldi collections from Shensi there is in the Arnold Arbo- retum herbarium a specimen (no. 340) collected in that province at Yenan fu by William Purdom in 1910. From the province of Shansi there are the following specimens: J. Hers (no. 2060) from Sheng shih ling, found at an altitude of 1500-2500 m., the Chinese name noted as "mu chang tze," (no. 2694) from Shengyi, at an altitude of 1500 m., September 18, 1923; F. N. Meyer (no. 405) from Tsin tze, May 5, 1907, (no. 1878) from near Tchao yii, "in loess hills" at 4000 ft., (no. 403) from mountains near Tsin tze, May, 1907. From the province of Kansu there are the following: J. Hers (no. 2399) from Tsing shui hsien, Ta liu shan, at "1500 m.?," the Chinese name noted as "hung pao shu," (no. 2413) from Tsing chow, Kuan tze chen, at 1600 m., the Chinese name "lung pai;" R. C. Ching (no. 51) from Ho Ian shan, altitude of 1375-2400 m., col- lected on a rocky slope, and the bush noted as 18 ft. tall with pink flowers. Joseph F. Rock on his recent expedition (1924-1927) to northwestern China and north- eastern Tibet found it on numerous occasions in southwestern Kansu in the Lower Tebbu country: (no. 15,063) on dry shale slopes at Mayaku, altitude 8000 ft.; SYRINGA OBLATA 185 (no. 14,687) on the slopes of Peshwekiang; (no. 15,036) in dry gorges of Chu- lungapu below Wantsang, altitude 6000-6500 ft.; (no. 15,058) on dry shale slopes of Mayaku, below Nyipa, altitude 8000 ft.; (no. 14,685) in dry open scrub in Wantsang Valley, also in dry gorges of Peshwekiang, altitude 6500 ft. The shrub is noted as varying, in different localities, from 6-10 ft. to 15 ft. in height. In the same herbarium is a specimen collected by the Rev. Hugh [Scallan] in 1899 at Kusan, no province being mentioned. This place has not been found on any map but it is probably located in southern Shensi or northern Hupeh, and if in the latter it forms the only record known to me of the plant's habitat in that province. In the Arnold Arboretum herbarium are also numerous specimens from cul- tivated plants and among them the following: C. Y. Chiao (no. 61 10) collected on April 7, 1926 at Nanking, Kiangsu; J. F. Rock (no. 12,158) from the T'ao River basin, at Choni in southwestern Kansu, growing at an altitude of 8500 ft., collected in June, 1925 ; the plant was found at a lamasery and is noted as 15 ft. tall, spreading, the flowers rich lavender; there are numerous specimens collected in 1908 and 19 10 from a plant (no. 5478 Arn. Arb.) which at one time was growing in the Arboretum collection and was received from Lemoine in 1906. Mottet suggests that 5. Giraldi may be a variety of 5. pubescens, but the fact that the anthers of the latter are bluish rather than yellow as in 5. oblata and its varieties, among other characters, separates the two species. Bellair writes in 1909 that he has cultivated this Lilac, received from Lemoine, for five years at Versailles, where its flowers, "blanc lilace," appearing about April 15, last till early May. The flower clusters he says are more numerous than those of S. oblata and are not so much affected by the spring frosts. He makes an inter- esting observation in regard to what he terms the partial sterility of this plant. For several years he attributed the fact that four or five fruit capsules only were pro- duced on any one panicle to the injury done the flowers by frost; but when the same thing occurred when the season was favorable he observed more closely and noted that these capsules appeared at the top of the panicles, or from those flowers which expanded last, and he was led to the conclusion that the flowers were not self-pollinized, — those last to open being probably crossed by some other species. He therefore suggests the value of this variety for hybridizing in order that early bloom and other forms and colors be obtained. This is just what was being done by Mr. Emile Lemoine, who, two years later, introduced the first of his new race of Giraldii hybrids, here referred to S. hyacinthiflora. It is as one parent of this valuable race, which increases the length of the Lilac season and adds much to its beauty, that the variety Giraldii will chiefly be remembered. S. oblata var. Giraldii was first received at the Arnold Arboretum from the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, in 1906. The plant (no. 20,200 Arn. Arb.) now growing in the collection was received from the Department of Parks, Rochester, New York, in 191 5. Its leaves, as they unfold about the middle of April, and its young shoots 186 THE LILAC and rhachis are covered with a short, glandular- tipped pubescence which disappears at maturity. They are tinged with a bronze-like color, Dark Livid Brown (xxxrx.). The foliage is frequently retained, still green, at the end of October. It is a tall, slender plant with upright branches, marked with small lenticels. The early flowers are only slightly fragrant, and are produced in long, open clusters, and good- sized leaves are frequently present at the base of their subdivisions. The cucullate corolla-lobes have a tendency to curl backward as the flower begins to fade. The corolla when expanded is almost % of an inch in diameter. The anthers are visible in the throat. Purple Early Lilac has been adopted as approved common name by "Standard- ized Plant Names." This variety is not S. Giraldiana Schneider. A spontaneous variety from Korea is: Syringa oblata var. dilatata (Nakai) Rehder in Jour. Arnold Arb. vn. 34 (1926); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 755 (1927). Syringa amurensis Nakai, Fl. Kor. 11. 90 (191 1). — Not Ruprecht. Syringa oblata Nakai, Fl. Kor. 11. 517 (191 1). — Not Lindley. Syringa dilatata Nakai in Tokyo Bot. Mag. xxxn. 128 (1918); Fl. Sylv. Kor. x. 48, t. xvni. (1921). — Wilson in Jour. Arnold Arb. 1. 41 (1919). — Sargent in Bull. Ar- nold Arb. n. s. vni. 23 (1920). — A. 0[sborn] in Garden, lxxxvii. 302 (1923), as S. dilitata. — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PL Names, 484 (1923). Syringa oblata var. a typica Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 88 (1920), in part, as to Faurie specimen no. 516. See Plates c, ci., en., cm., civ., cv., cvi. This variety differs considerably from the type in general appearance. The habit of the plant is more graceful, with many slender branchlets tinged when young Bay (11.). Its leaves are glabrous, ovate, long-acuminate, and as a rule truncate at the base; they are borne on very slender petioles, frequently an inch long, and when young are tinged Bay (11.). The flowers are handsomer, with a longer and more slender corolla- tube, about % in. in length, and narrower corolla-lobes. The inflorescence is more open and is frequently leafy, and -like the foliage, the rhachis, pedicel and calyx are tinged Bay (n.). It more nearly resembles the variety Giraldii although the habit of the Korean plant is spreading rather than upright. In color the flowers are in bud, corolla- tube Hay's Lilac (xxxvii.), corolla-lobes Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) tinged with Hay's Lilac (xxxvii.); anthers Reed Yellow (xxx.), inserted at middle of corolla-tube. The winter-buds are obovoid with acute apex, the flower bud % in. long more or less, the scales dark purplish with some- times reddish brown margins, lustrous, acute, the lower pair much shorter than the upper pairs, glabrous or puberulous, sometimes ciliolate, keeled. The leaf-scar much raised, shield-shaped, conspicuous, large; the bundle-trace semicircular. (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant growing at Mr. Walter Hunnewell's, Wellesley, Massachusetts, which was raised from seed collected by Mr. E. H. Wilson; the notes on the winter buds were taken from a plant (no. 10,202) growing in the Arnold Arboretum.) SYRINGA OBLATA 187 Habitat: Korea. This species was observed at its fruiting stage in 191 1 by Dr. Nakai who, in his "Flora Koreana," confused it with 6*. amurensis Ruprecht. In the same work, in a postscript, he corrects this error upon being informed that u Syringa japonica is identical with S. amurensis" and notes: "my fruit-bearing S. amurensis is not the [this] species, but belongs to S. oblata Lindl." In 1918 he cites his S. amurensis and his S. oblata as synonyms of S. dilatata. It was six years after this Lilac had been first seen by Nakai that it was introduced to cultivation in this country for seed (no. 9232) collected by E. H. Wilson on his trip to eastern Asia in 191 7- 1918 was received at the Arnold Arboretum in September, 191 7. A note on the herbarium specimen of this number (no. 9232) states that it was taken from a bush 1-6 ft. tall with wine-colored autumn leaves, "common on slate rocks and limestone from 35 miles west of Yeiko," Korea. Nakai's description oiS. dilatata, translated, reads: A shrub to 2 m. tall, branch- ing from the base; bark grayish with obscure lenticels, on the branches of the year brown or reddish brown; the leaves opposite, petioles 2-2.5 cm. long, very broad ovate or ovate, subcordate or truncate at the base, acuminate at apex, above very bright green, beneath green, 4.5 cm. long by 4.5 cm. broad " (7 : 6, 6.5-4.3, 12 : 8, 1 1- 8.5, 7.5-7, 7-4 etc.)," very glabrous; the buds ovoid; the inflorescences erect at top of branches of the previous year, commonly from axillary pairs of buds, ovoid in outline; rhachis pulverulent; lower bracts oblanceolate, colored at the apex, the upper very small; pedicels 0.2-2 mm. long; flowers fragrant; calyx acutely four- toothed, pulverulent; corolla purple- violet, very handsome; tube 10-13 mm- l°ngi lobes ovate, 4-6 mm. long; stamens inserted ["stamine inserta"]; capsule 9-15 mm. long, chestnut colored, shining, oblong, acuminate. Wilson writes in the "Journal of the Arnold Arboretum": "On the mudshales and limestone a little to the northwest of Keijyo, grows a Lilac {Syringa dilatata Nakai) which opens its panicles of palest lilac tinted flowers early in spring. It is a bush of good habit often twelve feet high and nearly as broad with dark green leathery foliage which colors finely in autumn. Examples two feet high bear flowers." On a cultivated specimen (no. 8430) gathered in the General Government Garden at Keiki on May 21, 191 7, Wilson notes that it is a bush 6-10 ft. tall, with fragrant lilac flowers and twiggy branches, commonly cultivated around Keijyo. The Abbe Faurie's fruiting specimen (no. 516), examples of which I have seen both in the Arnold Arboretum and in the herbarium of the Museum of Natural History, Paris, and which Lingelsheim cites among specimens of his S. oblata var. a typica, appears to be this variety. The collector mentions it as common on the cliffs of Kan ouen to, in Korea, where he collected it in July, 1901. At its best, this is to me one of the most beautiful of all the Lilacs although every specimen is not of equal decorative value. Those at the Arnold Arboretum are inferior up to the present time to a plant growing at Mr. Walter Hunnewell's, 188 THE LILAC Wellesley, Massachusetts. This plant was raised from Mr. Wilson's seed and bloomed profusely in 1924 and 1925. It is now a plant about five feet tall, well filled out from base to top and considerably broader than tall. In mid-May it is covered with large, graceful, open clusters of flowers of a pale lilac color; un- fortunately these have little fragrance. The foliage is handsome, thin in texture when young, but becoming leathery as on the wild specimens described by Mr. Wilson; the leaves droop slightly on their long stalks and are not borne so stiffly as those of S. oblata. The young shoots and leaves in spring are tinged with bronze, a color which returns to the leaves in the autumn; they are glabrous, although the inflorescence is sparingly short-glandular-tipped pubescent. The flowers have exceptionally long and slender corolla- tubes, and the corolla-lobes are long and narrow with a cucullate, pointed apex, and, as in the variety Giraldii, they curl backward soon after opening. When expanded the corolla is nearly % of an inch in diameter. The anthers are not visible in the open flower. On November 18, 1925, Mr. F. L. Skinner of Dropmore, Manitoba, Canada, wrote me as follows: "In 1921 I crossed S. dilatata [=S. oblata var. dilatata] with S. vulgaris (both ways) and have over eighty seedlings; these show the influence of S. dilatata both in the bud and formation and the foliage. I opened one plumb bud this autumn and found it was a flower bud. They will probably flower freely in 1927." In August, 1927, a flowering specimen of this cross was sent to Professor Sargent. Mr. Skinner then wrote: "... its chief interest is that it is, I believe, the first hybrid of this parentage to reach the flowering stage. I have quite a num- ber of these hybrids and they show considerable variation in foliage and habit." In July, 1927, Mr. Skinner sent me a photograph of one of these plants in bloom. The color of the dried specimen is well preserved and contains more blue than I have found present in the flowers of living plants of this variety which have been examined. Except for this character which may indicate the S. vulgaris strain (I do not know what form of the Common Lilac was used in the cross) the dried specimen and the photograph look much like S. oblata var. dilatata. Should this prove to be a true hybrid it should be classified with Lemoine's hybrid, 5. hyacinthi- flora, the parents of which are S. oblata, or its variety Giraldii, and 5. vulgaris. A variety with white flowers known only as a cultivated plant is: Syringa oblata var. affinis (L. Henry) Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. i.-ii. 88 (1920). — Rehder, Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 755 (1927); in Jour. Arnold Arb. ix. no (1928). See Note, page 192. Syringa affinis L. Henry in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 731 (1901); in Rev. Hort. 1908, 301, fig. 112. — Schneider in Wien. 111. Gartenz. xxvm. 101 (1903); in Bot. Jahrb. xxxvi. Beibl. no. 82, p. 87 (1905), excluding Giraldi specimen no. 737; 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 773, figs. 485 g-i, 486 f-h (1911); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 227, 228 (191 1); in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 360 (1913). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 3, May 16 (191 1); n. s. vni. 23 (1922). — Bean, Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, 11. 569 (1914). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxm. 153, SYRINGA OBLATA 189 154 (1916); Aristocrats of the Garden, 215, 219 (1917). — Goeze in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 25, 172 (1916). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (1917). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922). — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 484 (1923). — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 4, 6, (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, n. (1926). Syringa oblata var. alba Hort. according to Rehder in Bailey, Cycl. Amer. Hort. iv. 1763 (1902). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 414 (1903), as a form. See Note, page 192. S[yringa\ oblata var. alba Bean, Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, 11. 569 (1914), as a synonym. S[yringa\ oblata var. a typica Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 88(1920), in part. S[yringa] oblata var. a typica f. alba Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 88 (1920), name only. Distinguished from the type by its more slender, open habit; by its smaller leaves which are frequently truncate at the base and finely pubescent and ciliolate when young although commonly glabrous at maturity; and by its white flowers. Known only as a cultivated plant; commonly grown in Chinese gardens. With the type S. oblata this white variety may have been brought from China to England in 1856 by Robert Fortune after his visit to that country in the years 1853 to 1856. Fortune is quoted by John Lindley as follows: "There is a white variety equally interesting, found in the same country, which I have succeeded in getting home alive, and which is now under the care of Messrs. E. G. Henderson and Son, St. John's Wood." Fortune notes that like S. oblata, this variety should be hardy in England, and that like the type, the Chinese graft it on the Privet (Ligustrum lucidum). It appears doubtful whether distribution of this variety was ever made by the Henderson nursery. Bretschneider refers to it as much cultivated in Peking but he had never observed it in a wild state in the Peking mountains, although, like S. oblata, it "seems to be wild in Manchuria." Numerous authors refer to the existence of a white variety. Beissner, Schelle and Zabel mention S. oblata alba Hort. as one of two forms of 5. oblata, — the second being the form rubro-coertdea Hort. 5. oblata var. alba is, however, commonly cited as a synonym of 5. affinis, here called S. oblata var. affinis. See Note, page 192. Without giving the plant a name L. Henry in "Le Jardin" of 1894 (viii. 162, 1894) writes of what he believes may be a white form of S. oblata growing at the Museum of Natural History, Paris; it was raised from seed received in 1880 from Dr. Bretschneider, medical attache of the Russian Legation at Peking, and flowered for the first time in 1891. Henry calls attention to the fact that the seedlings raised showed no color variation and he therefore looks upon it as a wild form or one not modified by cultivation. In 1901 he described this Lilac for the first time: "Ce Lilas rappelle beaucoup le S. oblata par la forme des feuilles, par la forme et la grandeur des capsules, et surtout par l'extreme precocite de la floraison. II s'en distingue assez nettement par sa taille plus elevee, ses rameaux plus greles et plus dejetes; par ses bourgeons et ses jeunes pousses vert jaunatre; par l'aspect 190 THE LILAC terne (non lustre) et le coloris vert pale des feuilles; par leur pubescence, au moins au debut de la vegetation; par leur moindre epaisseur et leur moindre consistance; enfin, par les inflorescences plus longues, plus legeres, beaucoup moins fournies, et toujours blanc pur. Bien qu'il fleurisse a peu pres en meme temps que le S. oblata, ce Lilas est moins sujet a souffrir des froids tardifs, et il s'epanouit generalement bien. II presente, d'autre part, une assez grande ressemblance avec le Lilas commun; il en differe surtout par la forme de ses feuilles; par sa tres grande pre- cocite; par ses fleurs toujours blanc pur, a tube plus court (environs 10 millim., contre 10 a 12 millim. de diametre du limbe), a divisions arrondies, avec bords releves et extremite en capuchon, ne s'etalant jamais completement; par ses in- florescences beaucoup plus maigres et plus laches et par son aspect general plus grele et moins rigide." In a foot-note Henry adds: "On pourrait peut-etre l'appeler S. affinis, a cause de ses rapports avec le S. oblata d'un part et de S. vulgaris d'autre part." The Potanin specimen collected on May 5, 1885, in western Kansu and received at Kew from the Botanic Garden, St. Petersburg, was referred by Hooker (Bot. Mag. cxxvh. t. 7806, 1901) to 5. oblata and determined by Schneider as 5. affinis Henry. Through the courtesy of Dr. A. W. Hill this was forwarded to the Arnold Arboretum for examination where it was determined by Mr. Rehder as the wild plant S. oblata var. Giraldii. This variety was collected also by Frank N. Meyer and has been distributed by the Bureau of Plant Introduction of the U. S. Department of Agriculture as S. P. I. no. 23,031. Meyer's note in the Department's Bulletin (no. 142, 57, 1909) reads: "From Fengtai, near Peking, Chihli, China, (no. 693, Mar[ch] 31, 1908). A medium-sized, white flowering lilac. See preceding number (S. P. I. no. 23030) for remarks. Chinese name 'Pai ting hsien.' " The note, on the no. 23,030 referred to, states that it is a "purple-flowered lilac," and this is presumably the type 5. oblata, although a specimen of this number in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum which was collected at the Department's Field Station at Chico, California, appears to have white flowers. Grafts from both these numbers have been received at the Arboretum and upon flowering their classification may be determined with greater certainty. Meyer notes them as "drought resistant," and often grafted on Ligus- trum lucidum. In his "Liste des Essences ligneuses observees dans le Honan septentrional" (30, 1922) J. Hers cites as a Chinese name for 5. affinis [ = S. oblata var. affinis] "pai ting siang." In the herbarium at Kew Gardens, is a flowering specimen collected by Robert Fortune in April, 1854, which appears to be this variety. Schneider considered it to be S. oblata but the flowers are indicated as white. He cites (Bot. Jahrb., 1. c.) as S. affinis, the flowering specimen (no. 737) collected by the Rev. Giuseppe Giraldi. Lingelsheim includes this specimen, which he examined in Florence, in his S. oblata var. a. typica. At a later date (111. Handb. Laubholzk., 1. c.) Schneider notes that his classification of this species was based chiefly upon the minute SYRINGA OBLATA 191 glandular pubescence of the young growth. According to information supplied me by Dr. Pampanini, this number, which is in the Biondi-Giraldi Herbarium at Flor- ence, Italy, was at one time determined by Schneider as S. Dielsiana [ =S. micro- phylla Diels], and there is no record of his S. affinis determination. The collector's notes state that the plant was from northern Shensi, "raccolto presso una casa a Lu-tun"; it is dated March 25, 1891 and was evidently a cultivated plant. I consider that in form of inflorescence and of foliage this specimen more nearly represents the wild plant Giraldii and so classify it. The minute glandular pubes- cence of the young growth noted by Schneider is characteristic of the variety Giraldii also. Among specimens from cultivated plants which are in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum are the following from China: N. H. Cowdry (no. 1010) from the Temple grounds, Wofussun, Chihli; J. F. Rock (no. 12,159) fr°m the T'ao River basin, Choni, southwestern Kansu, altitude 8500 ft.; the shrub is noted as 15 ft. tall, spreading, with white flowers; it was growing at a lamasery. S. oblata var. affinis was at one time growing in the Arnold Arboretum but the original plant has disappeared. E. H. Wilson writes in 1916: "Each succeeding year there is a close race between two Chinese species (5. affinis and S. oblata) to be the first Lilac to blossom and usually the first-named wins." The first plant of the variety affinis to be received at the Arnold Arboretum was sent by Mr. E. T. Wil- liams from Peking in April, 1904, and at present there is in the nursery a young plant (no. 5320-1 Arn. Arb.) grown from cuttings taken from the original on January 8, 1920. The variety affinis is chiefly distinguished from S. oblata by its white rather than purplish flowers, and by its smaller leaves which are, when young, finely downy rather than glabrous, as in the type. Early Lilac has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names," which classifies this Lilac as 5. affinis, a distinct species. Another variety, not known to be in cultivation, has been described as: Syringa oblata var. hupehensis Pampanini in Nuov. Giorn. Bot. Ital. n. s. xvn. 690 (1910). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. i-n. 88 (1920). Habitat: China : province of Hupeh. This variety was founded by Dr. Pampanini upon the fruiting specimen (no. 1806) collected in Hupeh, China, by the Rev. P. C. Silvestri at "Monte Triona, alt. 1950 m.," on July 3, 1907. His description states that it differs from the type in the broad ovate-cordate leaves, 5^-7 cm. long and 3;Hr~6 cm. broad, at the fruiting stage more or less pubescent beneath, with margins ciliolate under the lens, with capsule rather short, beaked, n mm. long. The principal distinction which Dr. Pampanini notes is the pubescent character of the under side of the mature leaves; those of the variety Giraldii, a spontaneous variety of S. oblata from the provinces of Shensi, Shansi, and Kansu, being glabrous 192 THE LILAC at maturity. Fragments and a photograph of this specimen were kindly sent me by Dr. Pampanini. The collector's notes do not state whether the plant was wild or cultivated; it was presumably wild. Since this is the only variety of S. oblata showing this strongly pubescent char- acter upon the mature leaves, and since the flowers are still unknown I have retained Dr. Pampanini's classification. It is possible that further knowledge of the wild variety Giraldii may lead to the conclusion that its glabrous character at maturity is inconstant, permitting the union of the two varieties. A garden form, differing from typical S. oblata merely in the color of its flowers, is: Rubro-coerulea Hort. according to Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz- Ben. 414 (1903), name only, as a form. Syringa oblata var. a typica f. rubro-coerulea Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 88 (1920), name only. K. Koch (Dendr. 11. pt. 1. 266, 1872) notes that among forms of S. oblata there is "eine mit purpurvioletten . . . Bliithen"; this is possibly the same. Koehne (Deutsch. Dendr. 500, 1893) writes of S. oblata: "Blumenkrone purpurviolett, hellpurpurn, weiss, " — his white variety is of course S. oblata var. affinis. Rehder (Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.- Zeit. xrv. 206, 1899), also writing of S. oblata, adds: "Es gibt von dieser Art auch Varie- taten mit dunkleren, purpurvioletten . . . Blumen, die ich jedoch noch nicht gesehen habe." Note. Mr. Rehder has recently noted that the oldest varietal name for the variety of S. oblata, here called affinis, is variety alba. Although affinis is the oldest specific name for this Lilac according to the International Rules of Nomenclature the oldest varietal name must stand. This fact was not noted until the book was in press. Plate CVII SYRINGA HYACLNTHIFLORA (Arnold Arboretum no. 15,659) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1925. Plate CVIII i SYRINGA HYACINTHIFLORA (Arnold Arboretum no. 15,650) Expanding buds, enlarged. April 29, 1926. Plate CIX SYRINGA HYACINTHIFLORA (Arnold Arboretum no. 15,659) Flower clusters. May 21, 1924. Plate CX < fa o a H S5 — X < o 04 o (N u-> o\ vO tH VO ~ w M )-i cfl < 3 2 'o c w < =2 Plate CXI <: M iJ-> o ^. vr: _) m CN ta 1-1 — i— i H 5 *- H "" O a p rQ ^H r— U 5 O < o > >H t- o a o Z — 1 H « <: LO S t^ <: <^ (j © < 6 « r^ „ o p >> _) ^ — ' o 03 5 ^ i— < < ■• < — J— >H »-T* rt ffi C "v^ < <; O * — * £ HH « >H Crt X SYRINGA HYACINTHIFLORA A hybrid between S. oblata Lindley and S. vulgaris Linnaeus, of garden origin, is: X Syringa hyacinthiflora Lemfoine] according to Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.- Zeit. xrv. 206 (1899); in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs 755 (1927). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 415 (1903). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 3, May 16 (191 1); no. 54, May 14 (1914); n. s. 111. . 22 (1917); v. 18 (1919). — Schneider, HI. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 773 (1911). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxiii. 155 (1916); Aristocrats of the Garden, 229 (1917). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922). — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 485 (1923), as a synonym. — Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 31 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, n. (1926). — G. Hegi, 111. Fl. Mittel-Eur. v. pt. ni., 1911 (1927). Syringa hyacinthiflora flore pleno [Lemoine according to] Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1876, 299; 1877, 279- — E. Morren in Belg. Hort. xxvin. 175 (1878). Syringa hyacinthiflora plena Lemoine, Cat. no. 78, 6 (1878). — V. Lemoine in Garden and Forest, n. 326 (1889); in Gard. Chron. ser. 3, vi. 132 (1889); in Hamburg. Gart. Blumenz. xlv. 459 (1889); in Jardin, in. 201 (1889). — Foussat in Jardin, xv. 281 (1901). — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 321. — Grignan in Rev. Hort. 1907, 14. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 378 (1907). Syringa hybrida hyacinthiflora plena Lemoine, Cat. 94 (1883). — V. Lemoine in Garden and Forest, n. 326 (1889); in Gard. Chron. ser. 3, vr. 132 (1889); in Hamburg. Gart. Blumenz. xlv. 459 (1889); in Jardin, in. 201 (1889). — Carriere and Andre in Rev. Hort. 1889, 410. — E. Lemoine in Garden, xxxix. 91 (1891); in Jardin, vi. 152 (1892). — L. Henry in Jardin, vni. 176 (1894); in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 738 (1901). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 232 (1917). Syringa vulgaris hyacinthiflora Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), name only. Syringa hybrida hyacinthiflora V. Lemoine in Garden and Forest, n. 326 (1889); in Gard. Chron. ser. 3, vi. 132 (1889); in Hamburg. Gart. Blumenz. xlv. 459 (1889); in Jardin, m. 201 (1889). S[yringa] oblata X S\yringa] vulgaris Schneider in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 228 (1911). Syringa oblata var. a typica f. hyacinthiflora Hort. according to Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 88 (1920). This hybrid was produced by Mr. Victor Lemoine of Nancy, France. He crossed artificially one of the first recorded double forms of the Common Lilac, Azurea plena, with pollen taken from various single forms of the same species such as Ville de Troyes, Sanguinea, etc., and from that of the species S. oblata. Certain seedlings raised showed no trace of 5. oblala, — these were the first of Mr. Lemoine's fine strain of double and single forms of the Common Lilac, — but some of its 193 194 THE LILAC characters were clearly apparent in one plant which Lemoine considered to be a true hybrid and introduced, in his catalogue for 1878, as Syringa hyacinthiflora plena. His original description reads: "Thyrses de 15 centimetres de hauteur sur 10 de largeur a la base, flexibles, fleurs moyennes, ouvertes, doubles, formees de 10 a. 12 petales bien imbriquees, forme d'une jacinthe double en miniature, d'un joli rose lilace avec les boutons rouges. Cette variete bien superieure a l'ancien S. azurea plena, provient d'un croisement de celui-ci par le S. oblata (Chine). Sa floraison precede de 10 jours les especes communes." Carriere who first wrote of this hybrid in 1876 quotes a letter from Mr. Lemoine, who had sent him specimens of the plant: "Mon Lilas fleurit pour la premiere fois sur la plante de semis; il est d'une vigueur moyenne; greffe, il me donnera sans doute des thyrses plus volumineuses. Quoi qu'il en soit, il provient d'une graine recolt6e sur la variete azurea plena. La fecondation n'a pu s'operer que tres-dif- ficilement, et au moyen de l'ablation du petale qui recouvre constamment, et dans chaque fleur, le stigmate de la fleur de Yazurea, et ces fleurs, depourvues d'etamines n'ont qu'un pistil souvent atrophic, de sorte que sur plus de cent fleurs qui ont ete operees, je n'ai obtenu que sept graines; mais l'annee suivante, j'ai ete plus heureux: j'ai recolte trente graines fertiles. La fecondation a done eu lieu avec le pollen des etamines a fleurs simples pris sur de belles varietes, tout particulierement sur l'espece oblata, qui est plus native de huit jours que les Lilas communs (Syringa vulgaris). Mon gain semble provenir de l'influence de Y oblata dont il a tous les caracteres, plus des fleurs doubles. Des quarante plantes de semis que je possede, trois seulement ont fleuri; le premier (celui dont je vous addresse un echantillon) etait a. fleurs doubles. — Le semis date de cinq annees." Carriere adds: "Le qualicatif hyacinthiflora a ete donne par M. Lemoine a cause de la fleur qui rappelle celle d'une 'Jacinthe en miniature.'" This hybrid, now called S. hyacinthiflora, has foliage intermediate between that of its parents; the bronze-like color of the leaves in spring and autumn, and the early blooming season, in late April or early May in the neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts, are characteristic of 5. oblata, while the double fragrant flowers are inherited from 5. vulgaris. The plant flowered for the first time in 1876 accord- ing to L. Henry (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, 1. c). It was exhibited, Mr. E. Lemoine states (Garden, 1. c), at a meeting of the Royal Horticultural Society, London, on September 9th, 1890. For an account of the difficulties encountered by Mr. Lemoine in this hybridiza- tion see also the form of the Common Lilac, Azurea plena. "Standardized Plant Names" has adopted the approved common names of Hyacinth for S. hyacinthiflora, and of Double Hyacinth for S. hyacinthiflora plena; until Mr. Emile Lemoine introduced in 191 1 the first of his new race of early hybrid Lilacs (S. oblata var. Giraldii X S. vulgaris) , which are here for the first time called S. hyacinthiflora hybrids, this plant was only known in a double form. SYRINGA HYACINTHIFLORA 195 E. Morren calls this the Lilas double a, fleurs de Jacinthe. Presumably the Lilas de Jacinthe which appears in such catalogues as Baltet's (1900-1901, 27) where it is described as "lilas tres pale, tres pr6coce," is this hybrid. Notes on the plant in the Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Massachusetts, in April, 1907; no. 15,659 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, with two or more corollas, medium size, corolla-tube cylindric, corolla-lobes pointed at apex, sometimes cucullate; tone intermediate; color in bud at first Light Perilla Purple, later corolla- tube Purplish Lilac or Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.), corolla-lobes Vernonia Purple (xxxvni.); when expanded, Light Lobelia Violet tinged with Purplish Lilac (xxxvn.). Clusters small, about 4 in. long, well- filled, ordinarily from two lateral buds at the end of a branchlet, but occasion- ally from as many as five pairs of buds, exceedingly fragrant and early. The young growth and inflorescences are tinged Chestnut Brown (xrv.) and covered for a time with glandular-tipped pubescence. Winter-buds obovoid with acute apex, flower bud % in. long more or less, scales purplish with narrow reddish brown margins, lustrous, acute, keeled and forming a markedly four-sided bud, glabrous. Leaf- scar slightly raised, shield-shaped, inconspicuous, medium size; bundle-trace slightly curved. For the cross 5. oblata var. dilatata with S. vulgaris, see S. oblata var. dilatata. Hybrids between garden forms of 5. oblata var. Giraldii and S. vulgaris have been produced by Mr. Emile Lemoine of Nancy, France. They are most nearly related to Mr. Victor Lemoine's earlier hybrid S. hyacinthiflora (5. oblata X 5. vulgaris) and as a race must bear that name. But since to produce these more recent hybrids there were available as parents the modern, showier forms of the Common Lilac, and S. oblata var. Giraldii, — far handsomer than the type S. oblata, — the new race is superior both in size and character of individual flower and of inflorescence to the earlier hybrid. As in the type S. hyacinthiflora, the foliage is intermediate between that of the parents; the early flowers testify to their S. oblata strain, while their color variations and form, in particular that of the double sorts, are characters inherited from the garden forms of 5. vulgaris. The first mention of the new race appeared in the Lemoine catalogue for 191 1 (no. 179, 2, 191 1) under the title "Lilas hybrides de Syringa vulgaris et de S. Giraldii" Numerous other references have appeared, among them the following: Rev. Hort. 1911, 538. — Steffen in Gartenflora, lxiii. 15 (1913). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 755 (1927). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. v. 18 (1919). — Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 822. — Meyer in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xl. 375 (1925). Judging by the plants in the Arnold Arboretum, where seven out of the fourteen forms introduced up to the present time by Mr. Lemoine are now good sized plants, they are exceptionally rapid, vigorous growers, requiring frequent cutting 196 THE LILAC back to prevent their becoming "leggy" and in order that their flower clusters may be produced at a height where their beauty and fragrance may be enjoyed. Such severe pruning will moreover tend to produce slightly larger flowers and larger clusters. The young shoots and leaves when they first appear as well as the branches of the inflorescence, the calyx and the pedicel, are tinged with a bronze-like color close to Diamine Brown (xin.), and are covered with short, glandular-tipped pubescence. This coloring and the pubescence are to be found in the parent S. oblata var. Giraldii. The flower-clusters, which begin to open from the end of April to early May are almost over when those of the Common Lilac forms are at their best. They are frequently a foot long and even broader near the base, and of an open, widely branching habit, often with small leaves at the base of their subdivisions. When the large flowers expand the clusters, though well filled, are not overcrowded. The corolla-lobes curl backward after they have been un- folded for a short time as do those of the variety Giraldii. The range of color is not great up to the present time, all being intermediate to pale in tone and as a rule of a lavender color which in some forms has slightly more red than in others. Neither a truly dark nor a white Lilac has been as yet introduced in this group. Of the forms which I have seen the two which show the greatest individuality in color are Necker, a fine pink, and Villars, dark in flower bud but expanding much paler. The latter has darker winter-buds than the other forms of this group, and in color these are close to those of the parent 5. oblata var. Giraldii. Most of the single forms growing in the Arnold Arboretum bear a marked resemblance to each other and are difficult to distinguish. There are three double or semi- double forms, — Berryer, Claude Bernard and Vauban. The forms of the hybrid S. hyacinthijlora which follow, and which for con- venience are arranged alphabetically, comprise the introductions to date of the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, of Nancy, France. The date of introduction precedes Mr. Lemoine's original description. Most were announced under the title "Early Lilacs. Hybrids of Syringa vulgaris and S. Giraldii,' ' without any special group name; occasionally they have appeared in the catalogue's list of Common Lilac forms when their parentage has merely been given in their description. They are: Berryer Lemoine, Cat. no. 185, 41 (1913-1914), "Tiges hautes, longs thyrses de fleurs souvent semi-doubles, mauve." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). — Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 830. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in November, 1922; no. 11,743 Am. Arb.). Flowers single or semi-double ; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Corinthian Purple to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvin.) ; when expanded Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac (xxxvu.). The open flowers are irregular in form, with twisted or curling corolla-lobes. These are broad, round, sometimes with a pointed, sometimes with a blunt apex. The anthers are frequently visible in the single flowers. SYRINGA HYACINTHIFLORA 197 Buffon Lemoine, Cat. no. 195, 18 (1921-1922), "Elegant clusters of single flowers with reflexed lobes, mauve pink." I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 195. Catinat Lemoine, Cat. no. 196, 19 (1922-1923), "Very tall shrub carrying immense branched panicles of large pink single flowers." A plant of this form is growing in the Arnold Arboretum but has not yet bloomed (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in October, 1925; no. 19,119 Arn. Arb). Notes on plant in collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, New York (plant received from Lemoine in 1922). Flowers single, medium size; corolla-lobes narrow, creased in the center, pointed at apex, curling backward after they have been expanded for a short time; anthers prominent; tone pale; color in bud Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Pale Vinaceous-Lilac tinged with Light Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) without, Purplish Lilac (xxxvu.) within. Clusters large, loose, open. The flowers are paler without than within. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 196. Claude Bernard Lemoine, Cat. no. 189, 23 (1915), "A tall shrub attaining 10 feet in a short time, long panicles of large double or semi-double flowers, bright mauve lilac. In 1914 this variety was in full flower April 15." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). — Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 831. In the United States the flowering season is somewhat later than in France. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1917; no. 7624 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, with two corollas and additional lobes at throat, only rarely semi-double ; corolla-lobes broadest above the middle, rounded, or pointed at the apex; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Light Perilla Purple to Argyle Purple (xxxvn.); when expanded Hay's Lilac (xxxvn.) without, Light Mauve to Pale Mauve (xxv.) marked Bluish Lavender (xxxvi.) near throat within. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 189. This form is mentioned in "Standardized Plant Names" (485, 1923) without indica- tion of its hybrid origin. The paragraph prefacing the list in which it appears is mis- leading and would indicate that it was a form of S. vulgaris. Descartes Lemoine, Cat. no. 190, 25 (1916), "Large panicles of single mauve pink flowers, extra floriferous." — Dunbar in Florists Exch., September 22, 1923, 830. See Plate cxvi. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1917; no. 7868 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single; corolla-lobes broad, rounded or pointed at the apex; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Wood Brown (xl.) to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when expanded Pale Lilac tinged with Hay's Lilac and marked with Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.). The flowers of this form are slightly pinker than most of those of this group. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 190. This form is mentioned in "Standardized Plant Names" (486, 1923) without indica- 198 THE LILAC tion of its hybrid origin. The paragraph prefacing the list in which it appears is mis- leading and would indicate that it was a form of S. vulgaris. Lamartine Lemoine, Cat. no. 179, 6 (1911), "Belles panicules d'une grande legerete, fleurs simples, rose mauve." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). — Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 830. — Rehder, Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 755 (1927)- See Plates cxn., cxiii., cxvn., cxviii. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1917; no. 17,357 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, corolla-lobes oval, rounded at apex; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Helle- bore Red to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Purplish Lilac with markings of Lobelia Violet on corolla-lobes within, Purplish Lilac with occasional margins of Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.) without. This is one of the earliest of the group to flower in the Arboretum. Miss Isabella Preston, producer of the S. Prestoniae hybrids, wrote me in November, 1925: "I have several seedlings of S. vulgaris Negro X Lamartine which is one of Le- moine's S. Giraldii hybrids. These crosses were made in 1922 and have not yet bloomed." When in Ottawa in June, 1927, the seedlings were out of bloom but Miss Preston tells me that they showed great color variation. This form is mentioned in "Standardized Plant Names" (486, 1923) without indica- tion of its hybrid origin. The paragraph prefacing the list in which it appears is mis- leading and would indicate that it was a form of S. vulgaris. Louvois Lemoine, Cat. no. 195, 19 (1921-1922), "Voluminous clusters of large single flowers, deep violet purple with bluish shades." Notes on plant in collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. (plant re- ceived from Lemoine in 192 1). Flowers single, with a tendency to produce additional lobes in regular corolla, intermediate to large in size; corolla-lobes narrow, unsymmetrical ; anthers conspicuous; tone intermediate; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Magenta (xxvi.) ; when expanded Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink with margins of Pale Laelia Pink without, Eupatorium Purple with markings of Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) at junc- tion of corolla-lobes within. Clusters with broad basal subdivisions; these are held erect and the cluster therefore appears compact. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 195. Mirabeau Lemoine, Cat. no. 179, 6 (1911), "Bonnes panicules, fleurs tres grandes, simples, mauve rose lilace; la floraison commence vers le 25 avril." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). — Dunbar in Florists Exch., September 22, 1923, 830. — Rehder, Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 755 (1927). See Plate cxv. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1917; no. 7625 Am. Arb.). Flowers single; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red (xxxviii.); when expanded Lobelia Violet to Hay's Lilac (xxxvii.) . The corolla-lobes are narrow, broadest at the middle, somewhat pointed at apex, occasionally cucullate; the anthers are hidden. This is one of the earliest of this group to flower in the Arboretum. SYRINGA HYACINTHIFLORA 199 This form is mentioned in "Standardized Plant Names" (487, 1923) without indica- tion of its hybrid origin. The paragraph prefacing the list in which it appears is mislead- ing and would indicate that it was a form of ,S. vulgaris. Montesquieu Lemoine, Cat. no. 199 bis, 8 (July, 1926), "One of our showiest Giraldii hybrids, with huge panicles of round single flowers, purplish lilac, exceedingly free and floriferous, early." I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 199 bis. Necker Lemoine, Cat. no. 194, 18 (1920), "Single, pale pink flowers; one of the earliest." Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in November, 1921; no. 11,059 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, symmetrical, large, with cucullate corolla-lobes and anthers visible in the open flower; tone pale; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Rocellin Purple to Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) ; when expanded Laelia Pink both within and without turning to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) marked with considerable white near throat and on corolla-lobes within. Clusters broad at base, of good size, symmetrically filled but not crowded. Distinct from other plants of this group in the form of the corolla which is very similar to that of Marlyensis pallida and in the color of the flowers which is much like that found in Lucie Baltet, two forms of the Common Lilac. Unlike most of the Lilacs of this group the inflorescence, young shoots and foliage are scarcely tinged with bronze. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 194. Pascal Lemoine, Cat. no. 190, 25 (1916), "An exceedingly floriferous sort, single flowers of a pure lilac." — Dunbar in Florists Exch., September 22, 1923, 830. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1918; no. 7927 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single; tone intermediate to pale ; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) ; when expanded Ageratum Violet (xxxvn.) with streakings of Light Hyssop Violet (xxxvr.) on corolla- lobes within. The corolla-lobes are broad, round in form, abruptly pointed or rounded at apex and the anthers are frequently visible. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 190. This form is mentioned in "Standardized Plant Names" (487, 1923) without indica- tion of its hybrid origin. The paragraph prefacing the list in which the name appears is misleading and would indicate that it was a form of S. vulgaris. Turgot Lemoine, Cat. no. 194, 18 (1921-1922), "Broad panicles, single, round flowers, of a purplish rose passing to soft mauve, very striking." A plant (no. 11,061 Arn. Arb.) bearing this name was received at the Arnold Arboretum from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in November, 192 1. It bears such a close resemblance to the form Necker that I believe there must have been some confusion of labels ; both are still very young plants however. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 194. Vauban Lemoine, Cat. no. 185, 41 (1913-1914), "Tiges tres hautes, panicules dressees, fleurs moyennes, doubles, forme renoncule, rose mauve tendre, floribondite extraordi- 200 THE LILAC naire." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). — Dunbar in Florists Exch., September 22, 1923, 820. See Plate cxrv. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1918; no. 7937 Am. Arb.). Flowers semidouble or double; corolla- lobes broad, rounded or obtusish at apex; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Ver- nonia Purple to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvin.) ; when expanded Argyle Purple to Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvn.) without and within. This form is mentioned in "Standardized Plant Names" (488, 1923) without indica- tion of its hybrid origin. The paragraph prefacing the list in which the name appears is misleading and would indicate that it was a form of S. vulgaris. Villars Lemoine, Cat. no. 194, 18 (1920-1921), "Tall branches, long panicles, large single flowers, pinkish mauve fading to pale lilac." Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in November, 1921 ; no. 11,062 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single; tone intermedi- ate to pale; color in bud Dark Perilla Purple to Light Perilla Purple to Argyle Purple (xxxvn.) ; when expanded Purplish Lilac without, Purplish Lilac to Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.) within. The corolla-lobes are narrow, broadest at or above the middle, rounded or slightly pointed at apex, frequently curled or twisted, and the anthers are clearly visible in the open flower. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 194. Plate CXIX SYRINGA VULGARIS (Arnold Arboretum no. 17,363) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1925. Plate CXX SYRINGA VULGARIS (Arnold Arboretum no. 17,363) Expanding buds, enlarged. April 30, 1926. Plate CXXI SYRINGA VULGARIS (Arnold Arboretum no. 17,363) Flower clusters. May 26, 1924. Plate CXXII SYRINGA VULGARIS (Arnold Arboretum no. 17,363) Fruit, enlarged. Picked August 19, 1924. SYRINGA VULGARIS (Arnold Arboretum no. 17,363) Bark. November, 1925. Plate CXXIV l*?;*& w SYRINGA VULGARIS "AMETHYST' (Arnold Arboretum no. 17,364) Flower clusters. June 2, 1924. Plate CXXV SYRINGA VULGARIS "DIDEROT" (Arnold Arboretum no. 7194) Flower clusters. June 2, 1924. Plate CXXVI SYRINGA VULGARIS "MME. F. MOREL" (Arnold Arboretum no. 10,602) Flower clusters. June 2, 1924. Plate CXXVII w S o _ ^ o . -o f* o w o CO qj « O < -9 O < > -o ^ C O < CO c 3 en 1-1 1-4 o o Plate CXXVII1 SYRINGA VULGARIS "VESTALE" (Arnold Arboretum no. 7540) Flower clusters. June 2, 1924. Plate CXXIX SYRINGA VULGARIS "CHRISTOPHE COLOMB" (Arnold Arboretum no. 5117) Flower clusters. June 2, 1926. Plate CXXX SYRINGA VULGARIS "LEMOINEI" (Arnold Arboretum no. 1852) Flower clusters. May 26, 1924. Plate CXXXI SYRINGA VULGARIS "DUC DE MASSA" (Arnold Arboretum no. 7195) Flower clusters. June 2, 1924. Plate CXXXII < Q >— i h-i J < . a, M ri- ot o hH l-l 1/1 LO ••» S . w o >1 a >, h-) < B -i-> rt s s . 1/3 o u >— i < O « S3 • p— i i-l a -i-> > I-l < < O K HH Pi tH w Plate CXXXIII m S o o o w n & o H o o i— i 2 < o p SO l-l o 2 fl o (-1 o CO SYRINGA VULGARIS Syringa vulgaris Linnaeus, Sp. PI. i. 9 (1753). — Zinn, Cat. PI. Hort. Gotting. 275 (I757)- — Miller, Diet. Gard. ed. 8 (1768). — Duroi, Harbk. Baumz. 11. 443 (1772). — Reichard, Fl. Moeno-Francof. 2 (1772). — Murray, Syst. Veg. 55 (1774). — Leers, Fl. Herborn. 2 (1775). — Builliard, Introd. Fl. Envir. Paris, t. 4 (1776); Herb. France, t. 265 (1780). — Moench, Enum. PI. 3 (1777). — Houttuyn, Pflanzensyst. ill. 19 (1778). — Leysser, Fl. Halensis, 2 (1783). — Willdenow, Fl. Berol. 7 (1787); Berlin. Baumz. 378 (1796); Sp. PI. 1. 48 (1797); Enum. PI. Hort. Berol. 14 (1809).— J. P. Buc'hoz, Coll. Fl. 1. t. 29 (1776). — Gartner, Fruct. 1. 224 (1788); rv. t. 49, fig. 4 (1807). — Roth, Tent. Fl. Germ. 1. 4 (1788); Man. Bot. 1. 8 (1830). — Schrank, Baier. Fl. 1. 206 (1789); Fl. Monac. in. t. 233 (1816). — W. Aiton, Hort. Kew. 1. 15 (1789). — Baumgarten, Sert. Lips. 45 (1790) ; Fl. Lips. 4 (1790) ; Enum. Stirp. Transsilv. 1. 16 (1816). — Schkuhr, Bot. Handb. 1. 8, t. 2 (1791). — Hoffmann, Deutschl. Fl. 3 (1791). — Curtis, Bot. Mag. VI. t. 183 (1793). — Schmidt, Oesterr. Baumz. 11. 26, t. 77 (1794) (t. as S. vulgaris purp- urea}). — Rohling, Deutschl. Fl. 67 (1796). — Marter, Oestreich. Baume, 122 (1796). — Braune, Salzburg. Fl. 1. 7 (1797). — W. Salisbury, Hort. Paddingt. 89 (1797); Cat. London Bot. Gard. 1 (1809). — Sturm, Deutschl. Fl., Abth. 1. 2, t. 4 (1798). — [De Launay] in Bon Jard. 1805, 584. — Persoon, Syn. PI. 1. 9 (1805). — Vahl, Enum. PI. 1. 38 (1805). — Mirbel, Hist. Nat. PI. xv. 145, 148, t. ci. (1805-1806). — Gmelin, Fl. Bad. Alsat. 1. 13 (1805-1826). — Loiseleur-Deslongchamps, Fl. Gall. 1. 6 (1806); Herb. Gen. Amateur, vn. 443, t. (1824); in Ann. Soc. Hort. Paris, xxxviii. 781 (1847). — Schrader, Fl. Germ. 1. 10 (1806). — Poiteau and Turpin, Fl. Paris, 7 (1808). — F. G. Dietrich, Vollst. Lex. Gartn. Botanik, ix. 591 (1809). — Desfontaines, Hist. Arb. Arbris. 1. 99 (1809); Cat. PI. Hort. Reg. Paris, ed. 3, 87 (1829). — Schweigger and Korte, Fl. Erlang. 2 (1811). — Le Turquier Delongchamp, Fl. Envir. Rouen, 1. 4 (1816). — Roemer and Schultes, Syst. Veg. 1. 76 (1817); Mantissa, 1. 84 (1822). — Hayne, Dendr. Fl. 2 (1822). — Mertens and Koch, Rohling's Deutschl. Fl. 1. 301 (1823). — Thuillier, Fl. Envir. Paris, 5 (1824) (reprint of ed. 2, 1799). — Bluff and Fingerhuth, Comp. Fl. Germ. 1. 10 (1825); ed. 2, 1. 15 (1836). — Sprengel, Syst. Veg. 1. 36 (1825). — A. Richard, Diet. Class, ix. 400 (1826); Elemens Hist. Nat. 111. 297 (1838). — Spenner, Fl. Friburg. 1. 373 (1826). — Sweet, Hort. Brit. 272 (1827). — Prince, Short Treatise Hort. 121 (1828). — Nees, PL Offic. 1. t. 214 (1828). — Rochel, PI. Banat. 24 (1828). — Zuccarini, Charakt. Deutsch. Holzgew. Blattl. Zustande, 8, t. 5, fig. 1. 1-3 (1829). — Drapiez, Herb. Amateur Fleurs, m. 153, t. (1829). — Reichenbach, Fl. Germ. Excurs. 1. 433 (1830-1832); Icones Fl. Germ. Helv. xvn. 20, t. 32, mlxxiii. figs. 1-5 (1855). — Blanqui, Voy. Bulg. 115 (1831). — Flora, xrv. pt. 1. 399 (1831). — A. Dietrich, Sp. PI. 1. 247 (1831). — Loudon, Gardener's Mag. rx. 706 (1833); Arb. Brit. 11. 1209, fig. 1036 (1838). — G. Don, Gen. Syst. rv. 51 (1838). — Spach, Hist. Nat. Veg. viii. 283 (1839). — D. Dietrich, Syn. PL 201 202 THE LILAC i. 38 (1839). — Bosse, Vollstand. Handb. Blumengartn. 111. 461 (1842). — Caron in Mel. Litt. Sci. 155 (1844). — De Candolle, Prodr. vin. 282 (1844). — Plee, Types, sub. t. 117 (1844-1864), text in part. — Petermann, Deutschl. Fl. 372, t. 59, fig. 462 (1849). — Visiani, Fl. Dalmat. 111. 23 (1852). — C. Morren in Bull. Acad. Roy. Sci. Belg. ser. 1, xx. 273-284, t. (opp. p. 284), figs. 1-4 (1853) (reprinted in Clusia, 173-184, t. xm. figs. 1-4, 1852-1874); in Belg. Hort. rv. 66 (1854). — Heuffel, Enum. PI. Banatu, 158 (1858). — Willkomm, Deutschl. Laubh. Winter, 46, fig. 79 (1859); Fuhr. Reich Deutsch. Pflanz. 445 (1863); Forstl. Fl. 565 (1875). — Decaisne and Naudin, Man. Amateur Jard. ni. 87 (1862-1866). — Czihak and Szabo in Flora, xlvi. 152 (1863). — Kirchnerin Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 494 (1864). — Ascherson, Fl. Prov. Brandenb. 419 (1864). — Jager, Ziergeholze, 530 (1865). — Schur, Enum. PI. Transsilv. 451 (1866). — Lindley and Moore, Treasury Bot. 11. 1117 (1866). — Fuss, Fl. Transsilv. 432 (1866). — O. Kuntze, Taschen-Fl. Leipzig, 82 (1867). — Pasquale, Cat. Orto Bot. Napoli, 100 (1867). — [K. Koch] in Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xn. 41 (1869) ; Dendr. n. pt. 1. 265 (1872). — Regel, Russ. Dendr. 206, fig. 49 (1870). — Fant, Sveriges Trad. Buskar Vinter- dragt, 46, t. xi. fig. 51 (1872). — Hallier, Deutschl. Fl. t. 299 (1873-1875). — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 558 (1875). — De Vos in Nederl. Fl. Pom. n. 202 (1876). — De Jaubert, Invent. Cult. Trianon, 25 (1876). — Hemsley, Handb. Hardy Trees, 294 (1877). — Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 168 (1877). — Boissier, Fl. Orient, iv. 38 (1879). — Decaisne in Nouv. Arch. Mus. Paris, ser. 2, n. 39, t. 1. b., figs. 33-44 (1879). — Lauche, Deutsch. Dendr. 169 (1880). — Dietz in Erdesz. Lap. 1882, 221. — Borbas in Erdesz. Lap. 1882, 883. — H. Miiller, Fertilisation of Flowers (translated by D'A. W. Thompson), 392, fig. 129 (1883). — Baier in Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr. xxxiii. 327 (1883). — Bosemann, Deutschl. Geholze Winterkl. 66 (1884). — Simonkai, Enum. Fl. Transsilv. 392 (1886). — Bielz in Verh. Mitt. Siebenburg. Ver. Naturw. Hermannstadt, xxxvi. 51 (1886). — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. m. 537 (1887). — Sargent in Garden and Forest, 1. 220 (1888); in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 23, May 22 (1912); no. 40, May 9 (1913); no. 51, Nov. 7 (1913); n. s. 1. 13 (1915); v. 17 (1919). — Nagy in Gartenflora, xxxvn. 587 (1888). — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 112 (1889). — Franchet in Rev. Hort. 1891, 308; in Garden, xl. 157, 173 (1891). — Velenovsky, Fl. Bulgar. 378 (1891); Suppl. 1. 190, 332 (1898) ; in Sitzungsb. Bohm. Gesellsch. Wissensch. Prag, Jahrg. 1893, n0- xxxvn. 42 (1894). — Hartwig, HI. Geholzb. 379, fig. (1892). — Mouillefert, Traite Arb. Arbris. n. 997 (1892-1898). — Koehne, Deutsch. Dendr. 500 (1893). — L. Henry in Jardin, vih. 88, 102, 174 (1894); xv. 280 (1901); in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, n. 727, 732 (1901). — Shirasawa in Bull. Agric. Coll. Tokyo, n. 277, t. xi. fig. 28 (Japan. Laubh. Winterzust.) (1895). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652, t. 91, fig. 364 (1896). — Bean in Garden, Lni. 276 (1898); Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, 11. 572 (1914). — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xrv. 205, fig. (1899); in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301, figs. 3758, 3761, 3762 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 755 (1927). — E. Lemoine in Rev. Hort. 1900, 373 ; in Jour. Hort. Soc. London, xxrv. 299, fig. 112 (1900). — Coste, Fl. France, n. 541, fig. (1903). — Schneider in Wien. HI. Gartenz. xxviii. 99 (1903); Dendr. Winterstudien, 220, fig. 210 n-r, 265 (1903); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 226, 228 (191 1); HI. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 774, figs. 485 a-c, 486 i-m (191 1); in Suva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 361 (1913). — Lochot in Rev. Hort. 1903, 125, figs. 48-50. — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903). — Krause SYRINGA VULGARIS 203 in Sturm, Deutschl. Fl. x. 40, t. 2 (1903). — Ward, Trees; Handb. For. Bot. 1. 14, fig. 5, 42, 157, fig. 74 (1904). — 0. and B. Fedtschenko in Bull. Herb. Boissier, ser. 2, rv. 375 (1904). — Wagner, 111. Deutsch. Fl. ed. 3, 552, fig. (1905). — Dunbar in Gard. Mag. 1. 234 (1905); in Florists Exch., Sept. 22, 1923, 799, 830. — Gardeners' Mag. xlix. 666 (1906). — Komarov in Act. Hort. Petrop. xxv. 257 (Fl. Mansh. 111.) (1907). — L. Fekete and T. Blattny, Verbreit. Baume Straucher Ungarn (transl. from the Hungarian, 1913), 1. 42, i49> 454, 510, 513, 567, 57i, 621, 749, 754, 825, 835, map v. (1914). — Von Hayek, Pflanzend. Osterr.-Ungarns, 1. 350, 442, 444, 445, 451, fig. 261 (opp. p. 448) (1914-1915). — Mottet, Arbust. Orn. 246 (1908); Arb. Arbust. Orn. 341 (1925)/ — Schelle in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 24, 208 (191 5). — Goeze in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 25, 133 (1916). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxhi. 153 (1916); Aristocrats of the Garden, 213 (1917). — Kronfeld in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 27, 209 (1918). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 232 (1917). — Trelease, Winter Bot. 313, fig. 1 (1918); PL Mat. Woody PI. 130 (1921). — Goverts in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 29, 289 (1920). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. i-n. 88, fig. 1 a, b (1920). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922). — Camus, Arb. Arbust. Arbris. p. xcm., p. 82, t. (1923). — Stoi'anoff and Stefanoff, Fl. Bulg. 11. 876 (1925). — G. Hegi, 111. Fl. Mittel-Eur. v. pt. m. 1912, figs. 2900-2905 (1927). — J. Matt- feld in Jour. Arnold Arb. vni. 226, 227 (1927). ? Syringe lilac Garsault, Fig. PI. Animaux, iv. 336 (as Syringa), t. 574 (as Syringa lilac) (1764). Syringa caerulea Jonston, Hist. Nat. Arb. 11. 219, t. cxxii. fig. (1768-1769). Syringa vulgaris 4. coerulea Weston, Bot. Univ. 1. 289 (1770). — W. Aiton, Hort. Kew. 1. 15 (1789). — W. T. Aiton, Hort. Kew. ed. 2, 1. 23 (1810). — A. Dietrich, Sp. PL I. 247 (1831). — G. Don, Gen. Syst. rv. 51 (1838). — Loudon, Arb. Brit. n. 1209 (1838). — De Candolle, Prodr. viii. 282 (1844). — Kirchner inPetzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 494 (1864), as a form. — Regel, Russ. Dendr. 206 (1870). — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 559 (1875). — Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 169 (1877). — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. 111. 537 (1887). — Mouillefert, Traite Arb. Arbris. 11. 998 (1892-1898). — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xrv. 206 (1899); in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3298 (191 7); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 756 (1927). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903), as a form. — Schneider, 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 774 (1911). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 89 (1920), as a form. Lilac vulgaris Lamarck, Fl. Francoise, 11. 305 (1778); Encycl. Meth. in. 512 (1789); Tab. Encycl. Meth. 1. 26 (1791). — Moench, Meth. PL 431 (1794). — Ventenat, Tabl. Regne Veg. n. 307; iv. t. 8, fig. 6 (1799). — Dumont de Courset, Bot. Cult. 1. 708 (1802). — Mirbel in Nouv. Duhamel, 11. 206, t. 61 (1804). — Lamarck and De Candolle, Fl. Francaise, in. 495 (1805). — Poiteau and Turpin, Fl. Paris. 7, t. v. (1808) (t. as Lilac vulgaris, Lilas de Marly). — Jaume Saint-Hilaire, PL France, vn. t. 613 (1820). — Lamarck and Poiret, Rec. Planch. Bot. Encycl. 1. t. 7 (1823) (t. as Lilac). — Jacques and Herincq, Man. Gen. PL hi. 53 (1847-1857). — Loret and Barrandon, Fl. Montpellier, ed. 2, 321 (1886). Syringa vulgaris a Leysser, Fl. Halensis, 2 (1783). Lilac vulgar e Allioni, FL Pedemont. 1. 83 (1785). Syringa Latifolia Salisbury, Prodr. Stirp. 13 (1796). Liliacum vulgaris Renault, FL Dept. Orne, 100 (1804). 204 THE LILAC Siringa vulgaris Thiriart, Cat. PI. Arbust. Jard. Bot. Cologne, ser. 3, 1 (1806). — Drapiez, Herb. Amat. Fl. in. 153, t. (1829) (t. as Syringa vulgaris). Busbeckia Lilac Hecart, Bosquets d'Agrement, 94 (1808). Syringa cordifolia Stokes, Bot. Comment. 31 (1830). Syringa cordifolia a caerulescens Stokes, Bot. Comment. 31 (1830). Lilac sterilis Lavy, Etat Gen. Veg. 12 (1830). Lilac vulgaris var. coerulea Jacques and Herincq, Man. Gen. PL hi. 54 (1847-1857). Syringa officinalis Linnaeus according to Thompson, Fl. PI. Riviera, 156 (1914). Lilac coerulea Lunell in Am. Midland Nat. iv. 506 (19 16). Pre-Linnean synonyms: Queue de Regnard Belon, Observations, Bk. 111. Chap. l. 208 (1554). Lilac Mattioli, Commentarii, i23'6, fig. (1565); 765, fig. (1570); Opera, 854, fig. 1. (1598). — Pena and Lobel, Stirp. 414 (1570). — Tournefort, Elemens Bot. 1. 474, in. t. 372 (1694); Instit. ed. 2, 1. 601 (1700); Hist. PI. n. 81 (1732) (translated by J. Martyn). — Magnol, Hort. Reg. Monspel. 117 (1697). — Boerhaave, Index Alter PI. pt. 2, 221 (1720). — Vaillant, Bot. Paris, 116 (1727). — P. Miller, Gard. Diet. (I731)- Syringa caerulea Lusitanica Lobel, PI. Stirp. 540, fig. (1576); PI. Stirp. Icon. 11. 101, fig. (1581). — Besler, Hort. Eystett. 1. 1, t. n. (1613) (t. as Syringa flore coeruleo). Syringa flore caeruleo Lecluse, Rar. Stirp. Hisp. 126 (1576). — Camerarius, Hort. Med. 165 (1588). — J. Bauhin and Cherler, Hist. PI. Univ. Bk. vni. 204, fig. (1650). — Heucher, Novi Hort. Med. Acad. Vitemberg. 8 (1711). Cauda vulpina Lecluse, Rar. Stirp. Hisp. 127 (1576), as a synonym. Ligustrum Orientate Cesalpino, De Plantis, Bk. in. Chap, xliii. 120; Bk. rv. Chap. x. 153 (1583)- Jeseminum caeruleum Arabum Cesalpino, De Plantis, Bk. in. Chap, xliii. 120; Bk. iv. Chap. x. 153 (1583), as a synonym. Littach Dodoens, Stirp. Hist. Pempt. vi. Bk. n. Chap. xvn. 766, fig. (1583); Cruydt- boeck, 1310, fig. (1608). Syringa caeruleo flore Dalechamps, Hist. Omnium PI. 1. 355, fig. (1587). — Lecluse, Rar. PI. Hist. 55, fig. (1601). Syringa Lusitanica Tabernaemontanus, Neuw Kreuterbuch, 111. 749, fig. (1588-1591). Syringa caerulea Gerard, Herball, Bk. m. 1213, fig. (1597); same, enlarged by T. Johnson, Bk. in. 1400, fig. 2 (1636). — G. Bauhin, Pinax, 398 (1623). — Bobart, Cat. Hort. Bot. Oxon. 174 (1658). — Joncquet, Hortus, 125 (1659). — R. Morison, Hort. Reg. Blesensis, 199 (1669). — Ray, Meth. PI. Nova, 41 (1682); Hist. PI. n. Bk. 31, 1763 (1686-1704). — Sutherland, Hort. Med. Edinburg. 328 (1683). — Commelin, Cat. PI. Hort. Med. Amstelodam. 340 (1689). — Plunkenet, Opera Omnia Bot. rv. Almagest. Bot. 359 (1696). — Boerhaave, Index PI. 252 (1710). — Buxbaum, Enum. PI. Hallensi, 314 (1721). — Zwinger, Theatr. Bot. 255 (1744). KaXoj3orpi>xts [Kalobotrychis] Reneaulme, Spec. Hist. PL 31, fig. (1611). Bellegrappe Reneaulme, Spec. Hist. PL 31 (1611), as a synonym. Siringa caerulea lusitanica sive lilac Mathioli Morin, Cat. PL (1621). Lilac sive Syringa caerulea Parkinson, Paradisi, 407, fig. 4 (1629). Foxe taile Parkinson, Paradisi, 410 (1629), as a synonym. Lilac Matthioli sive Syringa flore caeruleo Parkinson, Theatr. Bot. 1466, fig. 1 (1640) (t. as Syringa flore caeruleo). — P. Miller in Cat. PL 45 (1730). Lilach(i) Syringa caerulea Bobart, Cat. PL Hort. Med. Oxon. 30 (1648). Syringa coerulea(i) Lilach Bobart, Cat. PL Hort. Med. Oxon. 50 (1648). SYRINGA VULGARIS 205 Syringa Azura J. Bauhin and Cherler, Hist. PL Univ. I. Bk. viii. 204, fig. (1650), as a synonym. Lillac mathioli Cat. Hort. Reg. Paris, 58 (1660). Syringa Arabum flore coeruleo Munting, Waare Oeffening PL 122 (1672); Naauwkeurige Beschr. Aardgew. 162 (1696). Syringha coerulea Hermann, Hort. Acad. Lugduno-Bat. 586 (1687). Sambucus Hispanica Heucher, Novi Prov. Hort. Med. Acad. Vitemberg. 8 (1711), as a synonym. Lilach Bailey, Diet. Rust. ed. 3 (1726). Syringa flore caeruleo Lilac sive Matthioli Bradley, Diet. Bot. (1728). Syringa foliis lanceolato-cordatis Linnaeus, Hort. Cliff. 6 (1737). — Roy en, Fl. Leydens. 397 (1740). — Dalibard, Fl. Paris, 2 (1749). Syringa flore caeruleo major Ruppius, FL Jenens. 24 (1745). Syringa coerulea sive Lilac Weinmann, Phyt. Icon. iv. 393, t. 959, fig. a (1745); Taalryck Reg. Plaat. Fig. (Dutch title page is Duidelyke Vertooning), viii. 454, t. 959, fig. a (1748). Syringa foliis ovato cordatis Linnaeus, Hort. Upsal. 1. 6 (1748). Syringa rubra C. Gesner, Opera Bot. Bk. v. 123, t. xx. fig. CLXxvin. (1753). A large shrub or small tree to 25 ft. or rarely taller; trunk and older branches covered with gray bark exfoliating in long, narrow strips; branchlets glabrous, occasionally glandular-pubescent, sparingly lenticellate, sometimes quadrangular. Winter-buds ovoid with acute apex, flower-bud Y% in. long more or less, varying in color from purplish brown in colored forms to greenish in white forms, scales lustrous, acute, glabrous, promi- nently keeled and forming a markedly four-sided bud. Leaf-scar slightly, or sometimes much raised, shield-shaped, inconspicuous, medium size; bundle-trace only slightly curved. Leaves ovate or broad-ovate, 1^-5 in. long, "%-^Yi in. broad, acuminate, base truncate, subcordate, cordate, or broad-cuneate, dark green, glabrous, sometimes glandular-pubescent above, same beneath; petiole zAr^Yi in. long, stout or sometimes slender, glabrous, occasionally glandular-pubescent. Inflorescence broad or narrow- pyramidal or conical, lateral, upright, 4-8 in. long, rhachis glabrous, occasionally glandular- pubescent, sparingly lenticellate; pedicel J^ in. long more or less, glabrous, occasion- ally glandular-pubescent; calyx glabrous, occasionally glandular-pubescent, with short, acuminate or acute teeth; corolla- tube slender, cylindric, l /3-7 /16 in. long; corolla- lobes spreading at right angles to corolla-tube, frequently curling backward, broad or narrow, rounded or pointed at apex, usually cucullate; corolla J^ in. in diameter more or less; color of type probably close to that noted for the form Coerulea superba (see Coerulea superba); anthers Deep Colonial Buff (xxx.), inserted just below throat, occa- sionally protruding. Capsule oblong or obovoid-oblong, abruptly contracted near apex, smooth, acute or acuminate, YtY% in. long. Habitat: Southeastern Europe, chiefly in the mountainous regions: Rumania; Jugo-Slavia; Bulgaria; Greece. In an account of his travels, — "Les observations de plusieurs singularitez & choses memorables, trouvees, en Grece, Asie, Judee, Egypte, Arable, & autres pays estranges . . .", — published in 1554, Pierre Belon, the French naturalist, writes entertainingly of the love of flowers evidenced by the Turks: "II n'y a gents qui 206 THE LILAC se delectent de porter de belles fleurettes, ne qui les prisent plus que font les Turcs : car quand ils trouvent quelque belle girofnee, ou autre elegante fleurette, encores qu'elle soit sans odeur, neantmoins elle ne perdra pas son pris. Nous aymons les bouquets de plusieurs fleurs & petites herbettes odoriferentes meslees ensemble: mais les Turcs ne se soucient que de la veue, & ne veulent porter qu'une fleur a, la fois: & encore qu'ils en peussent avoir de plusieurs sortes, toutesfois suivant le commun usage, ils en portent plusieurs seule a seule dedens le reply de leurs turbans. Les artisans ont communement plusieurs fleurs de diverses couleurs devant eux dedens quelque vaisseau plein d'eau, pour les tenir fraichement en leur beaute\ Parquoy les Turcs ont les jardinages en aussi grande recommandation que nous & font grand' diligence de recouvrer des arbres etrangers, & surtout qui portent belles fleurs, et n'y pleignent l'argent. . . ." Belon mentions some of their favorite flowers and among them a plant which was first identified by Lecluse in 1576 as the Lilac: "Les belles fleurs y sont tenues rares, a. l'exemple dequoy nous avons veu un petit arbrisseau qui porte les feuilles de Lierre, qui est verd en tous temps, & fait sa fleur presque d'une coudee de long, de couleur violette, entournant le rameau, gros comme une queue de Regnard : dont est venu que les Turcs le nommant en leur langage, l'appelent queue de Regnard." As is noted by later writers in discussing Belon's plant the Lilac is not ever- green or "verd en tous temps." From the text it appears possible that Belon merely referred to the Ivy as evergreen; in general shape the foliage of the two plants is somewhat similar and the remainder of the description is clearly applicable to the Lilac. The curious old Turkish name persisted as one of the vernacular names for the plant. Lecluse in 1576 translated it into the Latin Cauda vulpina, Parkinson in 1629 into the English Foxe taile, and Houttuyn in 1778 notes that in German it is called Fuchsschwanz. Parkinson in his "Paridisi in Sole" in 1629 suggests how any uncertainty as to Belon's plant may be removed : "It seemeth likely, that Petrus Bellonius . . . (mak- ing mention of a shrubbe that the Turks have, with Ivie leaves alwaies greene, bearing blew or violet coloured flowers on a long stalke, of the bignesse and fashion of a Foxe taile, and thereupon called in their language a Foxe taile) doth under- stand this plant here expressed. The certainty whereof might easily be knowne, if any of our Merchants there residing, would but call for such a shrubbe, by the name of a Foxe taile in the Turkish tongue, and take care to send a young roote, in a small tubbe or basket with earth by sea, unto us here at London, which would be performed with very little paines and cost." There is no record that anyone followed Parkinson's suggestion. It was from Constantinople, the capital of the Turkish empire, that the Com- mon Lilac (Syringa vulgaris Linnaeus) was introduced into Europe. The Italian botanist, Pietro Andrea Mattioli, in the fifth edition of his "Commentarii," pub- lished in 1565, gives the first picture of this plant which he calls Lilac. He states that Augerius de Busbeke brought the plant, of which he, Mattioli, gives the SYRINGA VULGARIS 207 picture, with him from Constantinople. The living plant Mattioli had not seen except very well and very diligently pictured: "Hanc autem plantam, cuius hie imaginem damus, Constantinopoli secum attulit Clarissimus vir Augerius de Busbeke, qui continuis septem annis Caesaris Ferdinandi primi apud Solimanum Turcarum Imperatorem, oratorem egit. . . . Vivam plantam videre non licuit, sed affabre, & diligentissime pictam." Mattioli does not state who painted the original picture which he saw, or from whence it came. Augier [Ghislen] de Busbecq, also called Bousbecq or Boesbec, was a Flemish scholar and traveler who was born at Commines in 1522 and was sent by the Emperor Ferdinand I. as ambassador to Solyman II., Sultan of Turkey. Franchet (Rev. Hort. 1891, 1. c.) states that Busbecq lived in Constantinople in 1555 and from 1556 to 1563. It was therefore not later than 1563 that the Common Lilac was first introduced into Europe. It is probable that Busbecq took it first to Vienna, then possibly to Flanders. Franchet thinks it was taken first to Italy and then perhaps to Bohemia. Kronfeld (Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges., 1. c.) in 1918 writes of the house in Vienna where Charles de Lecluse lived from 1573 to 1588 with Dr. Johann Aichholz and where in the garden grew many foreign plants; Kronfeld believes that the Lilac was already grown there. I translate from Kronf eld's article: ". . . the man who really brought the Lilac to Vienna at that time was . . . Augerius Ghislain von Busbecq. As envoy from Ferdinand I. he had brought about in 1555 an eight- year truce with Sultan Soliman II., and had remained from 155 6- 1562 as ambas- sador in Constantinople. . . . After he returned to Vienna, Busbecq took pains to grow Oriental plants, among them especially the Lilac, in his garden which sur- rounded his house on the Bastei. ... In the garden of the . . . diplomat the Lilac bloomed for the first time, highly admired by the Viennese who stood around the garden at the corner of the Himmelpfortgasse and the Seilerstatte. To Busbecq we also owe its introduction into Flanders." In a note Kronfeld tells us: "When in the year 1570 the Archduchess Elisabeth left Austria to set out for France for her marriage to Charles IX., Busbecq went along. He was a witness of the terrible St. Bartholomew's night from the 23rd to the 24th of August, 1572. . . . Elisabeth returned in 1574 to Austria but Busbecq remained in Paris as ambassador of the king until his death in 1592." Kronfeld continues: "The Turkish word Lilac did not suit the Viennese, so they put in its place the name Turkischer Holler and Busbecq's house soon was known as 'Zur Hollerstauden.' . . . There is also on the Viennese Molkerbastei, back from the Teinfaltstrasse a small, antique house (no. 75), which bore the sign 'Zur Hollerstauden' and which in 1866 was able to celebrate its 300th anniversary. Here lived Busbecq, curator of the Imperial Court Library." W. L. Goverts (Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 29, 289, 1920) notes of S. vulgaris: "1557 durch den bekannten Quekelbeen weiter verbreitet"; Dr. Gustav Hegi in 1927 states also that after 1557 the chief distribution of the Common Lilac was due to Quekelbeen. Writing of the Horsechestnut E. H. Wilson (Romance 2(08 THE LILAC of our Trees, 120, 1920) mentions that "a Flemish doctor, one Quakleben, who was attached to the embassy of Archduke Ferdinand I. at Constantinople, in 1557 first mentioned the tree in a letter to Mattioli as told in the letters, 'Episto- larum medicinalium libri quinque' published in Prague in 1561." These letters appear in Mattioli's "Opera quae extant [sic] omnia; hoc est, Commentarii in VI libros Pedacii Dioscoridis de medica materia . . ." published in 1598 (bk. hi. 100, 1598), the name appearing as Gulielmus Quacelbenus. The Horsechestnut is mentioned here but I have found no reference to the Lilac. I do not know the source of Goverts' and Hegi's statements. In 1565 Mattioli had not seen the living plant. He confused it with the Glans unguentaria or Ben, — now identified as an Indian tree, Moringa oleifera Lamarck, called in the vernacular the Horse-radish tree. Despite Mattioli's assurance that his picture is faithfully reproduced the original must have been to some extent imaginative for the same flower cluster bears both open flowers and well-developed fruit. In his "Opera," published in 1598, Mattioli gives a new figure which is supe- rior to his first. By this time he had seen the living plant, for in the seventh edition of his "Commentarii" he states that Giacomo Antonio Cortusi, head of the botanic garden at Padua, had sent him from that city in 1570 both flowering and fruiting branches. Cortusi supplied the information that he believed the plant to be the Ostryx, mentioned by Theophrastus, — now known to be the Ostrya or Hop- Hornbeam, — that he had received it from Africa where it grew in great abundance and was called Seringa [sic], and that he had several plants growing in his garden where they were cultivated because of their fragrance. The Philadelphus, with common name of Syringa, is said to have been named for the Egyptian king Ptolemy Philadelphus (see A. H. Moore in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. ed. 3, v. 2579, 1919); Rehder (Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 270 (1927) however notes: "Ancient name of unknown application." It is possible that the two genera were here confused, for in Mattioli's time the Philadelphus as well as the Lilac was placed in the genus Syringa and Cortusi's Seringa [sic] may well have been a mis- spelling or a corruption. It is certain however that neither the Philadelphus nor the Lilac is native to Africa. The name Lilac, first used by Mattioli, was retained by some writers as the generic name of Syringa vulgaris till about the middle of the last century but since then has been quite generally abandoned. The name still persists in various common names such as the English Lilac, the French Lilas, the Spanish Lila, and so on. Mr. Rehder (Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 751, 1927) writes of the derivation of the name Syringa: "Probably from the Greek Syrinx, pipe, in reference to the stems of the Philadelphus to which the name originally had been applied, until Dodoens transferred it to this genus." I have been unable to find that Dodoens used the name Syringa except for the Philadelphus. In 1583 he cites Lillach as the generic name while Syringa was used as early as 1576 by both Lobel and Lecluse. SYRINGA VULGARIS 209 Mathieu Lobel, a French botanist, in 1576 writes of the Lilac as Syringa caerulea Lusitanica and gives a picture of the plant, much like that of Mattioli, but with the addition of a root system. It is possible that the supposed habitat of the Lilac in Spain, evidenced by the botanical names Syringa caerulea Lusitanica Lobel and Syringa Lusitanica Tabernaemontanus, as well as the vernacular names of Spanischer Syringsbaum, first cited by the Alsatian Tabernaemontanus, and Spanischer Hollunder, very frequently applied, had its origin here, — Lusitania being that part of ancient Spain which is now Portugal. Baumgarten in 1790 mentions Spain as one of the countries to which the Lilac is indigenous, but it was undoubtedly merely naturalized there. In 1583 the Italian, Andrea Cesalpino, described the Lilac as Ligustrum Orientate and identified it with the Jeseminum caeruleum of the Arabians. He writes (De Plantis, Bk. 111. Chap, xliii. 120, 1583): "Frutex quidam peregrinus, vocatur Ligustrum Orientate a quibusdam, magnitudine Ligustri: foliis Apocyni [Apocynum is the Greek for Dog-bane, now called Dog-bane or Indian Hemp] tenuioribus & minus candidis: racemos fert Ligustro grandiores, in quibus flores sunt, figura Gelsimini minores caerulei, modico rubore aspersi, & si conuertas candor quidam argenteus spectatur, iucundi odoris: siliquas fert breves similiter duplices, in quibus semina oblonga, sed sine lanugine, forte merit Jeseminum caeruleum Arabum." This Jeseminum caeruleum Arabum appears to have been, and still is, a doubtful plant. Tabernaemontanus (Eicones PL Pt. 2, Sect. xn. 855, fig., 1590; Neuw Kreuterbuch, Pt. 2, Chap. xiv. 538, fig., 1591) gives under this name two pictures, both the same, which are evidently of a Jasmine and not of a Lilac. Gerard (Herball, 746, fig., 1597) gives the same figure. G. Bauhin (Pinax, 398, 1623) calls it Jasminum, caeruleum Serapioni and cites Tabernaemontanus' plant, thus: "In hoc genere caeruleum nondum vidimus: an Arabes Ligustrum Orientate, quod alias Syringa caerulea dicitur intellexerint, Cesalpinus dubitat: alii Clematidem caeruleam esse volunt." I have not seen the reference in Serapion. Parkinson (Theatr. Bot. 1468, fig. 3, 1640) writing of the cut-leaved Persian Lilac which he calls Syringa Persica sive Lilac Persicum incisis foliis Jasminum Persicum dictum, notes: "Yet as I have said before, this is most likely to be Serapio his blew Jasmine. . . . This assuredly is the Jasminum caeru- leum of Serapio, whereof formerly there was great doubt among Herbarists whether there was such a thing in rerum natura, very many denying it, because they either never saw this or never considered it." (See S. persica var. laciniata.) The Syringa Arabum flare coeruleo of Munting (1672 and 1696) is a Lilac al- though two of the plants which he classifies as Syringa are evidently the Philadel- phus. He calls it by the common name of Syringa van de Arabiers met een blauwe welriekende Bloem. Bauhin and Cherler state that at Bologna the Common Lilac, which they call Syringa flore caeruleo, is called Syringa Azura: "Bononiae nobis Syringa Azura vocata fuit." Zwinger in 1744 gives among foreign common names "Italianisch, 210 THE LILAC Azura" and Weinmann in 1748 notes that the Lilac, Syringa, is named "In't Italians, Azura" In the former case the word is used as a specific, and in the two latter cases as a generic name. Paul de Reneaulme, a French botanist, called the Common Lilac by the Greek name Kalobotrychis, meaning a beautiful raceme, and his book, published in 161 1, contains an excellent picture of the flowers. J. H. Heucher (Novi Prov. Hort. Med. Acad. Vitemberg. 8, 1711) mentions Sambucus Hispanica as a synonym which is wrongly applied to the Common Lilac which he calls Syringa fl. coeruleo et fl. lacteo, — including in the name both the type and its white variety. • After 1753 the name Syringa vulgaris was very generally adopted although Duhamel de Monceau (Traite Arb. Arbust. 1. 361, t. 138, 1755) in 1755 still calls it Lilac Math[ioli] with common name of Lilas des bois a fleur d'un bleu pale. The "Index Kewensis" (Suppl. rv. 231) cites Garsault's Syringa lilac as a syn- onym of S. persica. They refer to the bulletin of the "Herbier Boissier" (ser. 2, vni. 906, 1908) where in his "Nomenclator Garsaultianus" A. Thellung gives the name, with a question however, as a synonym of S. persica. The figure in Garsault's book is rather difficult to classify; the foliage does not resemble that of S. vulgaris and the flowers and cluster do not resemble those of S. persica. To me it seems more like a poor figure of the Common Lilac than of the Persian. Garsault uses the name Syringa lilac on his plate but the heading of his text is Syringa, Lilas. The text evidently refers to S. vulgaris. Neither Richard Weston nor William Alton who first mention Syringa vulgaris var. coerulea refer it to any previous authority, although both give the color as blue, the former calling it Blue Lilac, the latter Common Blue Lilac. W. T. Alton, in the second edition of the "Hortus Kewensis," of 1810, refers his plant to that of Schkuhr (Bot. Handb. 1. 8, t. 2, 1791) where it appears only as Syringa vulgaris, both in text and illustration. The flowers shown in the plate are undoubtedly of a vivid, and unnatural, blue color. A. Dietrich cites no previous authority for his S. vulgaris var. coerulea; it is by G. Don and Loudon that this variety is identi- fied beyond a doubt with the type S. vulgaris Linnaeus for both refer it to the Syringa flore caeruleo of Lecluse (Rar. PI. Hist. 55, fig. 1601), to the Syringa caerulea of Gerard's "Herball" of 1636, to the Syringa caerulea Lusitanica of Besler's "Hortus Eystettensis" and to the Lilac sive Syringa caerulea of Parkinson's "Paradisi in Sole." Other writers such as Lamarck still retain the generic name of Lilac, while Renault adopts the new Liliacum frequently erroneously quoted as Lilacum. Hecart (Bosquets d'Agrement, 94, 1808) considered that the plant should have been named for its introducer: "Le lilas (Busbeckia Lilac nobis) . . . J'ai cru pouvoir lui dormer le nom de Busbeckia. Combien cette honneur n'a-t-il 6te prodiguS a des gens qui le meritaient beaucoup moins." SYRINGA VULGARIS 211 Jean Lavy (Etat Gen. Veg. 12, 1830) writes of his Lilac sterilis or Lilas sterile: "Fleurs- nulles [hence sterile] ; feuilles en cceur, tres-entieres, opposees, petiolees, fortes, persistantes, lisses. ..." He is writing of the flora of Piedmont and says that the plant "Habite les haies, les lieux ombrages pres de Civas." While this is generally considered to be another name for the Persian Lilac it appears evident from the heart-shaped leaves that Lavy was writing of the Common Lilac; while the foliage is not of course persistent it may have appeared so in that locality. Stokes' specific name cordifolia explains itself. It seems probable that Thompson's name Syringa officinalis L. (Fl. PL Riviera, 156, 1914) was merely a slip. When Charles de Lecluse, a French botanist, published in 1601 his history of the rarer plants, the Lilac was evidently well established in European gardens: "Hunc etiam alunt nostratium horti, atque plerique Germaniae & aliarum pro- vinciarum." According to Franchet (Rev. Hort. 1891, 30) it was cultivated in the neighbor- hood of Paris in 1601. He cites as evidence Robin's catalogue (1601, 37) which I have not seen. It appears in Morin's catalogue for 162 1 as Siringa caerulea lusitanica sive lilac Mathioli. From gardens it escaped into the hedge-rows, and because of its remarkable ability to naturalize itself, soon came to be regarded by botanists as indigenous to various countries of western Europe. Carlo Allioni, an Italian, stated in 1785 that it grew wild in Piedmont, in northern Italy: "Copiose in sylvestribus montis Crea nascitur, atque etiam in collibus Taurinensibus. CI. Bellardi sponte pro- veniens observavit secus viam, quae ab Eporedia ducit ad vallem Augustae Prae- toriae." This statement is refuted by various later writers, among them Christ (Garden and Forest, rv. 191, 1891). Albert von Haller, a Swiss botanist, in his flora of Switzerland (Hist. Stirp. Helvet. 1. 230, 1768) writes: "Persicae esse originis ex inventoribus credas. Nunc nobiscum ita consuevit, ut non in sepibus solis, sed in aspera sylva montosa propre Moutru ultra templum earn invenerim. En Cham- blande secundum rivum." In 1768 he still called the Lilac Syringa foliis ovato cordatis following Linnaeus (Hort. Upsal. 1. 6, 1748). That it was also considered to be indigenous to Spain has already been stated. In 1927 Dr. Gustav Hegi in his "Illustrierte Flora von Mittel-Europa" cites many localities where the Common Lilac is escaped and naturalized in central Europe. Schmidt in 1794 attributed it, and possibly all other Lilacs, to China: "China scheint das urspriingliche Vaterland dieses, und vielleicht aller Flieder zu seyn; denn oft bemerkt man die unverkennbaren Abbildungen derselben auf chinesischen beblumten Papieren, Seidenfloren und Stoffen, auf denen sie mit dem Hibiscus Rosa Chinensis, der Gardenia, dem orientalischen Mohn, und der Thranenweide immer wieder erscheinen." Baker and S. Moore (Jour. Linn. Soc. London, xvn. 384, 1879) (Contrib. FL North. China) collected at Chienshan in northern China a fruiting specimen which they identified as Syringa vulgaris. Of this specimen Hemsley (Jour. Linn. Soc. London, xxvi. S^, 1889) writes: "The Chinese specimen 212 THE LILAC is recorded as this species without doubt; but we regard it as insufficient for satis- factory determination." Debeaux (Florula de Shang-hai, 42, 1879) mentions the Common Lilac as cultivated in the gardens of Shanghai. Probably all these refer- ences to S. vulgaris as occurring in China apply to S. oblata. Linnaeus in 1748 gives its habitat as the Orient and at about this time it came to be commonly regarded as native to Persia, although there is no proof that it ever grew there as a wild plant. Albert von Haller, in the reference already cited, in 1768 writes: "Persicae esse originis." The belief presumably arose because of the fact that it was introduced by way of Constantinople, a city through which the products of the East frequently found their way into Europe. Possibly the intro- duction in the early part of the seventeenth century of the other Lilac attributed erroneously to Persia, S. persica, may have had some contributing influence upon the idea (see S. persica). In 1887 Nicholson still named Persia among those coun- tries to which the Common Lilac is native, as did Mottet (Arbust. Orn. 246, 1908) less than twenty years ago. The first mention of its real home appeared in Anton Rochel's work on the rarer plants of Banat, — a district of western Rumania bordering on Hungary and Jugo-Slavia, — published in 1828: "Syringa vulgaris L. in iisdem locis sat fre- quens, attamen nullibi copiosior ac in montis Alibek rupestribus crescit." In 1831 Heuffel is quoted (Flora, xiv. pt. 1, 399, 1831) as stating that it grew in the inaccessible limestone rocks of the valley of Czerna, Mt. Domaglett, and all the rocks along the Danube, at the military boundaries of Moldavia, Szaszka, Csiklova and Krassova. This statement is repeated by Heuffel in his enumeration of the plants of Banat published in 1853: "In rupestribus calcareis ad Reschitza, Krassova, Csiklova, Szaszka, in toto Danubii tractu usque ad Thermas Herculis vulgatissime et vere indigena." The Baths of Hercules here referred to are said by K. Koch (Dendr. 11. pt. 1. 265, 1872) to be near the city of Mehadia. He had seen the plant growing there and considered it to be spontaneous. He writes that as far as he knows no one has ever found it growing wild in the Orient. Boissier in his "Flora Orientalis" (rv. 38, 1879) is doubtful of the spontaneity of the only speci- men which he cites from the east: "Habitat in sylvaticis rupestribus Bithynia circa Brussan (Thirke!) An vere spontanea?" He gives its geographical distribution as "Hungaria, Transylvania, Serbia." Blanqui in an account of his travels in Bulgaria in the year 1841 (Voy. Bulg. 115, 1843) writes: "La vallee de l'lpek est une des plus delicieuses contrees de la Servie et peut-etre de tout l'Orient. Bordee sur ses deux rives par des collines fertiles et fraiches au cceur de l'ete comme un vallon Suisse . . . elle ressemble a une veritable oasis. . . . C est la que j'ai vu pour la premiere fois une foret de lilas gigantesques de la hauteur de nos futaies. . . ." Despite the testimony to the contrary which was then, in 1891, available, Franchet (Rev. Hort. 1891, 309) was still of the opinion that the plant might have become naturalized in these regions as well as in western Europe. Edouard Andre, SYRINGA VULGARIS 213 in a paragraph added to Franchet's article, disagrees with this writer and says that he saw it growing wild and abundantly in the mountains separating Bulgaria from Serbia. He says that it was most common on the steep and rocky cliffs bordering the narrow defiles of Nischava near Nisch where it was mingled with Staphylea pinnata, Coronilla Emerus and other spring-flowering shrubs, and with the pretty flowers of Lunaria annua and Adonis vernalis* In the Arnold Arboretum are specimens collected in 1907 by C. K. Schneider, as follows: no. 1491, 2 specimens of fruit and of foliage from Sliven (Slivno), Bulgaria, August 3; no. 574, 2 specimens, from near Slivno, July 20; no. 10, of undeveloped flowers, from Herkulesbad in the valley of Kazan, Hungary (now Rumania), April 28; no. 112, of flowers, from Nish, Servia (now a part of Jugo- slavia), May 12; no. 1489, of fruit, from near Nish, September 7; no. 1660, of fruit, from near Herkulesbad, Mt. Domaglett, Hungary (now Rumania), September; no. 368, 2 specimens, from near Varna, Bulgaria, June 2. Also in the same her- barium are the following specimens: no. 1659, of flowers, collected for Schneider by Golopencza, from near Herkulesbad, Mt. Domaglett, Hungary (now Rumania), June 5, 1907; one of flowers, from Banat, Rumania, collected by Wetschky, May, 1890; one of flowers, from Dobruja, a district now in Rumania and bordering on the Black Sea, collected by Sintenis, May 22, 1875; another, collector not given, of flowers and fruit, from the valley of the Isker near Sofia, Bulgaria, June, 1906. Joh. Mattfeld in "A Botanical Journey in Greece in the summer of 1926" (Jour. Arnold Arb., 1. c.) writes of his journey by train from Drama to Kometini (Gumuldshina) [this is in northern Greece, not far from the line separating Mace- donia and Thrace] : "The ride on this railroad is much more interesting . . . since it crosses one part of the southern Rhodope Mountains. . . . The railroad climbs gradually higher and at an altitude of about 250 m. the hills are closer together and the railroad enters the valley of the Doksat tshaj. ... At 322 m. altitude the watershed is reached and we go down to the Mesta in whose valley the most attrac- tive part of the train ride lies. All the slopes are covered with sibljak vegetation in which the just mentioned species [Carpinus duinensis and Paliurus aculeatus] play the major part. Not infrequently occur also Quercus lanuginosa, Q. conferta, Q. cerris, Fraxinus Ornus, Ligustrum vulgare, Cornus, Syringa vulgaris, Juniperus (apparently /. communis and /. Oxycedrus), Ulmus campestris, Prunus spinosa, Pyrus amygdaliformis. . . . We enter now the eight to ten kilometers long gorge of the Mesta river. The slopes drop to the river at a very steep angle and therefore are difficult of access. ... A dense, though probably for edaphic reasons, rather low wood extends over all the slopes. The trees have partly low trunks, but also shrubby growth is very common. A great number of various elements seem to be * Further sources of information in regard to the occurrence of S. vulgaris in southeastern Europe may be found in the following works: Fuss (Fl. Transsilv. 1866); Simonkai (Enum. Fl. Transsilv. 1866); Vele- novsky (Fl. Bulgar. 1891; Suppl., 1898); Stolanoff and Stefanoff (Fl. Bulgar. n. 1925); Von Hayek (Pflanzend. Osterr.-Ungarns, I. 1914-1915); Engler and Drude (Veg. Erde, 11. 1898; in. 1899; rv. 1901; x. 1908; xi. 1909); Lingelsheim (Engler, Pflanzenr., 1920). 214 THE LILAC represented in this wood and the whole formation gives the impression of being a mixture of maquis, sibljak, and evergreen and deciduous high forest. From the train we noted the following woody plants: Quercus coccifera, Q. lanuginosa, Phillyrea media, Oka europaea (wild form), Pistacia Terebinthus . . . Ficus Carica (mostly shrubby), Erica arbor ea, E. verticillata, Juniperus Oxycedrus, Cercis Sili- quastrum, Cistus cf. creticus, Syringa vulgaris, Fraxinus Ornus, Rosa sp., Coronilla emeroides, Paliurus aculeatus, Rubus, Ephedra campylopoda, Clematis, Vitis sylves- tris and doubtfully Celtis and Arbutus." Lingelsheim cites two specimens from the Olympus, a mountain range on the borders of Thessaly and Macedonia; they were collected by Noe (no. 2 a) and by Dorfler (no. 244). Schneider also names Macedonia as one of the localities where the plant was found, as does Hegi. The specimen of S. vulgaris, which is recorded by Olga and Boris Fedtschenko in their "Matenaux pour la Flore de la Crimee" (Bull. Herb. Boissier, 1. c.) as found on the southern shore (cote) of the Crimea in a wood in the valley of Laspi (June 28), they mention as "quasi sponte," or, as if it were wild. It is possible that from Rumania the Lilac may extend along into the Ukraine in southern Russia. Schneider also mentions Bithynia, an ancient country in the northwest of Asia Minor, bounded by the Black Sea on the north and by the Sea of Marmora on the west. He cites no specimen (111. Handb. Laubholzk., 1. c). Dr. Hegi merely lists it among the plant's habitats according to Schneider. This locality, as already noted, was mentioned in 1879 by Boissier but he was doubtful of the spontaneity of the plant which he saw. S. vulgaris is found in Rumania, in Jugo-Slavia according to Hegi who mentions it as coming from Herzegovina, a district forming the southern part of Bosnia, and not far removed therefore from the Adriatic Sea, in Bulgaria and in Greece. The plant is especially common apparently in the Transylvanian Alps and in the Balkan Mountains; according to Mattfeld it is found not infrequently in the southern Rhodope Mountains of northern Greece. It occurs slightly further north than Brad in Rumania, and as far west as Herzegovina in Jugo-Slavia. Its most south- erly point, so far as the records indicate, is in the Olympus Mountains of northern Greece. It is found as far east as Dobruja in Rumania. Despite the fact that it is noted, even in such a recent work as that of StoianofI and Stefanoff, as coming from Asia Minor, the Caucasus and Persia, yet they cite no records and I do not know of any well authenticated wild specimen having been found east of the Bosporus. Nor do I know of any specimen from what is now Hungary. G. Hegi (1. c.) gives an interesting phytogeographical account of S. vulgaris which in translation reads: "S. vulgaris belongs to the Dacian element as for in- stance Euphorbia Carniolica, Helleborus purpurascens and so on, and is found, in the southwestern part of Transylvania and in Banat, preferring the Dacian oak forests which are rich in species, as undergrowth to Quercus Robur, Q. sessilifiora, Q. Cerris, Q. pubescens and Q. conferta, Tilia tomentosa, Acer Tataricum, Fraxinus Ornus, Carpinus Orientalis, Corylus Colurna, and Juglans regia, and with an under- SYRINGA VULGARIS 215 growth of Ruscus aculeatus and R. Hypoglossum, Trifolium Molineri and T. expansum, Digitalis lanata, Acanthus Hungaricus and so on. In the valley of Schyl it forms on limestone slopes luxuriantly flowering shrubs together with Fraxinus Ornus and Evonymus latifolia. In the most extreme southwestern part of the Carpathians, as in the Czerna Valley near Mehadia and Herculesbad, it occurs as undergrowth on more open places in the very old beech forests, in company with Fraxinus Ornus, Crataegus melanocarpa and Cotinus Coggygria. In central Europe it is in some places completely naturalized and not only occurs in hedges and shrubberies of the sorts made by Roses and Barberries, but also on completely inaccessible rocks as on the Alb near Werenwag, Trochtelfingen, Blaubeuren and Ulm, where it grows however less luxuriantly than in gardens but it fruits profusely each year. Gradmann believed, (apparently wrongly) judging from these condi- tions, that the Syringa is not native in the Carpathian Mountains. The naturaliza- tion in certain countries of central Europe was especially helped by the fact that it was customary on many places instead of using stone walls to have gardens and property surrounded by hedges; for these, in addition to varieties of Crataegus, Berberis vulgaris, Lycium halimifolium, Sambucus nigra, Ligustrum vulgare, Prunus spinosa, Prunus Mahaleb, Carpinus Betulus and so on, the Lilac was also used on account of its spreading habit." One of the best descriptions of the Common Lilac in its native surroundings was written by J. Lochot (Rev. Hort. 1903, 125, figs. 48-50); he was in charge of the gardens of the Prince of Bulgaria and during the time he held that post was able to acquire considerable information in regard to the Lilac and to visit some of the localities where it grew. He states that if there is any doubt as to its being native to the Balkans one has but to visit the principal towns of that region in the springtime, and see the quantity of uprooted young plants and cut-flowers brought in for sale by the peasants, to be convinced of its abundance. His account of the Lilac growing in the Balkan Mountains is sufficiently interesting to be quoted at some length: "Si Ton parcourt le pays au travers de la grande chaine des Balkans, ou sur les nombreux contreforts qui s'en detachent, il est peu de montagnes sur lesquelles on ne rencontre quelques stations de Lilas, parfois peu importantes, d'autres fois d'une etendue de plusieurs kilometres. Nous avons visite deux de ces stations; une assez restreinte, dans le defile de la riviere Isker, a peu de distance de Sophia; l'autre dans le voisinage des grands Balkans, pres de la route qui conduit de Stara-Tagora a Kasanlik, la ville a Fessence de Rose. Cette derniere station s'6tendait sur plusieurs kilometres, et il nous a ete signale d'autres encore plus importantes. . . . Le Lilas croit a une altitude de 7 a 800 metres. Dans les deux stations ou nous l'avons rencontre il se trouvait garnrr des pentes exposees au sud et a Test; il n'en existait pas un seul pied aux expositions de nord et de l'ouest. Dans le defile de l'lsker, la station se trouvait en bordure d'un bois touflu et s'etan- dant jusqu'au bord des eaux. Des rochers abrupts en etaient garnis, et nous n'avons pas ete surpris de voir le Lilas croitre dans les fentes de rochers qui rece- 216 THE LILAC laient a peine quelques parcelles de terre. A la lisiere du bois on rencontrait encores quelques pieds, puis en penetrant a, l'interieure, pas un seul. Ces observations nous amenent a, conclure que le Lilas commun est bien un arbrisseau de plein soleil; qu'il ne redoute pas les sols sees, arides, et peut tres bien etre employe" comme plante de rocailles. L'exposition du nord lui est defavorable, car s'il croit volon- tiers, sa floraison laisse toujours a, desirer. Dans la deuxieme station, les obser- vations que nous avons faites sont venues confirmer celles qui viennent d'etre indiquees: la plante recouvrait, sur une vaste etendue, une pente seche exposee au sud. Elle s'y trouvait presque seule, en compagnie de rares buissons d'arbustes divers. On se fait difficilement une idee de l'etat de secheresse dans lequel se trouve la plante pendant la periode des grandes chaleurs; elle est dans un etat de demi- repos et ne parait pas en souffrir autrement, sa vegetation etant toute de printemps; au contraire, la floraison qui suit est toujours tres abondante." Lochot believed that the Lilac's area of distribution, extending the length of the Balkan Mountains, is too vast, and the plant appears too well adapted to its surroundings to be merely naturalized there. Growing in the Arnold Arboretum are three plants of 5. vulgaris which were raised from seed collected by Lochot in the mountains of Bulgaria. Three spontaneous varieties of the Common Lilac have been recorded, but all require further study. The first is: Syringa vulgaris var. transsilvanica Schur, Enum. PI. Transsilv. 451 (1866). — Borbas in Erdesz. Lap. 1882, 883. P. J. F. Schur described it as follows: "Foliis ovatis acuminatis in petiolum subito attenuatis crenulatis, minoribus"; he stated that it grew "Auf Limbert bei Vayda-Hunyad, den ganzen Abhang bekleidend." Vincenz von Borbas mentions it as one of two varieties of the Common Lilac native to Hungary and, following Schur's description, states that the leaf is smaller than that of the type, oval, pointed, suddenly narrowing into the petiole, and finely notched. Neither botanist cites any specimen. I know of no Lilac with finely notched or crenulate leaves although ciliolate leaves occasionally appear to be so. The second is: Syringa vulgaris var. mac[r]antha Borbas in Erdesz. Lap. 1882, 883. Borbas notes: "On Strazucs Mountain (near Mihald) its flower in a wild state is almost twice as large as that of the one in Kazan Valley, along the Lower Danube." Of this variety also Borbas cites no specimen. His name appears as macantha but, from the description, this is obviously a typographical error. The third is: Syringa vulgaris var. pulchella Velenovsky in Sitzungsb. Bohm. Gesellsch. Wissensch. Prag, Jahrg. 1893, no. xxxvu. 43 (1894). This variety was collected above Belledihan in Bulgaria. Velenovsky describes it as having pure white flowers, a longer corolla-tube, and lanceolate lobes with SYRINGA VULGARIS 217 flat margins gradually pointed and once twisted. That he did not consider it to be identical with the white variety of the Common Lilac is indicated by the fact that he notes that in S. vulgaris the corolla is pink, red, violet or white. In J. Velenovsky's "Reliquiae Mrkvickanae" (20, 1922) is described as a new species a Syringa rhodopea which the author notes was collected in the Rhodope Mountains at Stanimaka by Stfibrny in 1900 and which is cultivated in the Botanic Garden at Prague. He describes it as having broadly cordate leaves, a very elon- gated panicle (about 20 cm. long) with horizontally spreading subdivisions, a short campanulate calyx, as long as broad and very short denticulate, the tube of the corolla slightly longer than the limb, the corolla-lobes spreading horizontally, rounded, and very many of the flowers five-lobed. Velenovsky notes that one sees at once that it is different from S. vulgaris which has ovate leaves, suberect subdivisions of the flower-panicle, a calyx longer than broad and with longer teeth, a corolla-tube much longer than the limb and with elliptic, suberect lobes and a four-parted flower. He believes his plant to be related to S. oblata from China with similar leaves but a shorter ovate panicle and subelliptic lobes in fours. This species is also noted by N. Stoianoff and B. Stefanoff (Fl. Bulg. 11. 876, 1925). Several attempts have been made to procure specimens and further information in regard to this species but no reply has been received to the inquiries. From the description alone it does not seem possible to determine the validity of this species. One finds broadly ovate leaves with cordate base in S. vulgaris; there is also con- siderable variation in the form of the flowers and a five-lobed corolla is not unusual. The Common Lilac has been found in the Rhodope Mountains and it may be that 5. rhodopea is merely a variation. Loudon (Arb. Brit. 11. 1210, 1838) writes: "In the survey of the royal gardens of Nonsuch, planted in the time of Henry VIII. , there is mentioned a fountain set round with six lilac trees which bear no fruit, but only a very pleasant smell." "A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles" by Sir James A. H. Murray (Oxford, 1908) notes as follows: "1650 Surv. Non-such Palace, Archaeol. v. 434. A fountaine of white marble ... set round with six trees called lelack trees." In 1579 the Common Lilac was growing in the garden of John Gerard in London. In England, as on the continent, the plant was early appreciated and soon became everywhere naturalized. W. J. Bean writes : "Although not a true native of Britain, the Common Lilac has been in cultivation 300 years and no flowering shrub, either native or foreign, except the Rose, has been more closely identified with English gardens and English country scenes. Of the latter none is more characteristic of our flowering May-time than the cottage garden with its fragrant blossom-laden lilacs." While undoubtedly listed in English nursery catalogues of earlier date, it has been found in the following, — the earliest to which I have had access : as Common Blue Lilac (Burchell, 1764, 20); as Common Syringa or Pipe tree (Burchell, 1764, 31) ; as Blue Syringa (Shiells, 1773, n) ; as S. vulgaris (Mackie, 1812, 54; Backhouse, 218 THE LILAC 1816, 45; Fulham Nursery, [cir. 1817], 26; Loddiges, 1820, 39; 1823, 35; 1826, 59; 1836, 67; Colvill, 1821, 30); as S. coerulea (Miller (Bristol Nursery), 1826, 14); as S. vulgaris coerulea (Miller (Bristol Nursery), 1826, 14). As in England, the Common Lilac is now closely associated with our country landscape and especially with that of New England. The seventh edition of Asa Gray's "Manual of Botany" (652, 1908) notes that it is "not rarely found in a wild state." J. K. Small (Flora Southeast. U. S., ed. 2, 916, 1913) states that it occurs in "waste places ..." and most local floras of the northeastern United States now mention it as an escape. It is, so far as I know, escaped rather than naturalized. Alice Morse Earle in her "Old Time Gardens" (147, 190 1) writes: "It even grows wild in some localities, though it never looks wild, but plainly shows its escape or exile from some garden." Henry D. Thoreau (Walden, New Riverside Ed., n. 407, 1893) describes vividly the associations which the Lilac brings to mind: "Still grows the vivacious lilac a generation after the door and lintel and the sill are gone, unfolding its sweet-scented flowers each spring, to be plucked by the musing travel- ler; planted and tended once by children's hands, in front-yard plots, — now stand- ing by wall-sides in retired pastures, and giving place to new-rising forests; — the last of that stirp, sole survivor of that family. Little did the dusky children think that the puny slip with its two eyes only, which they stuck in the ground in the shadow of the house and daily watered, would root itself so, and outlive them, and house itself in the rear that shaded it, and grown man's garden and orchard, and tell their story faintly to the lone wanderer a half century after they had grown up and died, — blossoming as fair, and smelling as sweet, as in that first spring. I mark its still tender, civil, cheerful, lilac colors." Poems too, such as Amy Lowell's "Lilacs," and Walt Whitman's "Warble for Lilac-time" and "When Lilacs last in the Dooryard Bloom'd," express the emotions aroused by this old garden favorite. The Lilac is at its best in situations where it has been permitted to grow without attention, receiving only such pruning as is done by nature or the occasional passer- by; where suckers have been allowed to come up at will and a thick symmetrical, round-topped clump has resulted. Where the plant has received careful attention and constant pruning the result is fine but of quite another character. Some of the oldest and best-cared-for specimens in New England are growing at the Governor Wentworth Mansion at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, now the home of Mr. J. Templeman Coolidge. They are believed to have been planted about 1750 and what was presumably at one time a hedge of ordinary dimensions is now about three times the width of those usually found, while the old bushes growing by the house are well-cared-for small trees. Mr. Coolidge wrote me, January 18, 1928, in regard to these small trees: "... the clumps just outside the front door . . . from very advanced age, have become trees of large girth (my memory says some 10 inches diameter 3 feet above ground) and about 30 feet high." Where, as in SYRINGA VULGARIS £19 this instance, the suckers have been removed the effect is more formal than where they have been allowed to remain. Photographs (no. 3150) of these Lilacs are in the collection of the Arnold Arboretum. The date of introduction of the Common Lilac to the United States is uncertain ; while the probability is that it came over with the early settlers it has been impos- sible to find any authentic record of its growing here before the last half of the eighteenth century; the early diaries, the colony records, have been searched, but have not yielded so much as the name; one finds records of such utilitarian plants as the Apple, and the Grape, and in early books of travel, such as Kalm's "A Voyage to North America," Josselyn's "New England's Rarities Discovered" and his account of his two voyages to New England, and Wood's "New England's Prospect" we find many references to native plants which were, very naturally, of greater interest because of their unfamiliarity. Even Darlington's "Memorials of John Bartram and Humphrey Marshall" fails to mention the Lilac, as does the correspondence between Collinson and Bartram found in the recent life of Peter Collinson written by Mr. Brett- James. This author kindly wrote me on June 28, 1926: "I have not found anything about it [the Lilac] in my perusal of the letters and I think I have looked pretty carefully through all that have come this way." This is interesting since in the "Asa Gray Bulletin" (111. 15, 1895) we find, under "Biographical Notes," the following quotation from the "New York Tribune," but without precise reference: "In 1753 we find Collinson sending, in addition to various fruit and shade trees many flowers which seem to have been new to America, to Bartram with others, like lilacs and double narcissus, which Bartram complains are already too numerous, as the roots brought by the early settlers had spread enormously." This extract is also quoted by Harshberger (Botanists of Philadelphia, 53, 1899); unfortunately it has not been possible to learn the source of the statement. The late Miss Harriet Keeler in her book "Our Northern Shrubs" wrote: "The year the Lilac was brought to America is in doubt, but we know that as early as 1652, it, together with the Snowball, was the modest ornament of many a cottage yard." It has not been possible to learn where Miss Keeler obtained this precise date. In 1652 the Box bushes in the old garden at Sylvester Manor, Shelter Island, New York, were believed to have been planted and great hopes were entertained that there might be some record of the old Lilacs which grow there also; but Miss Cornelia Horsford, the present owner, wrote me: "There is a very old lilac hedge on top of a high stone wall facing a terrace, but although the wall undoubtedly dates from 1652, it could not be proved when or why it [the hedge] was planted there now." Of the date of planting of the Lilacs at the Governor Wentworth Mansion, Mr. Coolidge wrote: "These trees Miss Anna Cushing (the granddaughter of Mr. Charles Cushing who bought the place from the Wentworths in 1816) tells me she always heard called the Wentworth lilacs when she was a little girl living in the 220 THE LILAC Mansion. The trees stand upon a narrow terrace whose stone wall is a continuation of the foundation of the house, and in type and rock is similar and evidently con- temporary. Now this terrace, narrow and long, and contained by walls on three sides, must have been meant for shrubs of some kind, and it seems quite possible that Wentworth set out the lilacs in that spot. If these are the Wentworth lilacs, Professor Sargent wrote me that they were the oldest in the country, those at Mt. Vernon, planted by Washington, coming next in order of time. It is possible that these are Wentworth lilacs, and even probable; but the testimony I give you cannot be taken as proof-absolute." Alice Morse Earle in the book already mentioned (p. 29) writes: "We find Sir Harry Frankland ordering Daffodils and Tulips from the garden he made for Agnes Surriage; and it is said that the first Lilacs ever seen in Hopkinton were planted by him for her." In the biography of Sir Charles Henry Frankland (41, 1865) written by the Rev. Elias Nason is a description of the Frankland home at Hopkinton, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. This was a tract of 482 acres purchased in the years 1751 and 1752; the house, since destroyed by fire, having been built in 1751. Nason writes: "Having a taste for horticulture he [Frankland] introduced a great variety of the choicest fruit, — such as apples, pears, plums, peaches, cherries of excellent quality, apricots and quinces from England : — and having an eye for beauty, he set out elms and other ornamental trees upon his grounds, and embellished his walks and garden with the box, the lilac, hawthorn and the rose: some portion of this shrubbery blooms as beautifully as when King George the Second sat upon the throne." A footnote states further: "Two rows of box still remain, having attained the height of about ten feet; it is the largest [1862] in the country. The trunks of some of the lilacs are eight inches in diameter, and the red roses still continue to bloom as in times of old." It has not been possible to verify Nason's first statement and he does not .give the source of his information. A visit to the Hopkinton place made in the spring of 1926 shows that the box no longer exists except for a small fragment, having been killed to the ground in one hard winter since the present owner took possession twelve years ago; the Lilacs which remain near the site of the old barn, while handsome, are not unusually large. They may possibly be suckers from the original plants. 0. W. Holmes' poem "Agnes" mentions the box, the lilacs and the elms; and one finds frequent reference to these Frankland Lilacs. Considerable information of a like character is easily obtainable but authentic records are few and occur absurdly late we must believe. In the library of the Massachusetts Historical Society is the interesting old "Garden Book" of Thomas Jefferson. It is written in longhand and dates from 1766 to 1824; for several years the entries relate to Shadwell, Virginia, where the statesman and President was born, but the greater part of the entries apply to his later home, Monticello, a spot not far removed from his birthplace. Among the Shadwell records of 1767 appears the following, under date of Apr[il] 2: "planted Lilac, Spanish broom, SYRINGA VULGARIS 221 Umbrella, Laurel, Almonds, Muscle plumbs, Cayenne pepper"; and, following entries made at Monticello on September] 30, we find various lists, among them one reading: "Trees. Lilac. — Wild Cherry. — Dogwood. — Red-bud. — Horse- chestnut. . . ." The year 1767 marks therefore the earliest authentic record known to me of the presence of the Common Lilac in the United States. We find the Lilac mentioned also in Washington's diaries; it was growing at Mount Vernon, and Washington, like many other amateur gardeners, appears to have done considerable transplanting: "Thursday, 3rd, [March, 1785]. . . likewise took up the clump of Lilacs that stood at the corner of the South Grass plat and transplanted them to the clusters in the shrubberies and standards at the South Garden gate"; "Thursday, 29th, [March, 1785] transplanted in the groves at the ends of the House the following young trees, viz. 9 live Oak, 1 1 Yew or Hemlock 2 Lilacs, 3 Fringe . . ."; "Friday 10th, [February, 1786] . . . the buds of the lylack were much swelled and seemed ready to unfold" (Diaries of George Washington, edited by J. C. Fitzpatrick, 11. 346, 355; in. 12, 1925). The plant is also mentioned by the Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Life, Journals and Correspondence, 1. 201, 1888) who, in a diary, notes: "April 23 [1787] Lilac buds advanced so as to open and leaves appear." Together with S. chinensis and 5. persica the Common Lilac was cultivated in the Elgin Botanic Garden near the city of New York, which was established in 1801 (D. Hosack, Hort. Elgin. 181 1). In Robert Carr's catalogue of Bartram's garden published in 181 4 both the Common Lilac and its white variety are listed. It is named by W. D. Peck among the plants growing in the Botanic Garden at Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1818 (Cat. Amer. For. PI. Bot. Gard. Cambridge, Mass. 1, 1818). Over one hundred years ago W. P. G. Barton (Fl. Phila. Prodr. 13, 181 5) mentions it among the plants collected within ten miles of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; his flora lists indigenous plants and others "either naturalized or so commonly cultivated among us, that it has been deemed expedient to introduce them into this Prodromus." As in the case of English nursery catalogues, those of early date in this country are difficult to obtain; the Common Lilac appears however, in that of William Prince (43, 1823) and in that of Landreth (27, 1824) ; after 1825 it is found frequently mentioned. The Common Lilac has been associated for so many years with the homes of Europe, of England and of America that it has acquired a great number of names, many of them corruptions of those used by the botanists, others simple, homely and often picturesque. In botanical literature the name Lilac was first used by Mattioli in the edition of his "Commentarii" which was printed in 1565. According to Noah Porter (Webster's Internat. Diet, with Suppl., new ed., 1900) the word is derived from the "Pers[ian] lilaj, lilanj, lilang, nilaj, nil, the indigo plant, or from the kindred lilak, bluish, the flowers being named from the color." (See also Sir James A. H. Murray, 222 THE LILAC New Engl. Diet. Hist. Princ, Oxford, 1908.) Among English speaking peoples this name appears in a number of forms; A. B. Lyons (PL Names Sci. Pop. 450, 1907) mentions Lilach, Lelach, Laylock, and Lily-oak which last he calls a verbal cor- ruption. Bacon in his essay "On Gardens" calls it the "Lelack Tree." Murray cites lalock as vernacular in the United States; O. W. Holmes (Prof. Breakf. Table, chap. 11.) so spells it: "Lalocks flowered late that year, and he got a great bunch off from the bushes in the Hancock front yard"; Lowell (Bigelow Papers, ser. 2, no. 6) uses Laylock: "The cat-bird in the laylock-bush is loud"; Alice Morse Earle (Old Time Gardens, 140, 1901) writes: "Walter Savage Landor, when Laylock had become antiquated, still clung to the word and used it with a stubborn persistence such as he alone could compass, which seems strange in the most finished classical scholar of his day." Britten and Holland (Diet. Engl. PI. Names, 302, 1886) refer to the name Laylock or Laylocks as "A common mispronunciation of Lilac, Syringa L." and record its use in the following counties of England: Gloucestershire (Pulman); Somersetshire; Surrey (according to the English Dialect Society, C. 3); Sussex (Parish); Warwickshire (E. D. S. Gloss. C. 3); and Yorkshire (Holderness) (E. D. S. Gloss. C. 7). Of the name Lily-oak, they note (p. 307) : "a corruption of Lilac, Syringa vulgaris L.," used in Scotland according to Jamieson. The word Syringa is derived from the Greek 2vpiy£, Syrinx, meaning a shepherd's pipe, a flute, etc. Ovid in his "Metamorphoses," tells the story of Syrinx, a nymph of Arcady, who, when pursued by Pan, was changed into a reed. From this reed Pan made the first flute or pipe of Pan. Of the Syringa G. Don (Gen. Syst. rv. 51, 1838) writes: ". . . the branches are long and straight and are filled with medulla; hence the old name of the lilac, pipe- tree"; Loudon (Arb. Brit. 11. 1208, 1838) also: "the tubes of the finest Turkish pipes are manufactured from the wood of this shrub and also from that of Philadelphus coronarius, hence the old English Pipe-tree which was applied both to the Philadelphus and to the Syringa"; Parkinson (Paradisi, 407, 1629) calls it The blew Pipe-tree, a name which appears in more modern usage as Blue Pipe- tree; Alice Morse Earle states that she has heard the name used in recent years by a native of Narragansett, Rhode Island; Loudon calls it also Pipe-Privet; Philip Miller (Cat. PI. 45, 1730) calls it Pipe-tree and H. L. Gerth van Wijk (Diet. PI. Names, 1. 1307, 191 1) cites Pipe as also used. Bailey (Diet. Rust. ed. 3, 1726) refers to it as Pistick or Pipe- Tree with blue flowers. The blooming-time of the Lilac is recorded in the English name May-flower mentioned by Richard Folkard Jr. (Plant Lore, 59, 1884) : "In Cornwall and Devon Lilac is esteemed the May-flower"; May-plant is mentioned in Meehan's Monthly (n. 27, 1892); May by Gerth van Wijk. Britten and Holland (1. c, p. 328) note that the name May flower is used in Cornwall, in gardens, and May in Devonshire. Meehan's Monthly also mentions Princess feather flower which Lyons notes is better applied to another plant; Gerth van Wijk cites also princy feather and prince's feather, the latter G. Clarke Nuttall (Beautiful Flowering Shrubs, 101, SYRINGA VULGARIS 223 1923) says is "a pretty Cornish name due to its plumes of flowers." Britten and Holland (1. c, p. 390) cite it as used in Devonshire and Rutlandshire (Uppingham) and note: "pronounced Princy Feather without the s of the possessive case." Duck's bills is cited in Meehan's Monthly and Nuttall states that this is due to the shape of the flower buds; to me it seems more probable that it has its origin in the appearance of the fruit capsules. Britten and Holland (1. c, p. 531), on the authority of a friend, cite Duck's bills as used in Devonshire. Blue Ash, Spanish Ash, White Ash are cited by Meehan's Monthly as names which are im- properly applied; Nuttall suggests that the practice of grafting the Lilac on the Ash may have a bearing upon these names. Britten and Holland (1. c, p. 513) mention Blue Ash as used in Gloucestershire (Chedworth) and state: "the white variety is called White Ash"; they also mention (p. 445) Spanish Ash as used in Gloucestershire (Fairford). Lyons quotes Roman Willow as also im- properly applied; its significance is not apparent; Britten and Holland (1. c, p. 406) mention it as used in Lincolnshire according to the English Dialect Society (Gloss. C. 6) and to Notes and Queries (ser. 2, vn. 385). Nor is the derivation of the name Oysters, mentioned by Gerth van Wijk and others, apparent; possibly this may also have been suggested by the two-parted fruit. Britten and Holland (1. c, p. 568), on the authority of a friend, note of Oysters: "The name by which bunches of lilac-blossom are known in North Devon." Syring, obviously a corrup- tion, is cited by Gerth van Wijk, and Bailey (Diet. Rust. ed. 3, 1726) calls it "the blue syringe." The name Scotch Lilac mentioned by Lyons is only correctly applied to the purple variety (see S. vulgaris var. purpurea). T. R. Sim (Flower- ing Trees So. Africa, 12, 142, fig. no, 1919) calls it "the English Lilac." Of the superstitions connected with the plant Alice Morse Earle writes: "And there was a love divination by Lilacs which we children solemnly observed. There will occasionally appear a tiny Lilac flower, usually a white Lilac, with five divisions of the petal instead of four — this is a Luck Lilac. This must be solemnly swallowed. If it goes down smoothly, the dabbler in magic cries out, 'He loves me' ; if she chokes at her floral food, she must say sadly, 'He loves me not'. ... In the West Indies the Lilac is a flower of mysterious power; its perfume keeps away evil spirits, ghosts, banshees. [It is doubtful whether the Lilac grows in the climate of the West Indies and the reference is probably to some plant called by the natives Lilac, possibly the Melia Azedarach Linnaeus.] If it grows not in the dooryard, its protecting branches are hung over the doorway. I think of this when I see it shading the door of happy homes in New England." It seems indeed probable that good fortune has been associated with this plant and may in the early days have accounted for some of its popularity. Dr. E. M. Kronfeld (Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 27, 209, 1918) states that the German common name Hollunder may be in part derived from the name of the goddess Holla, protectress of the household. There do not appear to be as great a number of vernacular names for the 224 THE LILAC Common Lilac among the French-speaking peoples as among the English or the German. Lilas, Lilas commun, Lilas vulgaire are those most frequently used. As noted in the text the first mention of the plant appears in Belon's "Observations" of 1554, — as Queue de Regnard; Bulliard (Introd. Fl. Envir. Paris, t. 4, 1776) calls it the Queue de Renard des Jardiniers; and Gerth van Wijk cites queue de renard de jardin. He also mentions clawsony which he notes is Walloon, jasmin, also Walloon, and cited on the authority of Paque (Vlaamsche Volksn. PI. 1896), as well as mouguet and mouget for which he gives as authority Prof. K. W. von Dalla Torre (Die volksthiimliche Pflanzennamen in Tirol und Vorarlberg, 1895); muguet is the French name for the Lily-of-the-valley. The name bellegrappe used by Reneaulme (Spec. Hist. PI. 31, 161 1) has reference presumably to the flower cluster which Gerard had earlier described (Herball, Bk. hi. 12 13, 1597) as "compact, of many small flowers, in the form of a bunch of grapes." Jean Des Moulins in his translation of Jacques Dalechamps' "Histoire gen6rale des Plantes . . ." (1. 300, fig. 1653) calls it Syringue ayant la fleur incarnate, Lilac de Matthiol. As mentioned earlier in the text Duhamel de Monceau called it the Lilas des bois a fleur d'un bleu pale. Charles Morren (Bull. Acad. Sci. Belg. ser. 1, 273, 1853) calls it Lilas de Constantinople. It is in the German language and its dialects that we find the greatest number of common names for this plant. In the German the Lilac is called Flieder, — Gemeiner Flieder corresponding to the English Common Lilac and the French Lilas commun. Kronfeld states that the word appears to have originated in Flanders and to have been derived from the Dutch vlieder, meaning to flutter, perhaps because of the fluttering leaves; or possibly, he adds, from the word Fliehbaum (the tree with the transitory or quickly falling leaves), — the syllable der, as in the name Holder {Holler), being considered, not as a meaningless suffix, but as the old dar, deru (tree) from the Greek dry, the English tree. Weinmann in 1748 cites Spaansche Vlier as "Hoogduits." Gerth van Wijk cites blauer flieder, flinder, flirr(a), floren, the last two names on the authority of G. Pritzel and E. Jessen (Die deutschen Volksnamen der Pflanzen, 1882) ; on the same authority he also cites spanchenflorer, spansche fleder, spansch- fleder. G. Hegi (111. Fl. Mittel-Eur., 1. c.) mentions also Fliider, Flirra (Low German) and Flider (Switzerland). The names Spanischer Flieder and Turkischer Flieder appear frequently, the attributes Spanish and Turkish having presumably reference to the supposed origin of the plant, although Kronfeld states that the adjective Spanish merely denotes a foreign or distant origin. The name Hollunder is frequently used instead of Flieder. Kronfeld tells us that in Austria the plant was known as Holler (Holunder) ; the word is frequently spelt Hollunder. This name was, and is, commonly applied to the European Elder, Sambucus nigra Linnaeus, and, according to Kronfeld, to other shrubs such as the Mock-Orange [ = Philadelphus coronarius Linnaeus] and the wild Snowball [ = Vibur- num opulus Linnaeus]. He states that the word is derived from hohl, meaning SYRINGA VULGARIS 225 hollow, because of the hollowed, pith-filled branches of the Elder and as already noted, possibly had a connection with the name of the goddess Holla, protectress of the household. Ruppius (Fl. Jenensis, 24, 1745) called it Spanischer Holunder; Weinmann in 1748 also cites welscher Holler; Duroi (Harbk. Baumz. n. 443, 1772) cites Der gemeine blaue Spanische Hollunder and der Turkische Hollunder; Gerth van Wijk cites blauer hohler, blauer holder, blauer holunder, spanischer holler, spanischer holunder, turkischer holunder, turkischer holder and other names as follows : on the authority of A. Voss (Salomon's Worterbuch der Deutschen Pflanzen- namen . . . umgearbeitet von A. Voss, 1903), falscher holler, falscher holunder; of C. J. Durheim (Schweizerisches Pflanzen-Idiotikon, 1856) spanischer holder; of Pritzel and Jessen (1. c.) welscher holder; of Torre (1. c.) weisser holler, weisser holunder; the last two names presumably should apply to the white variety {S. vulgaris var. alba). G. Hegi (1. c.) cites also spaensche Ellhoern ( = Hol- under) (Schleswig), Holder (e) (Swabia, Switzerland), Baure-Holder (Franconia) and Schmeckholler (from its pleasant fragrance) (Upper Franconia). The name Syringa appears in a number of different spellings, corruptions and combinations. Ruppius (1. c.) mentions Sirenien; Weinmann in 1748 calls it Hemelsblaauwe Syringeboom; Duroi (1. c.) Syringenstrauch; Schkuhr (Bot. Handb. 1. 8, 1 791) Blauer Dosten Zirinten and Syrenen; Roth (Man. Bot. Prodr. 1. 8, 1830) Gemeine Sirenen; Mertens and Koch (Rohling's Deutschl. Fl. 1. 301, 1823) Zirinken; Gerth van Wijk cites numerous other forms for the word: sirene, syrene(n), syringe, syringenbaum, syringsstrauch, syringsbaum, syringenstrauch, ziren-chen, zirene, ziricke, zirin(c)ken, zyringe; on the authority of Nemnich (Allgemeines Polyglotten- Lexicon der Naturgeschichte, 1 793-1 795) gemeine syringa and syrenie, of Pritzel and Jessen eddelzierinjen, syrike, syringbaum, zerinje, zirenje, zitrene; of A. Voss (1. c.) syringsblume; Kronfeld notes that in Thuringia the name Zerentschen is used and in Lower Germany Zirenien, while among peoples of Alemannian origin appears Zirinken. G. Hegi (1. c.) cites also Siereen, Zorene, Ziereenje, Zieren'n (Gotha), Zitrenchen (North Thuringia), Zitterene (Hesse), Zerinke (Palatinate of the Rhine) , Zirinke (Alemannian) , Zitterink, Zitterinz (Alsace) , Zitronchenbaum, Rosinenbaum (upper Hartz); and he notes that the Alsatian Zittelbast has refer- ence to the Seidelbast [ = Daphne Mezereum Linnaeus] to which its flowers are (?) similar in form. The name Lilac according to Kronfeld was once commonly used in Germany and is now heard in the Tyrol and on the Rhine. Gerth van Wijk cites blauer lilak and lila(c)k; also, on the authority of Pritzel and Jessen, lila. Wilhelm Ulrich (Internationales Worterbuch der Pflanzennamen, 230, 1872) cites lilak as the com- mon German name. The Pipe-tree of the English finds its German counterpart in such names as pfeifen-baum, pfeifenstrauch, spanischer pfeifenbaum, all cited by Gerth van Wijk. Duroi (1. c.) calls it in 1772 Der Pfeifenstrauch, and Houttuyn (1. c.) in 1778 Pfeifenbaum. 226 THE LILAC It is probable that the following names arose because of the similarity, in form, of the Lilac flower when in bud and the clove: Gerth van Wijk mentions essnageli and nageleinbaum, and on the authority of Pritzel and Jessen nagaliblust, nagel- chen, nagelgartenbluthen, nageliblust, nagelkes, nagels-baum; of Nemnich, nagel- chensblumen, nagleinbaum and of Paque rassnagabluh. Kronfeld states that Rass- nagabluh is used in the Austrian Alps. He quotes E. Fettweis (Volkstiimliche Pflanzennamen von Niederrhein, 1916) as stating that the names Nallchesblum and Nagelkes which are also used, are suggested by the resemblance of the flowers [flower-bud] to a nail. Kronfeld believes that these names resemble those of the carnation and the clove and refers to his history of the carnation (Vienna, 1913). G. Hegi (1. c.) also notes names derived from the resemblance to the clove and men- tions Gewiirznelken (buds of Caryophyllus aromalicus; he refers for the word "Nelke" to his vol. in. 319), Niagelken, Nagel(ke)bom (Low German), Nalchesblume, Nagelcher (Franconia), Groffensnall (from Caryophyllus) (Aix-la-Chapelle) , Nagala (Swabia), Nageli, Essnageli (bloust) (Switzerland). Ruppius (1. c.) in 1745 cites Nageleinbaum among other common names for the Lilac. See also S. villosa and S. pubescens. The English name May-plant has also a German counterpart: Gerth van Wijk mentions, on authority of Pritzel and Jessen, maiablust, and Kronfeld Maiblum which he notes is used along the Lower Rhine. Other names which refer to the season of bloom at Whitsuntide or Pentecost are also cited : by Kronfeld, Pangstblum (Pfingstblum) , also used along the Lower Rhine; and by Gerth van Wijk, Pingster- blomen, on the authority of Pritzel and Jessen. G. Hegi (1. c.) states that the following are derived from the blooming season in May, Whitsuntide (Pfingster) and Ascension Day (Christi Himmelfahrt) : Maiblom (Bergenland), Maibluem (Alsace), Maierosli (Baden), Maiebluest (Switzerland), Maia, Maibliia(h) (upper Bavaria), Pinksterblome or Pinksterbloume (Low German), Pfingste-Glesli ("Glesli" probably = Hyacinthe), Pfeistblueme (Switzerland) and Ufertsbluest (Basel). The old French name Queue de Regnard appears in the German as Fuchs- schwanz (Houttuyn, 1. c). Ruppius and numerous later writers mention the curious old name Huck auf die Magd, Gerth van Wijk citing also the spelling hock auf (der magd) on the authority of Pritzel and Jessen. Kronfeld writes that the name appears in Saxony as Kuffdemad. He suggests that this name comes from the children's game "pick-a-back" applied to their other game of inserting the corolla-tubes of the Lilac flowers one within the other. Alice Morse Earle (1. c.) has spoken of this method of making little necklaces of the flowers. Kronfeld also mentions that the German children make wreaths in this same way, press them, and believe that the child whose wreath retains its color best will receive an espe- cially good report card at Michaelmas. For the name Huck auf die Magd and its corruptions G. Hegi (1. c.) gives the explanation: — "coire; Blutezeit im Mai, starker auf die sexuelle Sphare wirkender Duft," and cites the following: Huckuf- SYRINGA VULGARIS 227 demad, Huppufdemad, Kufdemad, Huckauf, Huppuff (Saxony , North-Thuringia) , Hub-uf-de-Me (Altenburg) andHep(e)timat (Upper Hesse). Willkomm (Fiihr. Reich Deutsch. Pflanz. 445, 1863) mentions the name Jelangerjelieber. This is a German name for the Honeysuckle the flowers of which were possibly thought to bear a resemblance to those of the Lilac, or possibly to possess a similar fragrance. Kron- feld states that this name is used in northern Germany. Of Je langer je lieber (for which name he refers to Lonicera caprifolium) G. Hegi (1. c.) cites the Thur- ingian forms: Langelieber, Eng(e)lalieb(e)r, and Liwerangl. The Wild Marjoram, called in German Dost, also lends its name to the Lilac; blaue dosten and blauer dosten being cited by Gerth van Wijk and Blauer Dosten Zirinten by Schkuhr (1. c). Gerth van Wijk also cites the name wilder jasmin. A number of miscellaneous common names for the Lilac which are used in Germany are mentioned by Gerth van Wijk: blaue blust, citrenchen, hiittenblume, kandel-bliite [this is cited by Wilhelm Ulrich (Internationales Worterbuch der Pflanzennamen, 230, 1872) as die Kandelbliithe], weinblume?; and on the authority of Nemnich, blaue bliithe; of Pritzel and Jessen, corinde, engellalieber, kandel- baum, kandel-bluh, lirberebaum, studentenblom, zitelbascht; of Durheim, schnee- ballenbaum; of Torre, spanisch bluest [Vorarlb.]. Kronfeld says that the last is used in the Austrian Alps. Silberbliithe is cited by Gartenflora (in. 60, 1854). G. Hempelmann (Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 28, 321, 1919) writes: "in meiner Heimat Siidoldenburg, sogenanntes Miinsterland, der Flieder (Syringa vulgaris) Sandrin'n oder Sanderin'n genannt wird. (Das Anfangs-s scharf gespro- chen, wie ss.)" Among miscellaneous folknames G. Hegi also cites Kaneelblom, Kaneelroes (Schleswig), Pastorenblom, Kasblom (Bergenland), Lemerschwenz (from the form of the flower cluster) (Upper Hesse) [this name means tail of the lamb and suggests the old name Queue de Renard of Belon], Muhlenblume (district of the Moselle), Weinblume (Baden), Wietruba (St. Gallen), Huppendinges (for the manufacture of "Huppen "-pipes; Hegi refers to Sorbus aucuparia) (Lothringia) , and Zuckerblueme (Alsace). Kronfeld mentions various superstitions associated with the plant: he states that in Germany the opinion is widely held that, when the Lilac flowers, people become especially tired and indolent; the German peasant puts a spray of it on the roof to ward off lightning; he picks in a particular way, at a particular time, a certain number of Lilac flowers with which on a certain day he smokes out the rooms of his house to keep away rats and mice; if a branch, picked on December fourth, and put in water, shows leaves at Christmas, to the young maiden it pre- sages a desired marriage. I have found no references to these superstitions else- where. Among the Dutch-speaking peoples also a considerable number of common names are used to refer to the Lilac. Commelin (Cat. PI. Hort. Med. Amstelodam. 340, 1689) calls it Syringa met blaauwe blom. Gerth van Wijk mentions sering; and on the authority of Dr. J. B. Henkel (Medizinisch-pharmazeutische Botanik, 228 THE LILAC 1862) gnofFelsneggel, kattestert, kennekesblom, kroednagel, kroednegel, kruid- nagels, kriinagelboompje, meibloem, nagel, nagelbloem, nagelblom, nageltakken, pinksterblom, sijringeboom, Sint Jansbloem, sireen, striengen, tronkaarts and zuiglammetjes. These names with a number of Flemish ones appear in H. Henkels' "Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Volksnamen van Planten" (249, 1907). On the authority of Paque, van Wijk cites djezemijne(n), dzozemienen, jasmienen, jasmijnen, jassemienen, jesemienen, jesumiene, jesumiene-boom, jize- miene, jozzemiene(n), juzemienen, kruidnagel-bloemen, kruinagels, lielas', lylac, meibloeme(n), nagelkruid, serienen, singelingen, Sint Joris' houtbloem, Sint Servaas' bloemen, and sussemienen; of Dr. H. van Hall (De Kruidtuin van's Rijks Hoogere Burgerschool te Middelburg, 187 1) blauwe syringa, gewone sering, lillach; of Denken de Bo's Kruidwoordenboek bewrocht en uitgegeven door Joseph Samijn, Prof, in't Collegie te Meenen, 1888, jasmijn, joosmijn; of Paque tchieuzemiene. Nees (PL Offic. 1. 214, t. 1828) mentions Gemeene Syring. Borbas (A Kert, 1. 245, 1895) calls S. vulgaris "magyar orgonafa" or Hungarian Lilac and writes: "We may call it Hungarian, for the southeastern calcareous region of our country is unquestionably its place of origin." Guylas (A Syringa Josikaea Jacq. fil. es a Syringa Emodi Wallich, 1909; see bibliography of S. Josikaea for reference) notes in Hungarian: ". . . S. vulgaris and the other cultivated Syringa species also have common names, such as Borostyan, Lila-Fa (near Dioszegi-Fazekas) which came from the word Lilac (Tournefort), Szelence (across the Danube) ; Boroszlan (on the other bank of the Danube and the Moldava), Tengeri Bodza, indiai Mogyoro, Orgovanyfa, and Orgonafa. The latter is the real Hungarian one and the one generally accepted and applied." In Rumania according to Baumgarten (Enum. Stirp. Transsilv. 1. 16, 1816) the Lilac is called Lila, Malin rosu, and Szkumpine. In Hungary, according to the same authority it is called Borostyanfa and Szelentzefa; Nees (1. c.) cites Borostyan as also used; and Kronfeld mentions Orgonafa (Orgelpfeife) meaning organ-pipe. Nees cites Siringa as used in Italy, Lilaz in Portugal, Lila in Spain, Syreen in Switzerland, Serik in Russia and Spanskflitter in Denmark. Kronfeld cites Lila as Portuguese and Lilac as Spanish. G. Hegi mentions Lilach (Saxony), Lila (Alsace) and Lilak (Argau [a district in Switzerland]). In Russia the name for Lilac is Siren. In Latvia it is called Cerines. Kronfeld tells us, quoting Jirecek, that the "Lilac Wood" (gora liljakowa, ljulekowa) is often besung in Bulgarian folksongs. He also states that in Persia in ancient times the Lilac was believed to be sacred and that there, to this day, the homes and persons of the sick are decorated with the plant; while in Turkey and Russia the Lilac is connected with death and the foretelling of death. Some of the early descriptions of the Common Lilac are even more suggestive of the plant than are more recent, and probably more technically accurate ones. Gerard (Herball, Bk. in. 12 14, fig. 1597) writes: "The blew Pipe groweth likewise in manner of a smal hedge tree, with many shootes rising from the roote like the SYRINGA VULGARIS 229 former, as our common Privet doth, wherof it is a kinde. The branches have some small quantitie of pith in the middle of the wood, and are covered with a darke black greenish barke or rinde. The leaves are exceeding greene and crumpled or turned up like the brims of a hat, in shape very like unto the leaves of the Poplar tree: among which come the flowers of an exceeding faire blewe colour, compact of many small flowers, in the forme of a bunch of grapes, eache flower is in shew like those of Valeriana rubra Dodonaei, consisting of fower parts like a little star, of an exceeding sweete savour and smel, but not so strong as the former [the white Pipe = Philadelphus coronarius Linnaeus]. When these flowers be gone, there succeede flat cods and somewhat long, which being ripe are of a light colour, with a thin membrane or filme in the midst, wherein are seedes almost fower square, narrow and ruddie." Another somewhat similar description was written by John Parkinson (Paradisi, 407, 1629): "The blew Pipe tree riseth sometimes to be a great tree, as high and bigge in the bodie as a reasonable Apple tree (as I have in some places seene and observed) but most usually groweth lower, with many twigs or branches rising from the roote, having as much pith in the middle of them as the Elder hath, covered with a grayish greene barke, but darker in the elder branches, with joynts set at a good distance one from another, and two leaves at every joynt, which are large, broad, and pointed at the ends, many of them turning or folding both the sides inward, and standing on long foote stalkes: at the toppes of the branches come forth many flowers, growing spike-fashion, that is, a long branch of flowers upon a stalke, each of these flowers are small, long, and hollow belowe, ending above in a pale blewish flower, consisting of foure small leaves, of a pretty small sent: after the flowers are past, there come sometimes (but it is not often in our Country, unlesse the tree have stood long, and is grown great, the suckers being continually taken away, that it may growe the better) long and flat cods, consisting as it were of two sides, a thin skinne being in the midst, wherein are contained two long flattish red seede: the rootes are strong, and growe deepe in the ground." Linnaeus merely describes Syringa vulgaris as "Syringa foliis ovato cordatis." It is at this date impossible to identify any plant now in existence as the rep- resentative, strictly speaking, of the original Common Lilac. This was of course a cultivated plant; probably its nearest approach is found in the old Lilac which we see growing uncared for by deserted homes or subspontaneously by country road- sides; these plants have, in general, flower-clusters which are almost cylindrical in form when fully open and which in color tone are intermediate between dark and pale; their color ranges from a reddish blue in bud to a pinkish blue or bluish pink when expanded and they possess a delicious fragrance in every instance. Growing in the Arnold Arboretum are three plants (no. 17,363 Arn. Arb.) which were raised from seed collected by J. Lochot, in the mountains of Bulgaria, where, as already noted, he had observed the species growing spontaneously. This seed was forwarded from France by Mr. Maurice de Vilmorin and received in 230 THE LILAC December, 1905. While possessing the botanical characters associated with the garden form these plants have a distinctive appearance which does not suggest that of a cultivated Lilac. A considerable difference is to be observed in the in- dividual flowers, in the shape of the clusters and in the amount of bloom yearly- produced on the three plants, but, in all, the inflorescence is more open and inter- rupted than that found on old cultivated plants where the cluster is, in general, well-filled, and, as noted, somewhat cylindrical in form. In habit these shrubs are also less compact than old garden Lilacs. All three bloom profusely each year although one is especially floriferous, and their long clusters are fragrant and showy. The winter buds, the foliage, the fruit and the bark show no characters distinguishing them from the cultivated plant. The foliage is retained, still green, into late autumn. The further north one goes, within reason, the better the Common Lilac thrives. Professor Sargent and others tell of having seen what are probably some of the largest and handsomest Lilacs on this continent growing on the island of Mackinaw in Lake Superior. E. H. Wilson (Aristocrats of the Garden, 213, 191 7), referring to the genus as a whole, writes: "For regions where cold winters are followed by dry summers they are ideal shrubs . . . not only are Lilacs quite hardy in the colder parts of New England and elsewhere but they thrive better there than they do across the water in Great Britain. . . . They are essentially plants for northern New Eng- land and regions of a similar climate; in southern New England and southward the leaves in summer are often temporarily disfigured by mildew." Dr. W. T. Macoun (Report of the Dominion Horticulturist for the year 1922, p. 38) mentions S. vulgaris among the best ornamental shrubs hardy at Ottawa, Canada. Des- fontaines (Hist. Arb. Arbris. 1. 99, 1809) has been told by Vahl that the Common Lilac is cold resistant in Norway where it is grown in the open; C. Martins (Rev. Hort. 1845, 433) states that it is cultivated at Um6o, Sweden, and Kuphaldt (Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 24, 231, 191 5) that it is hardy at Riga, Russia. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883), notes the form of 5. vulgaris, e. coerulea, as frequent. T. R. Sim (Fl. Trees and Shrubs So. Africa, 12, 142, fig. no, 1919) mentions it "for cold districts" and notes that it "does not do well in subtropical conditions." Sir Dietrich Brandis (Indian Trees, 445, 1906) cites it as cultivated in the British Indian Empire. Asa Gray (Scientific Papers of Asa Gray, selected by C. S. Sargent, 1. 75, 1889) in a review of Arthur Henfrey's book "An Elementary Course of Botany" (1857) wrote: "Very singular is the statement (p. 68) that in England 'the terminal bud of the Lilac is generally killed by the frost in the winter'; since in our much colder winter it is as completely hardy as the other buds whenever it happens to be formed, and, like them, is well developed before summer is over. As a general rule here, and we presume in England also, no terminal winter bud appears during the growing season, and so there is none to be killed by the frost of the following winter." Much has been written upon the best method of propagating the Lilac and a SYRINGA VULGARIS 231 great difference of opinion has been expressed upon the subject. In the opinion of the author, whose experience is that of the owner of purchased plants, not that of the propagator, the most satisfactory plants are those upon their own roots; all suckers which appear are then true to name and only such as are not desired need be removed, and as a means of renewing an old plant or improving its shape suckers may be of value. To propagate Lilacs from cuttings, the method commonly used in this country to produce Lilacs upon their own roots, is a slower method than by grafting, and, to obtain rapidly plants of a saleable size, the grafting or budding method upon Common Lilac, upon Privet or upon various other stocks has been much employed. The subject is discussed in some detail in a later chapter. The attempt has been made to use the Lilac as a stock upon which to graft the Olive; Pepin (Rev. Hort. 1856, 372) noted that this was tried by Perrault of Sussy, near Paris, France. Ordinarily when the Common Lilac is grown as a specimen it receives only such pruning as is necessary to keep it in strong condition and to ensure fine bloom. This subject is discussed elsewhere in this work. Duhamel de Monceau (Traite Arb. Arbust. 1. 362, 1755) tells us that the Lilac was occasionally clipped in ball shape: "On les taille au ciseau ou au croissant pour en former des palissades ou des boules." Clipped Lilac hedges are not un- common but if kept in perfect hedge shape the bloom is necessarily impaired; undipped, they offer an excellent dense protection and at the flowering season are a great asset. In England we frequently see it used in conjunction with other shrubs as a hedge plant; Loudon (Arb. Brit. 11. 12 10, 1838) notes: "Mixed with sweet briars, sloe thorns, scarlet thorns, Guelder rose trees etc., it forms beautiful hedges to cottage gardens where there is plenty of room." While visiting the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa, Canada, in June, 1927, I saw the collection of hedges grown for demonstration purposes. Among them is one of S. vulgaris but this is not so handsome as one of S. Josikaea. See 5. Josikaea. See also Meller (Gard. Mag. xi. 20, fig., 1910) and Heath (Tree Lore, 158, 1912). W. Ingram (Garden, vn. 437, 1875) tells of grafting the Lilac upon an old established hedge of Privet with what he considered to be excellent results. E. Soland (Jardin, x. 159, 1896) advocates the grafting and budding of new sorts of Lilac upon old plants in order to retain good specimens and still possess the best new forms. There grows against the Chateau de Crest at Jussy on Lake Geneva, Switzer- land, a specimen of S. vulgaris which has been trained as an espalier. Mr. Guillaume Fatio of Geneva very kindly forwarded the following information in regard to this ' plant, in a letter of July 1, 1924: "La tradition dit qu'il a 6t& plante par Jacques Barthelemy Micheli, qui vivait de 1690 a, 1766, qui cr6a le jardin en terasses tel qu'il subsiste encore aujourd'hui. Cette plante etait nouvelle a l'epoque et on la con- siderait comme delicate, c'est pourquoi on l'a plantee en espalier." Madame Micheli- Ador, the present owner of the Chateau de Crest, also kindly wrote on July 17, 232 THE LILAC 1924: "Le plus gros pied mesure 1 metre de circonference a la base du tronc. II va sans dire que pour garnir toute la facade de la maison il y a un grand nombre de pieds, et de ramifications. La fleur est plutot petite, lilas pale, en grosses grappes. Je n'ai aucune idee de l'age de cet arbre; je le crois extremement ancien." A figure of this plant appeared in "Le Jardin" (ix. 138, fig. 93, 1895) and shows the greater part of one side of a three-storied house covered with the plant. This is, so far as I know, the only noteworthy example of an espalier Lilac. In Europe the Common Lilac grown as a standard, or in tree form, is more often seen than in America, and is presumably more popular; an illustration, accompanying Mr. Rehder's article (Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xrv. 205, 1899) shows a fine example of a plant so trained. See also Thatcher in "Horti- culture" (xi. 331, fig., 1910) and "Revue Horticole" (1906, figs. 131, 132). It is not unusual to find the Common Lilac flowering at an abnormal time of the year; references to such an occurrence are found as follows: Jour. Hort. Pratique Belgique, xn. 223 (1854-1855). — Barral in Rev. Hort. 1859, 589. — Ferlet in Rev. Hort. 1863, 436. — Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1872, 383. — Carriere and Andre in Rev. Hort. 1883, 530. — Blanchard in Rev. Hort. 1894, 523. — Jardin, xn. 275 (1898); xvii. 338 (1903); xvni. 3, 366 (1904). Many references to abnormalities in bloom have been noted, among them such a one as is described by L. Henry (Rev. Hort. 1904, 277, fig. 116) where a flower panicle appeared directly from old wood and not, as normally, from wood of the previous year. Under the form of the Common Lilac, Chamaethyrus, reference is made to flower-clusters appearing on suckers directly from the ground. Carriere and Andre (Rev. Hort. 1883, 266) quote a letter from a correspondent who stated that a Lilac which had previously produced single flowers began one year to show a few double flowers and the second year all double flowers. There is of course a certain amount of doubt possible in regard to the accuracy of this statement. For other references dealing with teratology of the Lilac see A. Rehder, "The Bradley Bibliography," 1. 142 (1911), 11. 714-716 (1912). Also M. T. Masters, Vegetable Teratology" (1869) and O. Penzig, "Pflanzen-Teratology" (1894). The Lilac's winter buds have been studied by such writers as Fant (1872), Bosemann (1884), Shirasawa (1895), Schneider (1903), Ward (1904) and Trelease (1918). See also Asa Gray's "Elements of Botany" (revised ed., 29, figs. 75, 76). The seedling plant of S. vulgaris is illustrated in the "Germination studies of some trees and shrubs" (L. H. Pammel and C. M. King in Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. xxx. 291, fig. 9, 1923). In his "Die vegetative Verzweigung der hoheren Gewachse" Ludwig Koch (Jahrb. Wissensch. Bot. xxv. 385, 1893, illustrated) enters, in great detail, into the anatomy and morphology of this species. For other references to literature of a similar character see A. Rehder, "The Bradley Bibliography," 1. 115 (morphology and anatomy; flower), 122 (morphology and anatomy; embryology) (1911); in. 714-716 (191 2). For references to articles dealing with the physiology of the Lilac see the same work: 1. 150 (physiology; turgidity), 170 (physiology; SYRINGA VULGARIS 233 metabolic processes), 182 (physiology; perfumes), 220 (ecology; phenology), 231 (ecology; temperature) (191 1); n. 714-716 (191 2). A. Dupuis and O. Reveil in their "Flore Medicale" (n. 238, O. Reveil and others, Regne Vegetale, 1864-18 71) when discussing the Lilac give an account of its "Composition chimique" as follows: "Toutes les parties du lilas sont d'une amer- tume tres-prononcee. MM. Petroz et Robinet, qui ont analyse les fruits, y ont trouve une matiere resineuse, une substance sucree, une autre amere, une matiere qui precipite les sels de fer en gris, une espece de gomme se rapprochant de la bas- sorine, de l'acide malique, du malate acide de chaux, du nitrate de potasse, et d'autres sels; plus, une matiere incristallisable, que Ton trouve surtout dans l'ecorce, les bourgeons et les feuilles, qui a ete nominee syringine. Ce sont des aiguilles radiees, solubles dans dix parties d'eau, et dans l'alcool, insolubles dans Tether. Leur saveur est amere, douceatre, nauseabonde et astringente. Elles sont solubles dans l'acide sulfurique concentre avec une coloration jaune verdatre, qui vire au vert violace. La dissolution, etendue d'eau, presente une couleur amethyste. Les fleurs du lilas, tres-odorantes, sont employees en parfumerie, ou on extrait l'arome par les huiles fixes tres-fines par un procede analogue a celui que l'on emploie pour la tubereuse et le jasmin, et qui porte le nom d'enfleurage. Un chimiste allemand, nomine Weismann, a cependant obtenu, par distillation, de cinq cents grammes de fleurs de lilas, quatre grammes d'une huile essentielle d'une odeur tres-suave, analogue a celle du bois de Rhodes." They also write of the usages of the Lilac: "Les feuilles de lilas sont tres-ameres; les cantharides les mangent avec avidite. C'est, en effet, sur ces arbres qu'on les trouve le plus souvent. Le bois est dur, d'un grain fin, susceptible de prendre un beau poli, et pourrait servir pour faire des ouvrages de tour. A defaut de jasmin, les Turcs emploient les jeunes pousses du lilas pour faire des tuyaux de pipe. Sans un travail que M. le professeur Cruveilhier, alors medecin a Limoges, publia en 1822, sur l'emploi de l'extrait des fruits de lilas contre les fievres intermittentes, le lilas n'aurait peut-etre jamais ete employe1 en medecine. On l'a considere comme un tonique amer propre a combattre les affections astheniques; mais, malgre l'eloge qu'en fit en 1853, M. le docteur Clement de Vallenoy (Cher), le lilas est aujourd'hui tout a fait abandonne, depuis surtout que la societe de medecine de Bordeaux a declare que ses proprietes febri- fuges etaient nulles, En Russie, on prepare par maceration des fleurs, pratiquee au soleil, une huile de lilas, qui est tres-vantee contre le rhumatisme articidaire" As noted under S. Josikaea the peasant was accustomed to use the Lilac medici- nally. Information in regard to the uses of the bark and wood of the Lilac may also be found in Dr. Hegi's recent work. For other references dealing with the eco- nomic uses of the Lilac see A. Rehder, "The Bradley Bibliography," in. 681 (1915). A correspondent of "The Gardeners' Chronicle" is quoted in the "Revue Horti- cole" (1849, 4*7) as recommending the use of the Lilac wood for staking peas; he notes that such stakes last a great number of years while those of other woods known to him last but one or two. 234 THE LILAC Interesting information in regard to the fertilization of the Lilac by insects is contained in Hermann Muller's "The Fertilisation of Flowers" (translated by D'A. W. Thompson, 392, 1883). See also G. Hegi (111. Fl. Mittel-Eur., 1. a). The attempt has been made by Miss Isabella Preston, producer of the 5. Prestoniae hybrids, to cross S. vulgaris ( § ) with 5. pubescens ( 6 ). In June 1927, an examination of the plants raised showed no evidence of S. pubescens parentage. Miss Preston also crossed S. villosa ( 9 ) with S. vulgaris ( 6 ). Here again no trace of the pollen parent could be found. I know of no successful cross, such as was here attempted, between Lilacs of the two groups Villosae and Vulgares. Mr. F. L. Skinner of Dropmore, Manitoba, Canada, has attempted to cross S. vulgaris and S. pubescens (see S. pubescens), S. vulgaris and S. Komarowi, which he calls 5. Sargenti (see S. Komarowi), as well as S. vulgaris and S. oblata var. dilatata (see S. oblata var. dilatata, and S. hyacinthiflora) . Two color varieties of the Common Lilac follow. The first is: Syringa vulgaris var. alba Weston, Bot. Univ. 1. 289 (1770). — Aiton, Hort. Kew. 1. 15 (1789). — Noisette, Man. Compl. Jard. in. 410 (1826). — Sweet, Hort. Brit. 272 (1827). —A. Dietrich, Sp. PI. 1. 247 (1831). — G. Don, Gen. Syst. iv. 51 (1838). —Lou- don, Arb. Brit. 11. 1208 (1838). — De Candolle, Prodr. vm. 282 (1844). — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 494 (1864), as a form. — Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 559 (1875). — Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 169 (1877). — Lauche, Deutsch. Dendr. 170 (1880). — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. 111. 537 (1887). — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 112 (1889). — Mouillefert, Traite Arb. Arbris. 11. 998 (1892-1898). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896), as a form. — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 206 (1899); in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 756 (1927). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903), as a form. — Schneider, 111. Handb. Laubholzk. n. 774 (1911). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 89 (1920), as a form. Syringa vulgaris /3 Zinn, Cat. PI. Gotting. 275 (1757). — Duroi, Harbk. Baumz. 11. 445 (1772). — Leers, Fl. Herborn. 2 (1775). — Leysser, Fl. Halensis, 2 (1783). — Willde- now, Fl. Berol. 7 (1787). — Baumgarten, Fl. Lips. 5 (1790). — Mertens and Koch, Rohling's Deutschl. Fl. 1. 301 (1823). — Thuillier, Fl. Envir. Paris, 5 (1824) (re- print of ed. 2, 1799). — Pasquale, Cat. Orto Bot. Napoli, 100 (1867). Lilac vulgaris /S Lamarck, Encycl. Meth. 111. 512 (1789). — Dumont de Courset, Bot. Cult. 1. 709 (1802). — Mirbel in Nouv. Duhamel, 11. 206 (1804). — Lamarck and De Candolle, Fl. Francaise, in. 495 (1805). Liliacum alba Renault, Fl. Dept. Orne, 100 (1804). Siringa vulgaris flore albo Thiriart, Cat. PI. Arbust. Jard. Bot. Cologne, ser. 3, 1 (1806). Syringa albiflora Opiz, Naturalientausch, no. x. 239 (1825). Syringa vulgaris var. S. albiflora Bluff and Fingerhuth, Fl. Germ. 1. 11 (1825). Syringa cordifolia 7 alba Stokes, Bot. Commentaries, 32 (1830). Syringa vulgaris var. 5*. alba Reichenbach, Fl. Germ. Excurs. 1. 433 (1830). Syringa vulgaris Plee, Types, t. 117 (1844-1864), text in part. L[ilac] vulgaris var. alba Jacques and Herincq, Man. Gen. PI. m. 54 (1847-1857). Lilacum album Renault according to K. Koch, Dendr. 11. pt. 1. 266 (1872), as a synonym. SYRINGA VULGARIS 235 Syr[inga] alba Dietrich according to Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. I. 112 (1889), as a synonym. Pre-Linnean synonyms: Syringa flore cinerei coloris Besler, Hort. Eystett. I. 1, t. in. (1613) (t. as Syringa flore lacteo). Syringa fl. lacteo Bauhin, Pinax, 398 (1623). — Heucher, Novi Prov. Hort. Med. Acad. Vitemberg. 8 (1711). Syringa flore lacteo sive argenteo Parkinson, Paradisi, 408 (1629). — 'Sutherland, Hort. Med. Edinburg. 328 (1683). — Plukenet, Opera Omnia Bot. iv. Almagest. Bot. 359 (1696). Lilac sive Syringa flore lacteo sive argenteo Parkinson, Theatr. Bot. 1468 (1640). Syringa caerulea flore albo Joncquet, Hort. 125 (1659). — Morison, Hort. Reg. Blesensis, 199 (1669). Syringa Arabum flore albo Munting, Waare Oeffening PI. 122 (1672); Naauwkeurige Beschr. Aardgew. 162 (1696). Syringha lactea, seu floris colore quasi argenteo Hermann, Hort. Acad. Lugduno-Bat. 586 (1687). Syringa flore quasi argenteo Commelin, Cat. PI. Hort. Med. Amstelod. 340 (1689). Lilac flore albo Tournefort, Elemens Bot. 1. 474 (1694); Instit. ed. 2, 1. 601 (1700); Hist. PI. 11. 81 (1732) (translated by J. Martyn). — Magnol, Hort. Reg. Monspel. 118 (1697). — Boerhaave, Index Alter PI. pt. 2, 221 (1720). — Vaillant, Bot. Paris. 116 (1727). — P. Miller, Cat. PI. 45 (1730); Gard. Diet. (1731). — Duhamel, Traite" Arb. Arbust. 1. 361 (1755). — Poiteau and Turpin, Fl. Paris, 7 (1808). Syringa; lactea Boerhaave, Index PI. 252 (171 o). Syringa major, flore albo Buxbaum, Enum. PI. Hallensi, 314 (1721). — Ruppius, Fl. Jenens. 24 (1745). Syringa flore lacteo sive argenteo Lilac Bradley, Diet. Bot. (1728). Syringa foliis lanceolato-cordatis a Linnaeus, Hort. Cliff. 6 (1737). Syringa flore candido Weinmann, Phyt. Icon. iv. 392, t. 958, fig. c (1745); Taalryck Reg. Plaat. Fig. (Dutch title page is Duidelyke Vertooning), vin. 453, t. 958, fig. c (1748), in part, as to synonym Queue de Renard and as to t. Syringa foliis ovato cordatis /S Linnaeus, Hort. Upsal. 1. 6 (1748). Syringa a., flore albo Dalibard, Fl. Paris, 2 (1749). Differs from the type Syringa vulgaris in the color of the flowers which are white, in the brighter green color of its winter-buds and of its foliage; as well as in its more slender and taller habit. Known only as a cultivated plant. This white variety, which is the first recorded variation from the type Syringa vulgaris, is mentioned by the German botanist Basil Besler in 161 3 or about fifty years after the Common Lilac was first introduced into Europe; he calls it in the text Syringa flore cinerei coloris with vernacular name of Ascherfarber Spanischer Syringsbaum. Under the name Syringa flore lacteo he gives a most excellent engraving of the flower-cluster; curiously, so far as I know, although there are many pictures of improved white forms, this illustration and Weinmann's colored plates are the only ones of this white variety and they are presumably close to the original type. 236 THE LILAC Gaspard Bauhin, a French botanist and anatomist, who in 1623 next mentions this variety as Syringa fl. lacteo, writes that the type Syringa vulgaris, which he calls Syringa caerulea, differs in the color of its flowers, which, ordinarily blue, are "aliquando cinereus & quasi argenteus." Parkinson, in 1629, calls it Syringa flore lacteo sive argenteo or Silver coloured Pipe tree and states that both it and the Cut leaved Persian Lilac "are strangers with us as yet"; he writes: "This Pipe tree differeth not from the former blew Pipe tree, either in stemme or branches, either in leaves or flowers or manner of growing, but onely in the colour of the flower, which in this is of a milke or silver colour, which is a kinde of white, wherein is a thinne wash, or light shew of blew shed therein, comming somewhat neare unto an ash-colour." It is apparent that the first white Lilacs in cultivation were not the pure white color now associated with this variety. Although frequently mentioned in pre-Linnean literature nothing further of interest in regard to this plant is recorded for another hundred years. During that time the variety had become better known for Philip Miller in "The Gardeners Dictionary" of 1731 notes that both it and the blue [ = S. vulgaris] "are more common than" the purple [ = S. vulgaris var. purpurea]; this latter had been first mentioned by Sutherland in 1683. The adjective alba was first used as a part of the name of this variety by Joncquet in 1659 who calls it Syringa caerulea flore albo. After 1770 the combination S. vulgaris var. alba, first known to have been used by Weston, was very generally adopted. He merely describes it as "Syringa, fol. ovato-cordatis, flore albo." Duhamel de Monceau (Traite Arb. Arbust. 1. 361, 1775) still retained this variety as a species and called it by Tournefort's name Lilac flore albo with common name of Lilas des bois a fleur blanche. Poiteau and Turpin (Fl. Paris. 7, 1808) also continue to refer to it as Lilac flore albo. The German botanist Johann Philipp Duroi in 1772 gives it the common name of Weisser Spanischer Hollunder and says that it is distinguished from S. vulgaris by the color of its flowers and by other characters such as a more upright habit, brighter green foliage and a brighter gray bark. It is not known where this variety originated but it is probable, from the first references, that it was on the continent, in Germany, or France. Lochot (Rev. Hort. 1903, 128) who had seen the Common Lilac growing spontaneously in the Balkan Mountains, states that although he has never seen it, he is told that the white variety occurs there also. While this is entirely possible yet so far as I have been able to learn there is no proof that it exists except as a garden plant. There was considerable confusion in regard to the Mock-Orange or Philadelphus coronarius Linnaeus, at one time called by Cesalpinus (1583) Siringa, by Doedens (1583) Syringa, by Tabernaemontanus (1 588-1 591), Gerard (1597) and others Syringa alba, and this white variety of S. vulgaris. Curtis (Bot. Mag. vi. t. 183, 1792) states that both the blue and white sorts of the Common Lilac were de- SYRINGA VULGARIS 237 scribed by Gerard and Parkinson. Parkinson (1629) does mention the white variety as already noted, but Gerard in "The Herball" of 1597 both in his figure (no. 1) of Syringa alba and in his text, is discussing the Philadelphus and not the white Lilac. And Gerard's description of the too strong fragrance of the plant, a section of the text which Curtis quotes, is written of the Mock-Orange and not of the Lilac. Both editions of the "Hortus Kewensis," of 1789 and 1810, make the same error, stating that this white variety was cultivated in 1597 by Mr. John Gerard. These editions however mention his figure no. 2 which is entitled Syringa caerulea [=S. vulgaris] rather than the figure no. 1 mentioned by Curtis- There is no justification for so doing, however, either according to the title on this figure, or to what is contained in the text. Bauhin in his "Pinax," published in 1623, distinguishes between this Syringa alba of Gerard's figure, or Philadelphus, and the white Lilac which he calls Syringa fl[ore] lacteo. To this day the Mock-Orange or Philadelphus is frequently called by the common name Syringa. Munting (Waare Oeffening PI. 122, 1672) is confused in regard to these two genera. He mentions four Syringa: (1) Syringa Arabum flore coeruleo which he calls "Syringe van d'Arabiers met een blaauwe Bloeme, die 00k Lillach genoemt wordt"; (2) "Syringa Arabum flore albo, Arabische Syringe met witte Bloemen"; (3) "Syringa flore candido simplici, Syringe met een witte enkelde Bloeme en kleinder bladeren;" and (4) "Syringa flore candido pleno, ofte Syringe met een witte dubbelde Bloeme." Only the first two of these refer to the Lilac, the last two, as I have noted under the form of the Common Lilac Azurea plena, referring to the Philadelphus. Weinmann's Syringa flore candido should, so far as the text is concerned, be referred to the Philadelphus. The synonym Queue de Renard however is used for the Lilac and not for the Philadelphus. Weinmann notes that his plant is figured on Plate 954, fig. a, but this refers us to an Oak, while on Plate 958, fig. c, we find a picture of a white Lilac with the title Syringa flore candido, Queue de Renard, Syring-baum." Opiz in 1825 describes his S. albiflora as having ovate-cordate, very glabrous leaves, the lower branches of the panicle one-flowered, the corolla glabrous, the corolla-lobes obtuse, the anthers inserted above the middle of the corolla-tube, the style very short. According to the description this is merely the white-flowered variety of the Common Lilac. Dippel in 1889 cites Syr[inga] alba Dietrich (Sp. PI. 1. 247 [1831]) as a synonym of S. vulgaris var. alba. This is an error for the name appears as S. vulgaris y alba. The name of Common White Lilac is now very generally used by nurserymen and others to designate any unnamed single white Lilac but there is little reason to suppose that any of the plants of the original type, strictly speaking, are now in existence. S. vulgaris var. alba may however be considered as the starting point whence originated many named garden forms. Somewhat over one hundred years after Besler's plant is noted the first two of these are recorded in the "Catalogus Plantarum," published in 1730 and compiled by Philip Miller; this is a list of all 238 THE LILAC "Trees, Shrubs, Plants and Flowers, both exotic and domestic, which are propa- gated for sale in the gardens near London"; these forms had variegated leaves and appeared as species and as names only, — as Lilac; fiore albo,foliis ex luteo variegatis or Yellow-blotch'd Lilac, and as Lilac; flore albo, foliis ex albo variegatis or White- blotch'd Lilac. These are the only two forms of the Common White Lilac which I have found appearing in pre-Linnean literature. They are again found in Weston's "Botanicus Universalis" of 1770 as S. vulgaris alba 2. luteo-varieg[ata] or Yellow- bloatched-leaved white Lilac and as S. vulgaris alba 3. albo-varieg[ata] or White- bloatched-leaved white Lilac. Miller (Gard. Diet. 1731) writes of these forms: "The two variegated Sorts are preserved by some Persons, who delight in strip'd Plants, as Curiosities, but they have no Beauty in them; for in the Summer-time when these Plants are free of Growth, their white and yellow Blotches do not appear very plain; and when they do, it appears more like a distemper in them, than any real Beauty." Mirbel (Nouv. Duhamel, 11. 207, 1804) evidently felt the same way about variegated foliage for he writes: "quelques personnes les recherchent, mais comme ces accidents ne proviennent que de foiblesse, ces vegelaux en reprenant leur vigueur reprenent leur verdure uniforme." In Loddiges' catalogue of 1823 appears a double-flowered white form, 5. vulgaris alba pleno. This does not appear in his later catalogues of 1826 and 1836. Of this, growing in the garden of the Horticultural Society, London, Loudon writes in 1838 that the flowers are single. Noisette's "Manuel" of 1826 lists a double white form as S. vulgaris var. alba plena which is possibly the Lilac referred to in later years as Noisettiana alba, although that may have been a single white since Noisette lists both single and double. Other named white forms which appeared at about this time are Alba grandi- flora, Alba virginalis, and Pyramidalis alba. Plants which I have examined bearing these names and which were once considered sufficiently remarkable to deserve a qualifying name distinguishing them from the type S. vulgaris var. alba, do not show any marked differences the one from the other, nor do they appear in any way superior to the Common White Lilac as now sold. More distinct and showier are such recent white forms as the doubles, Mont Blanc and Edith Cavell, and the handsome singles, Vestale and Jeanne d'Arc. Forms of excellent habit and which may be depended upon to bloom with regularity, having stood the test of time, are the double Mme. Lemoine and the single Marie Legraye. In many cases selection and breeding while increasing the size of the individual flower and of the cluster, has modified the fragrance, and for many destroyed some of the charm associated with the old simple "Common White Lilac." There is considerable difference between S. vulgaris and its white variety which is as a rule of a taller, more slender and more upright habit, and which shows less tendency to produce suckers. In winter both it and its improved forms may be distinguished from the Lilacs with colored flowers by the buds which are a character- istic yellow-green (Pyrite Yellow tinged with Warbler Green (rv.)) ; in the forms with SYRINGA VULGARIS 239 colored flowers these buds are a somewhat purplish color (Diamine Brown (xin.)) tinged to a greater or lesser degree with green (Warbler Green (rv.)). The foliage too of the white Lilac is a yellower green than that of Lilacs with colored flowers, a characteristic frequently found in albinism; the bark is somewhat paler also. Rehder (Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit., 1. c.) states that this white variety blooms earlier than the type S. vulgaris but I have noticed no marked difference in this regard and believe it to be a matter of the individual form or of the situation. In the "Hortus Collinsonianus," printed in 1843 with a preface by L. W. Dillwyn, which is an "account of the plants cultivated by the late Peter Collinson, Esq., F. R. S." appears testimony to the popularity of this variety. In a memorandum, evidently written by Collinson himself, it is stated: "Lord Petre [a friend of Collin- son's] was particularly fond of the White Lilac, and directed his gardener to gather none but the white seed; he raised more than five thousand plants that flowered in 1 741, and out of that number about twenty came white, the rest all blue, so that white seems to be only a seminal variety from the blue." In the earliest English catalogues to which I have had access this white variety appears as follows: as The white Lilac (Burchell, 1764, 20); as Syringa, Lilac 1. White (Shiells, 1773, 11); as S. vulgaris alba (Mackie, 1812, 54; Fulham Nursery, [cir. 1817], 26; Backhouse, 1816, 45; Loddiges, 1820, 39; 1823, 35; 1826, 59; 1836, 67; Colvill, 1821, 30; Miller (Bristol Nursery), 1826, 14); as White Lilac, S. vulgaris (Warren, 1844, 20). It appears as Syringa vulgaris flore albo in the catalogue of Wiegers (1809, 119) of Malines, Belgium, and in French catalogues of early date as follows: as S. vul- garis b. alba (Audibert, 1817, 23; 1831-1832, 51; Oudin, 1841, 22; A. Leroy, 1851, 47); as S. vulgaris flore albo (Baumann, 1838-1839, 8); as Lilas blanc (Oudin, 1839- 1840, 1); as Lilas a fleurs blanc pur (Oudin, 1845-1846, 6); as Lilas commun a fleurs blanches (Seneclauze, 1846-1847, 11). Its date of introduction to the United States is uncertain but it is probable that, with the Common Lilac, it was brought over by the early settlers and soon became established as part of our country landscape, although it was probably never so much planted as the colored type. As well as S. vulgaris, this white variety was cultivated in the Elgin Botanic Garden, established near the city of New York in 1801 (D. Hosack, Hort. Elginensis, 181 1). It is listed as follows in nursery catalogues: as Syringa var. fl. albo (Cat. Bartram Bot. Gard. 1814, 44); as S. vul- garis, White Lilac (William Prince, 1823, 42; 1831, 55; William R. Prince, 1841- 1842, 40; Ellwanger and Barry, 1845-1846, 26; Parsons, 1846, 38); as 5. vulgaris v[ar]. alba (Landreth, 1824, 27; Parsons, [cir. 1842], 2; Winter, 1843, 44, 62; Hovey 1846-1847, 11 j Ellwanger and Barry, 1855-1856, 9). The second color variety of the Common Lilac is: Syringa vulgaris var. purpurea Weston, Bot. Univ. 1. 289 (1770). — Schmidt, Oesterr, Baumz. 11. 25, t. 77 (1794). — Noisette, Man. Comp. Jard. 111. 410 (1826). — Sweet. 240 THE LILAC Hort. Brit. 272 (1827). — De Candolle, Prodr. vm. 282 (1844), excluding synonym Lilac media. — Bon Jard. 783 (1850). — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 296 (1864), as a form. — Regel, Russ. Dendr. 206 (1870). — Lavailee, Arb. Segrez. 169 (1877), excluding synonym Lilac media. — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. in. 537 (1887). — Mouillefert, Traite Arb. Arbris. 11. 998 (1892-1898). — Render in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 206 (1899); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 756 (1927). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903), as a form. — Lingelsheim in Engler Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 89 (1920), as a form. Syringa vulgaris c. Duroi, Harbk. Baumz. 11. 446 (1772). Syringa vulgaris /? violacea Aiton, Hort. Kew. 1. 15 (1789). — W. T. Aiton, Hort. Kew. ed. 2, 1. 23 (1810). — Sweet, Hort. Brit. 272 (1827). — A. Dietrich, Sp. PI. 1. 247 (1831). — G. Don, Gen. Syst. iv. 51 (1838). — Loudon, Arb. Brit. 11. 1209 (1838). — De Candolle, Prodr. vm. 282 (1844). — Regel, Russ. Dendr. 206 (1870). — Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 168 (1877). — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. m. 537 (1887). — Mouille- fert, Traite Arb. Arbris. 11. 998 (1892-1898). — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.- Zeit. xrv. 206 (1899); in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 756 (1927). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz- Ben. 413 (1903), as a form. — Schneider, 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 774 (1911). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 89 (1920), as a form. L[ilac] vulgaris var. 1 Dumont de Courset, Bot. Cult. 1. 709 (1802). L[ilac] vulgaris var. 2 Dumont de Courset, Bot. Cult. 1. 709 (1802). Syringa media H[ort.] P[arisiensis] according to Mirbel, in Nouv. Duhamel, n. 207 (1804), as a synonym of Lilac vulgaris var., 'le lilas pourpre,' not Lilac media Dumont de Courset. — Noisette, Man. Comp. Jard. m. 411 (1826). Siringa vulgaris flore purpureo Thiriart, Cat. PI. Arbust. Jard. Bot. Cologne, ser. 3, 1 (1806). Lilac vulgaris var. B. Poiteau and Turpin, Fl. Paris. 7, t. v. (1808), as the name of Lilas de Marly, not Lilac de Marli Dumont de Courset, and as the name of Lilas d'Ecosse (t. v. as Lilac vulgaris, Lilas de Marly).* — Bon Jard. 1836, 597. — Spach, Hist. Nat. Veg. vm. 283 (1839). — Bosse, Handb. Blumengartn. m. 462 (1842). Syringa vulgaris a lilacina Sweet, Hort. Brit. 272 (1827). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903), as a form. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 89 (1920), as a form. Syringa cordifolia /3 purpurascens Stokes, Bot. Commentaries, 32 (1830). Syringa vulgaris rubra Loddiges, Cat. 1836, 67, name only. — Loudon, Arb. Brit. 11. 1209 (1838). — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 496 (1864), as a form. — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 559 (1875). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903), as a form. — Schneider, 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 774 (1911). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (1917). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 89 (1920), as a form. Syringa vulgaris rubra major Loddiges, Cat. 1836, 67, name only. — Loudon, Arb. Brit. 11. 1209 (1838). — Bosse, Handb. Blumengartn. m. 461 (1842), as S. vulgaris flore rubro major. — Jager, Ziergeholze, 530 (1865), as S. vulgaris var. fl. rubro major. — W. Miller, Diet. Engl. Names PI. 77 (1884). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903), as a form. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 89 (1920), as a form. * In the references following that of Poiteau and Turpin the name appears as Lilas de Marly. SYRINGA VULGARIS 241 Syringa vulgaris var. grandiflora Hort. according to Bosse, Handb. Blumengartn. in. 461 (1842), as a synonym. — Jager, Ziergeholze, 530 (1865), as a synonym. L[ilac] vulgaris var. purpurea Jacques and Herincq, Man. Gen. PL in. 54 (1847-1857), excluding synonym Lilac media Dumont de Courset. L[ilac] vulgaris var. violacea Jacques and Herincq, Man. Gen. PL in. 54 (1847-1857). S[yringa] v[ulgaris] Marlyensis Hort. according to Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864), as a form. — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumen- gartn. 559 (1875), as var- — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896). — Render in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (1917), as var. — Spath-Buch, 223 (1920), as S. vulgaris marliensis Hort. S\yringa] de Marly rouge Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864), as a synonym. S\yringa] Marliensis Hort. according to K. Koch, Dendr. n. pt. 1. 266 (1872), excluding synonym Lilac media Dumont de Courset. — Lauche, Deutsch. Dendr. 170 (1880), as S. marlyensis Hort. Syringa vulgaris var. grandiflora purpurea De Jaubert, Invent. Cult. Trianon, 25 (1876). S\yringa] rubra Hort. according to Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 169 (1877), as a synonym. Syringa vulgaris purpurea rubra Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), name only. Syringa vulgaris violacea purpurea Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 79 (1885), name only. ? Syringa vulgaris var. de Marly L. Henry, in Jardin, vni. 175 (1894). Syringa vulgaris purpurea Marlyensis Hort. according to Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903), as a form. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 89 (1920), as a form. Syringa vulgaris var. Rubra de Marley Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3298 (191 7), as a synonym. Pre-Linnean synonyms: Syringa sive Lilac flore saturate purpureo Sutherland, Hort. Med. Edinburg. 328 (1683). — Plukenet, Opera Omnia Bot. rv. Almagest. Bot. 359 (1698). Syringha purpurea Hermann, Hort. Acad. Lugduno-Bat. 586 (1687). Syringa flore purpureo Commelin, Cat. PL Hort. Med. 340 (1689). Lilac flore saturate purpureo Tournefort, Elemens Bot. 1. 474 (1694); Instit. ed. 2, 1. 602 (1700); Hist. PL n. 81 (1732) (translated by J. Martyn). — Magnol, Hort. Reg. Monspel. 117 (1679). — Boerhaave, Index Alter PL pt. 2, 221 (1720). — Vaillant, Bot. Paris, 116 (1727). — Miller in Cat. PL 45 (1730); Gard. Diet. (1731); Fig. Beautif. PL n. 109, t. clxiii. (1760). — Duhamel de Monceau, Traite Arb. Arbust. 1. 361 (1755). — Poiteau and Turpin, Fl. Paris. 7, t. v. (1808) (t. v. as Lilac vulgaris, Lilas de Marly). Syringa; purpurea Boerhaave, Index PL 23 (17 10). Syringa foliis lanceolatis, cordatis /3 Linnaeus, Hort. Cliff. 6 (1737). Differs from the type Syringa vulgaris Linnaeus in the darker color of its flowers. It is probable that this variety when first introduced had flowers not very different in color from those of the form Rouge de Trianon (no. 3008-1 Arn. Arb.). See Rouge de Trianon. Known only as a cultivated plant. The plant now known as Syringa vulgaris var. purpurea is first mentioned about one hundred and twenty-five years after the Common Lilac was introduced into Europe and about sixty years later than the white variety. It appears as a name 242 THE LILAC only, as Syringa sive Lilac flore saturate purpureo, the deep purple Lilac, in James Sutherland's "Hortus Medicus Edinburgensis; or A Catalogue of the Plants in the Physical Garden at Edinburgh," published in 1683. It was because it is first recorded as growing in this garden that this variety received the common name of Scotch Lilac. Philip Miller (Fig. Beautif. PL n. 109, t. clxiii. 1760) writes: "As this is the First Book in which this particular Sort is mentioned so it has ob- tained the Name of Scotch Lilac, that Garden being the first in which it was here known." Earlier (Gard. Diet., 1731) Miller had noted that this variety was rarer than "the first and second sorts," — the Common Lilac and its white variety. In 1768, in the eighth edition of this work, he writes: "This is the most beautiful of the three"; "whether this was raised from seeds, or which other way it was ob- tained I could never learn; but I take it to be a distinct species from the others"; further, "the purple or Scotch Lilac has its branches yet more diffused . . . those [the flowers] of the Scotch are larger, and the flowers are fairer than those of either of the other [sic], so make a much finer appearance . . . ." Weston who first uses the combination Syringa vulgaris var. purpurea merely describes the variety as Syringa, fol. ovato-cordatis, flore purpureo. William Aiton refers to no previous authority when he mentions for the first time Syringa vulgaris var. violacea. But W. T. Aiton in the second edition of the "Hortus Kewensis," of 1810, refers it to the plant figured as t. 183 by Curtis (Bot. Mag. vi. t. 183, 1792). Loudon, De Candolle and others also refer their S. vulgaris var. violacea to this figure of the "Botanical Magazine." This reference is somewhat obscure. Curtis, after mentioning the Lilacs with blue and white flowers, writes: "to these another sort is added by more modern writers, superior in beauty to the original, as producing larger bunches of flowers, of a brighter hue, having more of the purple tint, and hence called by some the purple Lilac." It is presumably to this sentence in the text that W. T. Aiton, Loudon, etc., refer their variety violacea, for the article nowhere mentions S. vulgaris var. violacea, nor does the plate bear any title and must be considered, except by inference, to be S. vulgaris, which is the plant described by Curtis. As a common name for S. vulgaris var. violacea, William Aiton, W. T. Aiton, Loudon, G. Don and others give Common Purple Lilac, showing by their use of the adjective purple that they refer to Curtis' text just cited; from this common name we may infer that this variety was considered identical with the purple Lilac mentioned earlier by Sutherland and by Miller. Loudon gives as another authority for his S. vulgaris var. violacea the plant figured as t. CLXin., Lilac flore saturate purpureo [which is based on Tourne- fort's plant of this name] in Miller's Icones already mentioned, and identifies it with the Scotch Lilac, proving conclusively that he considered the two varieties violacea and purpurea to be the same. Nicholson in 1887 identifies the Scotch Lilac with S. vulgaris var. violacea. He however mentions in addition the variety purpurea, and a considerable number of writers who came after Aiton have also failed to combine the two. SYRINGA VULGARIS 243 Mirbel (Nouv. Duhamel, n. 207, 1804), who calls the purple variety of the Common Lilac Syringa media, is not describing the same plant as Dumont de Courset whose Lilac media was evidently identical with the hybrid 6". chinensis. He writes: "Le Lilas pourpre (Syringa media H[ortus] Pjarisiensis]) tient le milieu pour la grandeur entre les deux autres [referring to his varieties, — one 'a fleurs tirant sur le bleu,' the other 'a. fleurs blanches']; il est estime a cause de la couleur de ses fleurs, et a cause de ses panicules plus nombreuses, plus grandes, plus serrees. Ses branches sont etalees." Hortus Parisiensis is the old name for the Jardin des Plantes, Paris. Noisette too writes of this Lilac media which he also calls Lilas de Marly and considers to be a variety of S. vulgaris: ". . . ses fleurs sont plus grandes, plus foncees, et forment un thyrse plus epais que le premier [the Common Lilac] dont elles ont l'odeur agreable." This change of classification of the Lilac media or Lilas de Marly which begins with Mirbel is also discussed under S. chinensis. Poiteau and Turpin in 1808 also identify the plant, which they say is known in France as Lilas de Marly, with the purple variety of S. vulgaris which they say is called in England Lilas d'Ecosse. "Le Bon Jardinier," which had earlier considered it to be a hybrid, in 1836 compares it to S. vulgaris thus: "Thyrses plus epais, fleurs plus grandes, violet pourpre; odeur aussi suave." Spach also notes: "La variete elite Lilas de Marly se fait remarquer par de thyrses plus denses, a fleurs plus grandes et d'un pourpre violet." It is possible that the Lilas de Marly, or purple variety of the Common Lilac, which Poiteau and Turpin write of as French, may have originated at the Chateau de Marly which was situated not far from Versailles. (See 5. chinensis). L. Henry (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, s6r. 4, n. 736, 1901) discusses the earlier and later classifications of the Lilas de Marly or Lilac media. Elsewhere (Jardin, vni. 175, 1894) he gives a description of this Lilac which he calls S. vulgaris var. de Marly: "Fleurs lilas blanc nuance^ rose, devenant bleuatres; boutons roses . . . ." It seems doubtful from this description whether he was discussing the plant usually described as Lilas de Marly which is commonly referred to as dark in tone. The Comte de Jaubert in his catalogue of the plants growing at the Trianon, published in 1876, gives as corresponding names for his S. vulgaris var. grandiflora -purpurea, Lilas de Marly and Lilas Charles X. It is probable that the form of the Common Lilac Charles X. approaches very closely to the Lilas de Marly, but since I have found no satisfactory evidence that the two were generally con- sidered to be the same I have kept it as a distinct form. The Lilac at present cultivated as Lilas de Marly, Marlyensis, Marly Flieder, etc., is certainly a variety of the Common Lilac and not a hybrid. Whether the early writers were wrong in their classification and the more recent ones correct, or whether the variety so cultivated originated as a result of confusion is un- certain but I do not believe that at this day it is separable from S. vulgaris var. purpurea. Writers such as Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, and Lingelsheim call 244 THE LILAC it 5. vulgaris f. purpurea Marlyensis. H. L. Gerth van Wijk (Diet. PL Names, I. 1308, 191 1) gives as French name of 5. vulgaris var. purpurea, Lilas de Marly. Nor do I believe that the red form of the Marly Lilac is in any way distinct from the purple form. Loudon calls the S. vulgaris var. rubra major of Loddiges' catalogue of 1836 "the Lilas de Marly of French gardeners." W. Miller lists his plant of the same name without description with common name of Large-red- flowered-Lilac. Kirchner mentions the Syringa de Marly rouge as a synonym of S. vulgaris var. Marlyensis Hort., and Rehder in 191 7 gives 5. vulgaris var. Rubra de Marley as a synonym of S. vulgaris var. Marlyensis. Bosse in 1842 mentions as a synonym of S. vulgaris flore rubro major, which he also identifies with the Lilas de Marly, S. vulgaris grandijlora Hort. Jager gives grandiflora (Marly couge[sic], Marlyensis) as corresponding name for his S. vulgaris fl[ore] rubro major. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv - und Curland, 24, 1883) lists a S. vulgaris f. purpurea hort., also called "Lilas Marly, rubra de Marly, rubra plena, triomphe de Marly, S. marlyensis hort., etc." He notes it as rarely planted but cultivated at Riga according to Buhse. The Lilac Rubra plena is undoubtedly a distinct form with double flowers. Color distinctions are difficult of interpretation. The presence of considerable red in a blue flower with some justifies the name purpurea with others the name rubra. I do not believe that the S. vulgaris rubra of Loddiges' catalogue of 1836 can be separated from 5. vulgaris var. purpurea and treat it as a synonym. The fact that the Marly Lilac by some was considered to be red and by others purple confirms this opinion. Schneider questions whether the variety rubra may not be identified with the variety purpurea. William Miller (Diet. English Names Plants, 76, 1884) lists as distinct varieties of S. vulgaris, violacea or Common Purple or Scotch Lilac, rubra or Common Red- flowered Lilac and again violacea or Common Violet-flowered Lilac. Stokes' 5. cordifolia var. purpurascens is founded on the Lilac jlore saturate purpureo of Vaillant which in turn is referred to Tournefort's plant of that name. It is improbable that any of the plants now cultivated as S. vulgaris var. pur- purea, as violacea, rubra, Lilas de Marly and so on, can at this date be identified as corresponding to the original type of this variety. Nor are figures of any as- sistance since, even if colored, these show the work of too much imagination to be of value for purposes of identification. The flowers of no two plants which I have seen in this country of the Marly Lilac, for instance, are precisely the same but it is commonly grown and listed for sale by numerous nurseries. Cultivation alone, over such a period of years, would undoubtedly have modified the variety since first introduced, even were it possible to discount the errors incidental to repeated propagation. Nor can the history of any individual plant of this variety which I have seen be traced back for even so long a time as fifty years. [K. Koch] (Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xn. 43, 1869) writes: "Schon seit langer Zeit kennt man die Abart mit weissen Bluthen; ausserdem SYRINGA VULGARIS 245 wurde bereits vor 200 Jahren in einigen Garten von Edinburgh eine Abart mit dunkleren Bliithen kultivirt, die in England sehr beliebt gewesen zu sein scheint und wahrscheinlich dieselbe ist, welche etwas spater als Marly-Flieder (Syringa Marliensis), besonders in Versailles und dessen Anlagen, vor Allem in dem Garten zu Marly, viel kultivirt wurde. Von diesem Marly-Flieder ruhmte man fruher ausserdem noch, dass er reichlicher, gedrangter und etwas grosser bluhe. In spateren Zeiten kam er als Syringa purpurea und rubra major von Neuem in den Handel, audi ist er mit der naheren Bezeichnung violacea in den Miller'schen auserlesenen Pflanzen (auf der 163. Tafel) und in dem botanical Magazine (tabula 183) abgebildet worden." This statement offers excellent confirmatory evidence of the classification here given. "Standardized Plant Names" has adopted as approved common name for these varieties, which they treat as distinct, the following: for S. vulgaris Marly- ensis, Marly; for S. vulgaris var. Rouge de Marly, Rubra de Marly, Red Marly; for S. vulgaris rubra, Common Red; for S. vulgaris var. violacea, Common Violet. According to my classification all these names, which I believe referable to S. vulgaris var. purpurea, should be dropped, and the approved common name of Common Purple adopted as inclusive of all. S. vulgaris var. purpurea should be considered, not an an individual plant, but as representing a group of Lilacs, variable in color and form of flower and cluster, but all darker than the group of which 5. vulgaris is the type. Among garden forms of the Common Lilac here listed are many belonging to this group. Some appeared early in the nineteenth century and bore the varietal name purpurea, with an additional qualifying name designating them as superior or distinct. Such were Purpurea grandiflora and Purpurea plena; others which belong in this group are Violacea plena, Rubra grandiflora, Rubra insignis, Rubra foliis variegatis, etc. Certain of these were undoubtedly used as corresponding names for such widely cultivated garden forms as Rouge de Trianon and Charles X., which, although in cultivation at the present time, appear to me to be, at this date, like the Marly Lilac, impossible to identify with any certainty. Other forms of this group but of more recent origin are the well-known German Lilac Andenken an Ludwig Spath, Lemoine's forms L'Oncle Tom, Marceau and Milton, the Belgian Lilac Mons. J. de Messemaeker, and many others. Of all Lilacs with dark flowers it may be said that they fade after they have been expanded for a short time and eventually become so pale as to be unrecognizable. 5. vulgaris var. purpurea has been much used for forcing and, as the Lilas de Marly, is often mentioned in connection with the "white Lilac industry," since it, as well as certain other dark Lilacs, is said to turn a purer white than some of paler coloring. Carriere and Andre (Rev. Hort. 1893, 511) tell of an abnormally large number of flower clusters having been produced upon a plant of the Lilas de Marly after a dry season in 1893. 246 THE LILAC Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv - und Curland, 24, 1883) under S. vulgaris lists as distinct forms: d. violacea hort., which he notes is the most frequent form and f. purpurea hort., cultivated at Riga according to Buhse. S. vulgaris var. purpurea is found listed in English nursery catalogues of early- date as follows: as The Scotch or purple Lilac (Burchell, 1764, 20); as Syringa, Lilac 4. Scotch (Shiells, 1773, n); as Syringa, Lilac 2. Purple (Shiells, 1773, 11); as S. vulgaris violacea or Purple Lilac (Mackie, 181 2, 54; Backhouse, 1816, 45; Colvill, 1821, 30); as S. vulgaris, Lilac, purple (Miller (Bristol Nursery), 1826, 14); as S. vulgaris purpurea (Loddiges, 1826, 59; 1836, 67). In French catalogues also: as S. vulgaris var. a fleur pourpre (Audibert, 181 7, 23); as S. vulgaris var. a fleurs violet-bleuatre (Audibert, 181 7, 23); as S. vul- garis purpurea (Audibert, 1831-1832, 51; Oudin, 1841, 22); as 5. vulgaris flore rubro, Lilas de Marly (Baumann, 1838-1839, 8); as Lilas de Marly (Oudin, 1839- 1840, 1; Dauvesse, no. 20, 24, 1855); as Lilas a fleur rouge (Oudin, 1845-1846, 6); as S. vulgaris rubra (Oudin, 1845-1846, 25) ; as Lilas a fleurs pourpres (Oudin, 1845- 1846, 6) as Lilas commun de Marly (Seneclauze, 1846-1847, 11). In nursery catalogues of the United States we find it: as S. vulgaris purpurea or Purple Lilac (William Prince, 1823, 42); as S. vulgaris, blue or purple Lilac (Landreth, 1824, 27); as S. vulgaris rubra or Red Lilac (William Prince, 1829, 51); as S. rubra (William R. Prince, 1841-1842, 40); as 61. purpurea or Blue or Purple Lilac (William R. Prince, 1841-1842, 40; Ellwanger and Barry, 1846-1847, 32). No single species of shrub has produced so many garden forms as has Syringa vulgaris, the Common Lilac. While often referred to as hybrids they are not such, since they show the influence of only one species; they are, however, in many cases the result of cross-pollination, natural or artificial, between garden forms; some- times they have been the result of selection, while again they have been propagated from sports. As is the case with some of the more recent garden forms of the Common Lilac, many of the older forms doubtless resembled each other closely and it is doubtful whether, in many instances, their superiority was such as to deserve a name. Many have disappeared in the course of years, possibly dropped when found to have little commercial value, or when surpassed by some newer sort. The identity of many has been lost; this has probably been due in many instances to the custom of grafting a named form upon stock of the Common Lilac. The early descriptions were meager and the color terms used were often vague with the result that names were undoubtedly misapplied; the translation of names from one language into another, the use of different qualifying names having the same or an approximate meaning, carelessness in spelling, the omission of the species name, have all contributed to make a positive identification of many of the old garden forms appearing in literature difficult and often impossible. It is doubtful if the origin of any form which appeared before 1850 can, at this SYRINGA VULGARIS 247 date, be ascertained with certainty; the mistakes incidental to repeated propaga- tion are so numerous as to make it also uncertain whether any plant now in existence and bearing the name of one of the very old forms is identical with the plant as originally introduced. Growing in the collections of the Arnold Arboretum and of the Department of Parks, Rochester, New York, are Lilacs, similar in name, but differing noticeably in appearance ; nor is it possible to tell with certainty from such old descriptions as exist which, if either, is true to name. I believe it to be impossible, because of the great similarity between a multitude of forms, to take any single description, new or old, and with it in hand, pick out the plant to which it should be applied. The difficulty of identifying two living flower-clusters of Lilacs bearing the same name which are at slightly different stages of development is such that one often hesitates to make even such an identifi- cation with assurance; for in a Lilac the color changes markedly after the flowers have been expanded for only a short time and even the darkest flowered forms are pale before they turn brown and shrivel. Such old descriptions of garden Lilacs as exist, however good, can be used as general guides to identification merely; for the color terms used have been deter- mined, with rare exceptions, by the interpretation placed by their author upon such words as lavender, mauve, lilac, blue, purple, red, etc. That a descriptive guide less subject to in4ividual interpretation might be provided, the attempt has been made, as noted in the preface, to follow Mr. Robert Ridgway's "Color Standards and Color Nomenclature." The color terminology used in the descrip- tions is meaningless apart from Mr. Ridgway's plates. The number of the plate is given in Roman numerals, between parentheses, following the capitalized color name or names appearing on that plate. I say "the attempt has been made" for even with such an aid to accuracy as Mr. Ridgway's book the difficulty of describing the color of a Lilac flower has been great. This is largely due to the rapid change in color already noted. The colors have been compared with the plates when only a few flowers on a cluster were expanded for it is then that they appear to be at their freshest and best. Notes were taken at this time (i) on the color of the individual flower bud, and (2) of the recently expanded flower. The comparisons were made in the shade, not in sunlight. Many of these notes, especially the ones taken in the Arnold Arboretum, have been verified and recompared for several successive years. If the flowers are picked at the same stage of development it has been found that they show little color variation from year to year. The value of such notes exists chiefly for the verification of disputed forms. As a more general guide I have stated in my descriptions whether the color of the flowers was dark, intermediate (between dark and pale), pale or white. This records the general effect produced by the half-opened cluster, and all Lilacs seem to fall into one of these groups which I have called tones. For use in a choice of Lilacs this broad classification appears to me to be of service. One finds 248 THE LILAC no conflicting colors among the pale or the intermediate Lilacs which may be said to run in "pastel" shades. Although in some forms the color is pinker or bluer than in others, it is never inharmonious. It is only when one attempts to use the dark Lilac, which contains considerable red in its coloring matter, that greater care need be exercised. In addition to noting the color I have stated whether the flower was single or double and whether small, medium, large or extra large in size. The size of the cluster I believe to be, however, largely dependent upon the age and vigor of the plant. Frequent cutting back produces strong growth, and one finds upon young sturdy wood, larger clusters and perhaps slightly bigger flowers than one does upon old plants which have for years continued to bloom with little pruning and consequent renewal of vigorous wood. It is of course true that only of recent years has the extremely large-flowered Lilac been put on the market. One has only to study some of the old plates to realize that a plant which at one time may have appeared to merit such a name as grandiflora or magna would no longer be considered worthy of the qualification. The fact that garden forms have appeared for the most part in nursery cata- logues and horticultural journals, where in many cases no uniform system of nomen- clature or of classification has been followed, has made the arrangement of the literature dealing with the forms exceedingly difficult. It has not been possible to follow in every instance a uniform arrangement although consistency, so far as possible, has been attempted. In the case of obscure forms numerous catalogue and other references have been cited, which, while not perhaps individually important, go to prove the fact that the plant was much cultivated. If the origin of the form is known this fact is stated in the text. The original description, or any which might be of service in the identification of the form, also appears. Many of these forms are found listed in recent nursery catalogues of the United States. "The Plant Buyers Index" (Gerald Guy Manning Co., Box 52, North Cambridge, Massachusetts), issued in 1927, lists many with the name of the nursery where they may be procured. No attempt has however been made by the compiler, Mr. J. Woodward Manning, to verify whether plants offered for sale are true to name. This useful book, I am told, is to be kept up to date. Certain of the forms, approximately four hundred and fifty, here enumerated are, in the opinion of the author and as is obvious from the text, doubtful plants. All forms which have been found are however included and only such have been combined as were obviously identical; the present record may be regarded as a starting point for further study. Unless otherwise stated the form has appeared classified as a variety or form of S. vulgaris but for conciseness the name S. vulgaris has been omitted. Variations in spelling and in capitalization found in the original have been retained. For conven- ience the alphabetical arrangement has been adopted. These forms are: SYRINGA VULGARIS 249 Abel Carriere Lemoine, Cat. no. 134, ix. (1896), "Thyrses volumineux et compacts; fleurs enormes, presque regulieres, bleu cobalt vif a revers roses; boutons roses." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 324. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 381 (1907). — Barry in Horticulture, x. 498, fig. (1909). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1896 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1900). Flowers double, large, corolla-lobes pointed; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Pur- plish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) ; when expanded Vinaceous-Lilac to Vinaceous- Lavender (xliv.) without, Light Lavender- Violet or occasionally Light Mauve (xxv.) within. Clusters long, narrow, open. A. B. Lamberton Dunbar according to Horticulture, xxvi. 35 (1917), name only; xxvii. 534 (1918), "inclined occasionally to a semi-double, violet lavender"; xxvri. 553, frontispiece (1918), ". . . Large compound clusters, flowers large, occasionally one inch in diameter, semi-double to single on the same cluster. Rich violet heliotrope to violet lavender. Seed-parent Marie Legraye. It was named in compliment to Alex- ander B. Lamberton, President of the old Board of Park Commissioners for fifteen years, and single Park Commissioner for two years. . . ." — Dunbar, Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers semi-double to single, % to Y% of an inch across; reddish lilac in bud, rosy lilac to violet heliotrope when fully open; clusters large, 3 to 4 compound. Branch- ing habit compact, with branches somewhat tortuous." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 201 Dunbar) of Marie Legraye, named by him in 1916. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers single, semi-double or frequently double, extra large; tone intermediate; color in bud Vinaceous-Purple to Eupatorium Purple (xxxviil); when expanded Purplish Lilac on Light Pinkish Lilac without, Saccardo's Violet (xxxvu.) within; the flowers appear to be paler without than within. Clusters long, narrow. Adelaide Dunbar Dunbar according to Horticulture, xxvi. 35, frontisp. (1917), "It is a full semi-double, with flowers % to J^ of an inch across. The unfolding blossoms are maroon or dark crimson, changing to violet red when fully open. They are borne on large compound clusters. The young shoots are dark colored and the unfolding leaves have a dark tinge. Adelaide Dunbar is said to be the darkest colored red Lilac that has yet been introduced to cultivation"; xxvii. 534 (191 8). — Dunbar in Florists Exch« September 22, 1923, 831, fig. (p. 830), ". . . It is perhaps the darkest double flowering lilac in cultivation . . ."; Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers semi-double, % to % of an inch across; deep maroon in bud, turning to violet red when fully open. Open branching habit.'.' Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 200 Dunbar) of Aline Moc- queris, named by him in 1916. "Horticulture" states that Mr. Dunbar named it for his wife. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., in November, 1922; no. 11,737 Am. Arb.). Flowers semi-double, occasionally 250 THE LILAC double, large; corolla-lobes irregular, twisted, tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Indian Lake (xxvi.); when expanded Auricula Purple (xxvi.) to Mathews' Purple (xxv.). Clusters long, narrow, open. Admiral Farragut Dunbar, Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers single, \x/i inches across, bluish lavender tinged violet, lobes slightly cucullate." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 306 Dunbar) of Gilbert, named by him in 1923. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers single, large, corolla- lobes cucullate; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous- Lilac (xliv.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple with shadings of Tourmaline Pink without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.) within, a solid color. Clusters long, narrow, symmetrical. Alba albo-variegata Weston, Bot. Univ. 1. 289 (1770), as alba 3. albo-varieg., and as White-bloatched-leaved white Lilac, name only. Appears in pre-Linnean literature as Lilac; flore albo, foliis ex albo variegatis, and as the White-blotch'd Lilac (Miller, Cat. PI. 45, 1730; Gard. Diet., 1731). Duhamel (Traite Arb. Arbust. 1. 362, 1755) still retains the pre-Linnean form calling the plant Lilac flore albo, foliis ex albo variegatis, or Lilas a fleur blanche dont les feuilles sont panachees de blanc. Here may belong the Lilac alba fol[iis] varieg[atis] mentioned as a name only by Lod- diges (Cat. ed. 13, 1823,35), by A. Leroy (Cat. 1847,42, as Lilas blanc a feuilles panachees; Cat. 1851, 47, and as White variegated leaved common Lilac) and by Baudriller (Cat. no. 43, 141, 1880, and as Lilas commun blanc a. feuilles panachees). Although Weston and others distinguish between the forms with yellow (see Alba luteo-variegata) and with white variegated foliage, it is doubtful if there was much difference between the two. "A short treatise on horticulture . . ."by William Prince (122, 1828) lists a Large Flowering White Variegated Leaved Lilac. See S. vulgaris var. alba. Alba grandifiora Audibert, Cat. 1831-1832, 51, and as Lilas commun a, fleurs blanches grandes, name only. — William Prince, Cat. 1835-1836, 51, as grandifiora alba, and as Great white flowered Lilac, name only. — William R. Prince, Cat. 1841-1842, 40, as Syringa grandifiora alba, and as Great white flowering Lilac, name only. — Seneclauze, Cat. 1846-1847, 11, as Lilas, Syringa, commun a grandes fleurs blanches, name only. — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864), "Blumen weiss, Bluthen- trauben ziemlich locker, Blutenmit langer, enger Rohre," as grandifiora alba Hort., and as Grossblumiger weisser Flieder. — Jager, Ziergeholze, 530 (1865), as grandifiora alba. — Regel, Russ. Dendr. 207 (1870), as grandifiora alba. — Dauvesse, Cat. no. 36, 47 (1872), as Lilas alba grandifiora. — Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 42 (1873), "(New). Very large, pure white trusses. The finest white," as Lilac (Syringa) alba grandifiora. — Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 559 (1875), "Bluthen mit langer diinner Rohre, schon weiss, in etwas lockeren Rispen," and as Grossblumiger weisser Flieder. — Transon, Cat. 1875-1876, 49, as Syringa alba grandifiora. — Bau- driller, Cat. no. 43, 141 (1880), and as Lilas commun blanc a grandes fleurs. — Bardet SYRINGA VULGARIS 251 in Rev. Hort. 1882, 171. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1886-1887, 58. — Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1887, 227. — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. m. 537 (1887). — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 113 (1889), as grandiflora alba. — Hartwig, HI. Gehdlzb. 380 (1892), as grandiflora alba Hort. — Mouillefert, Traite Arb. Arbris. n. 998 (1892-1898). — Detriche, Cat. 1893- 1894, 16. — L. Henry in Jardin, vni. 175 (1894), "Fleurs blanc de neige, assez grands. Thyrses forts et assez compacts. Variete tres vigoureuse et tres bonne," as Blanc a grandes fleurs {alba grandiflora). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896), as alba grandiflora (syn. f. grandiflora alba Dipp.). — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xrv. 206 (1899); in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3298 (1917). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. pt. i-n. 89 (1920). A much cultivated single-flowered white Lilac but probably scarcely different from Alba magna and Alba major. Carriere states that the name is used as a synonym for Mme. Moser but that this is not correct. The form Mme. Moser according to Carriere was introduced about 1877, or much later than Alba grandiflora. Mouillefert gives it as a sub- variety of 5. vulgaris var. alba. Bardet notes that it is used for forcing. Great White has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (485, 1923). Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 4, 1895, from plant received from the Museum of Natural History, Paris, in April, 1888; no. 1449-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, large; anthers visible but not conspicuous; corolla-lobes cucullate; corolla- tube long; color in bud Light Viridine Yellow to Pale Viridine Yellow (v.); when expanded white. Clusters conical, well-filled, medium size. This plant closely resembles the form Marie Legraye. Alba luteo-variegata Weston, Bot. Univ. 1. 289 (1770), as alba 2. luteo-varieg., and as Yellow-bloatched-leaved white Lilac, name only. Appears in pre-Linnean literature as Lilac; flore albo, foliis ex luteo variegatis, and as the Yellow-blotch'd Lilac (Miller, Cat. PI. 45, 1730; Gard. Diet., 1731). Duhamel (Traite Arb. Arbust. 1. 362, 1755) still retains the pre-Linnean form calling the plant Lilac flore albo, foliis ex luteo variegatis, or Lilas a. fleur blanche dont les feuilles sont panachees de jaune. Here may belong the alba fol[iis] varieg[atis] mentioned as a name only by Loddiges (Cat. ed. 13, 1823, 35), by A. Leroy (Cat. 1847, 42> as Lilas blanc a feuilles panachees; Cat. 1851, 47, and as White variegated leaved common Lilac) and by Baudriller (Cat. no. 43, 141, 1880, and as Lilas commun blanc a feuilles panachees). Although Weston and others distinguish between the forms with yellow and with white (see Alba albo- variegata) variegated foliage it is doubtful if there was much difference between the two. "A short treatise on horticulture . . ."by William Prince (122, 1828) lists a Large Flowering White Variegated Leaved Lilac. See S. vulgaris var. alba. Alba magna Nicholson, HI. Diet. Gard. hi. 537 (1887), "one of the finest whites." Probably scarcely different from the forms Alba major and Alba grandiflora. 252 THE LILAC Alba major Loddiges, Cat. 1826, 59, name only; 1836, 67, name only. — Loudon, Arb. Brit. n. 1209 (1838), "has larger flowers than the previous variety" [= S. vulgaris var. alba]. — Nicholson, Diet. Gard. in. 537 (1887). — Parsons, Cat. 1903, 40, "white flowers, larger than the preceding [S. vulgaris alba]." William Miller (Diet. English Names Plants, 77, 1884) lists, without description, S. vulgaris var. alba major with common name of Large-white-flowered Lilac. Probably scarcely different from the forms Alba magna or Alba grandiflora. Large White has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (485, 1923). Loudon refers his plant to that of Loddiges' catalogue of 1836. Alba plena Loddiges, Cat. 1823, 35, as alba pleno, name only. — Noisette, Man. Compl. Jard. m. 410 (1825-1826), name only. — Loudon, Arb. Brit. n. 1209 (1838), as alba plena, S. plena Lodd. — Oudin, Cat. 1845-1846, 6, as Lilas a. fleurs blanches doubles; 1846-1847, 17. — William R. Prince, Cat. 1856-1857, 44. — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864), as flore albo pleno Hort., and as Weisser, gefiillter Flieder. — Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 561 (1875), "Die beiden letzten gefullten Formen sind, abgesehen von der Bluthenfarbung, von dem gefullten blauen Flieder nicht verschieden, " &s flore albo pleno, and as Gefiillter weisser Flieder. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). —Nicholson, HI. Diet. Gard. m. 537 (1887).— Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 113 (1889), "weiss." — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 380 (1892). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896), " gefullt, weiss." — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 206 (1899), as flore albo pleno. — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 89 (1920). Loudon writes: "5. v. alba plena, S. plena Lodd. Cat., is said to have the flowers double, but the plant bearing this name in the Horticultural Society's Garden has single flowers." William Miller (Diet. English Names Plants, 76, 1884) lists, without description, S. vulgaris var. alba-plena with common name of Common Double White Lilac. See also the form Noisettiana alba and S. vulgaris var. alba. Alba virginalis Oudin, Cat. 1841, 22, and as Lilas commun blanc virginal, name only; 1845-1846, 6, as Lilas virginalis, name only. — Bosse, Vollst. Handb. Blumengartn. m. 461 (1842), "mit reinweissen, grossen Blumen," as virginalis. — William R. Prince, Cat. 1844-1845, 70, and as Virginal White Lilac. — Seneclauze, Cat. 1846-1847, 11, as Lilas, Syringa, commun blanc virginal. — A. Leroy, Cat. 1847, 42> as Lilas blanc virginal; 1850, 19, as Syringa virginalis, and as White virginal Lilac; 1851, 47, and as White virginal Lilac; 1852, 58, as virginalis and as Lilas commun blanc virginal. — Dauvesse, Cat. no. 20, 24 (1855), as Lilas blanc virginal; no. 24, 42 (1859), as Syringa virginalis and as Virgin, white Lilac. — L. Leroy, Cat. 1858-1859, 94, as virginalis. — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 496 (1864), "Kommt mit der gewohnlichen, weiss- bliihenden Form so ziemlich iiberein," as virginalis Hort., and as Jungfraulicher Flieder. — Jager, Ziergeholze, 530 (1865), as virginalis. — Van Houtte, Cat. no. 117, 12 (1867), as virginalis. — K. Koch, Dendr. 11. pt. 1. 266 (1872), as Virginalis. — Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1875, 403, as Lilas blanc virginal. — Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 559 (1875), as virginalis, and as Jungfern-Flieder. — Transon, Cat. 1875- SYRINGA VULGARIS 253 1876, 50, as Syringa virginal. — De Vos in Nederl. Fl. Pom. n. 202 (1876), as Virginalis. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 144 (1880), as virginalis, and as Lilas commun blanc virginal. — Bardet in Rev. Hort. 1882, 171, as virginalis. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zbschen, 78 (1885). — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. m. 537 (1887). — Hartwig, HI. Gehdlzb. 380 (1892), as virginalis and as Jungfern-Flieder. — Detriche, Cat. 1 893-1 894, 16, as Syringa blanc virginal. — L. Henry in Jardin, vni. 175 (1894), "Ancienne variete a inflorescences assez courtes et denses. Fleurs d'un beau blanc; boutons blanc verdatre," as Virginal (alba virginalis). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896), as virginalis, and as Jungfern- Flieder. — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 89 (1920). Appears without specific or botanical name in Oudin's catalogue (1839-1840, 1) as Lilas blanc virginal. An old and much cultivated form but its origin is nowhere stated. Bosse notes that it is mentioned in Booth's catalogue, but gives no date. [K. Koch] (Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xn. 43, 1869) writes: "die Form, welche durchaus weiss bliihte, hat dagegen den Beinamen virginalis erhalten." Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists a S. vulgaris a. alba hort. Of this he notes: "Haufig angepflanzt (auch als alba virginalis)." Mentioned as good for forcing by Bardet (1. c), Nicholson (1. c), Paillet (Rev. Hort. 1889, 103), Mottet (Rev. Hort. 1895, 242) and Rehder (Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vr. 3298, 1917). Virgin has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (488, 1923). Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 4, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2974-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, small, symmetrical; corolla-lobes broad, cucullate, saucer-shaped; anthers conspicuous; color in bud Light Viridine Yellow to Pale Viridine Yellow (v.) ; when expanded white. Clusters medium size, interrupted, somewhat conical. This is a simple, fragrant Lilac and has the appearance of an old form. Albert the Good Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 87 (1886), "An erect vigorous grower, with large spikes of reddish purple flowers; the best of its color"; Cat. no. 2, 82 (1888). Ellwanger and Barry state that this was raised by James Dougall of Windsor, Canada, and the stock held exclusively by the Rochester firm. First offered for sale in 1886. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Ellwanger and Barry in 1892). Flowers single, medium size; tone dark to intermediate; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Magenta (xxvi.) ; when expanded Magenta with markings and edges of corolla-lobes Pale Rose-Purple (xxvi.) without, Mathews' Purple or Chinese Violet (xxv.) streaked with white within. Clusters short, broadly pyramidal, and in color effect somewhat variegated. The flowers appear to be darker without than within. Albo-coerulea Hort. according to Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz- Ben 413 (1903), name only. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 89 (1920), name only. Only the above references to this form have been found. 254 THE LILAC Albo-marginata new name. — Render in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 206 (1899), "mit weisslich gerandeten Blattern," as fol. albo marginatis. — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903), as argenteo-marginata. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 89 (1920), as argenteo-marginata. Render mentions this as "wenig empfehlenswert." K. Koch (Dendr. n. pt. 1. 265, 1872) writes: "Dagegen durften die beiden buntblatterigen Formen des Handelsgartners Scheurer in Heidelberg, die eine mit goldgelb-, die andere mit weiss-umrandeten Blattern, mehr Anerkennung finden." Whether this form with white margins to the leaves was to be distinguished from the form with white markings (see Albo-variegata) is uncertain; the two were probably much alike. Albo-rosea Hort. according to Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903), name only. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. I-n. 89 (1920), name only. Only the above references to this form have been found. Albo-variegata new name. — Wiegers, Cat. 1809, 119, as folio ex albo varieg., name only. "Le Bon Jardinier" (1783, 318; 1817, 751) mentions a variety of the Common Lilac "panachee en blanc," as do A. Richard (Diet. Class. 401, 1826) and Dupuis and Herincq (Horticulture, Veg. d'Orn., texte, p. 295, in Reveil and others, Regne Vegetale, 1864- 1871). Dauvesse (Cat. no. 20, 24, 1855) calls it the Lilas a f[eui]lles panachees blanc. Whether this form with white markings on the leaves can be distinguished from the form with white margins (see Albo-marginata) is uncertain; the two were probably much alike. K. Koch in an article entitled "Die Pflanzen- und Blumen-Ausstellung in Karlsruhe" (Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. v. 163, 1862) mentions "den weiss- und gelb-buntblattrigen Flieder (Syringa vulgaris fol[iis] arg[entiis] et aur[eiis] var.)." The first is probably this white variegated-leaved form. Alexander Hamilton Dunbar in Florists Exch., September 22, 1923, 831, "... the flowers are remarkably large (measuring 1 8/i« inches across), violet lavender, borne in large dense clusters, slightly cucullate." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter of October 3, 1923, the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 334 Dunbar) of A. B. Lamberton, named by him in 1923. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers double with two corollas and additional lobes at throat, extra large; some corolla-lobes expanding to a right angle with corolla-tube, some curling inward; tone intermediate; color in bud Light Perilla Purple to Argyle Purple (xxxvn.); when expanded Purplish Lilac to Light Pinkish Lilac without, Argyle Purple with occasional markings of Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvn.) near throat within. The flowers appear to be paler without than within. Clusters large, narrow-pyramidal, showy. Alexander I. Lemoine, Cat. no. 103, 28 (1886), name only, as Alexander 1". Mr. E. Lemoine wrote me on January 16, 1925, that he does not know the originator of this form. SYRINGA VULGARIS 255 Alf. Neuner Lemoine according to Goemans in Jardin, vr. 171 (1892). Goemans states that this is a double-flowered variety of Lemoine's, which, when forced in Holland, produces handsome clusters with individual flowers resembling Bou- vardia. Mr. E. Lemoine wrote me on June 3, 1924: " Je ne connais pas Syringa Alfred Neuner. H existe un Bouvardia de ce nom, mis au commerce autrefois par la maison Nanz et Neuner de Louisville, Kentucky." Aline Mocqueris Dauvesse, Cat. no. 36, 46 (1872), as Lilas Aline Mocqueris, name only. — L. Leroy, Cat. 1872, 84, as Syringa Aline Mocqueris, name only. — De Vos in Nederl. Fl. Pom. 11. 201, t. 69 (1876), ". . . De afbeelding blijft echter beneden de werkelijkheid; de tros is doorgaans veel grooter en de bloemen zijn levendiger gekleurd." — Ottolander in Sieboldia, n. 187 (1876), as Aline Mocquerris. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 141 (1880), "Arbuste florifere et remarquable par ses thyrses volumineux; le plus fonce et sans contredit le plus beau de tous les Lilas." — Transon, Cat. 1880-1881, 66, as Syringa Aline Mocquery. — Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1885, 310, "Arbuste vigoureux tres- floribond. Panicule tres-forte, ventrue, courtement et largement arrondie au sommet, tres-ramifiee, a ramifications peu serrees, de sorte que, bien que tres-forte, les grappes sont legeres. Fleurs grandes, a. tube effile assez long, tres-colore comme le limbe. Limbe court, a quatre divisions de grandeur moyenne, regulierement ovales, concaves ou forte- ment cucullees, d'un rouge vineux fonce qui, meme chez les fleurs avancees, prend a peine la couleur violet bleuatre, contrairement a presque tous les Lilas de couleur foncee." — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), as Aline Mocquerys. — Croux, Cat. Suppl. 1889- 1890, 29, as Lilas Aline Mocquerys. — E. Lemoine in Jardin, vi. 152 (1892). — L. Henry in Jardin, vin. 175 (1894). — Van Geert, Cat. no. 169, 44 (1896), as Aline Macquery. — Nicholson, HI. Diet. Gard. Suppl. 696 (1900), as Aline Mocquery. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1900-1901, 67, "rouge fonce," with single flowers. See Additions. Carriere states that this was raised by an amateur of Troyes, France. It was one of the forms used by Mr. Victor Lemoine in his pollinization of Azurea plena. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., (received from Spath in 1892). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Schoenfeld's Purple (xxvi.); when expanded Schoenfeld's Purple (xxvi.) to Bishop's Purple or Purplish Lilac (xxxvn.) without, Schoenfeld's Purple (xxvi.) to Mathews' Purple (xxv.) within. Clusters long, pyramidal, symmetrical. Alphonse Lavallee Lemoine, Cat. no. 101, viii. (1885), "Arbuste touffu, tres ramifie, fleurissant des la taille de 60 centimetres, chacque ramification est terminee par un enorme thyrse de 20 a 25 centimetres et d'une largeur proportioned, bi-tri-quadrifurque, com- pacte, d'une tenue irreprochable; fleurs tres grandes, formees de 12 a 15 petales en moy- enne, ceux-ci sont allonges, bien imbriques et donnent a la fleur la forme et l'aspect d'une fleur de jacinthe double reduit de moitie, un quart des fleurs atteignent une trentaine de petales; la couleur est d'un beau bleu de ciel nuance de violet, boutons purpurins. Malgre leur ampleur, les thyrses ne flechissent pas. ..." — V. Lemoine in Garden and Forest, 11. 328 (1889). — Amer. Florist, xn. 1075, fig. (p. 1077) (1897). — Dunbar in Gard. Mag. 1. 233, fig. 321 (1905). — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 322, fig. 131. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxh. 378 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). 256 THE LILAC Introduced in 1885 by the firm of V. Lemoine of Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Alphonse Lavallee was the owner of a celebrated Arboretum at Segrez, France. For the history of this form see Azurea plena. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers double, medium size; corolla-lobes pointed, expanding into a star-like flower; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Argyle Purple (xxxvn.); when expanded Purplish Lilac (xxxvn.) without, Lilac to Pale Lavender- Violet (xxv.) within. The flowers appear to be darker without than within. Clusters pyramidal, medium size. Ambroise Verschaffelt C. Lemaire in Illustr. Hort. x. t. 357 (1863), as Lilas Ambroise Verschaffelt (Syringa vulgaris var. hortensis Verschaffeltii), "Le coloris de la variete Ambroise Verschaffelt est tout particulier; il est interm6diaire entre la variete- type et la variete blanche. . . . Les fleurs en sont aussi plus grandes que celles du Lilas commun, et meme plus que celles des varietes dites de Charles X., de Marly, etc." — Francke in Gartenflora, xii. 191 (1863). — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 561 (1875). — Ottolander in Sieboldia, n. 186 (1876). — Baumann, Cat. no. 159, 38 (1879). — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 144 (1880), as Verschaffeltii, and as Lilas commun Ambroise Verschaffelt. — Transon, Cat. 1880-1881, 66, as Syringa Ambroise Verschaffelt. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — E. Morren and A. De Vos, Index Bibliog. Hort. Belg. 555 (1887). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896). Lemaire states that this was raised and named by Brahy-Eckenholm, an amateur grower of Herstal near Liege, Belgium, and about to be offered for sale in May, 1863. E. Morren and De Vos also note, "Obtenu par M. Brahy-Ekenholm, a Herstal." Both Lemaire and Baudriller, as well as Dieck mention Verschaffeltii as a correspond- ing name for Ambroise Verschaffelt. Another form has, however, appeared under the name Verschaffeltii and the two are listed as distinct in such catalogues as Transon (1880- 1881, 67) and Van Geert (Cat. no. 169, 45, 1896); also by Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in "Standardized Plant Names" (485, 1923). Plants of each name are growing in the Arnold Arboretum; they are similar in general appearance, with single flowers, but the flowers of Ambroise Verschaffelt are pale while those of Verschaffeltii are intermediate in color tone. See also the form Verschaffeltii. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists a S. vulgaris q. hybrida hort., od[er] Amb[roise] Verschaffelt. Under this he names many forms of the Common Lilac. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 7, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2933-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size, unsymmetrical ; corolla-lobes cucullate on first expanding; anthers visible but not conspicuous; tone pale; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxvm.); when expanded Laelia Pink marked with white without, white tinged with Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) within. Clusters medium size. Amethyst Spath, Cat. no. 69, 4 (1887-1888), "Strauss gross, dicht, geschlossen und gedrungen. Knospe purpurviolett mit lilarosa, beim Aufbluhen ins Blaue ubergehend; Spater amethystf arben ; reichbluhend." See Plate cxxrv. SYRINGA VULGARIS 257 Introduced in 1887 by the firm of L. Spath, Berlin, Germany, and one of their produc- tions. According to information kindly supplied by that firm in January, 1924, this was a chance seedling. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1916; no. 17,364 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size; corolla- lobes rounded or pointed, symmetrical; anthers conspicuous; tone pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac to Light Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when expanded Mauvette (xxv.) to white without, Pale Aniline Lilac (xxxv.) to white within. Clusters open, pyramidal, numerous. An excellent example of a simple but pleasing early form. Amoena Oudin, Cat. 1 846-1 847, 17, name only, as Syringa (Lilas) Amoena; 1849- 1850, 6, name only, as Lilas amena. — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 494 (1864), "Mit dichtblumigen Rispen, dunkler, stark-blaulicher Blumen. Schon." — Jager, Ziergeholze, 530 (1865). — Regel, Russ. Dendr. 206 (1870). — Koch, Dendr. 11. pt. 1. 266 (1872). — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 141(1880), "Magnifique variete a thyrses larges et serres; fleurs d'un rose fonce lilace," as amaena. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — Spath, Cat. no. 69, 114 (1887-1888), "grosblurnig, Knospen purp." — Muskauer Baumschulen, Haupt-Katalog, 1910, 36. Appears without specific or botanical name in Oudin's catalogue (1845-1846, 6) as Lilas amoena, name only. [K. Koch] (Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xn. 43, 1869) writes: "Inwie- weit Syringa amoena der Garten hiervon abweicht, vermogen wir nicht zu entscheiden." He had just written of the Karlsruher Flieder [= Carlsruhensis]. Baudriller calls this the Lilas commun agreable; Kirchner calls it the Schoner Flieder and Nash (Jour. N. Y. Bot. Gard. xx. 233, 1919) the Beautiful Lilac. Kirchner and Baudriller disagree somewhat as to the color of this form and I do not know which description is the correct one. L. Henry (Jardin, viii. 174, 1894) objects to the confusion caused by the use in nursery catalogues of Latin titles without specific name; among those so used he mentions Amoena. See also the form Macrostachya. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists, as a name only, under his S. vulgaris q. hybrida hort., od[er] Amb[roise] Verschaffelt a form amoena which he notes is cultivated at St. Petersburg. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 4, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 293 1-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, medium to small in size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers conspicuous; tone dark to intermediate ; color in bud Neutral Red to Hellebore Red to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvin.) ; when expanded Tourmaline Pink with margins of Pale Laelia Pink without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvin.) mingled with Chinese Violet (xxv.) within. Clusters open, large, numerous. Andenken an Ludwig Spath Spath, Cat. 1883, 3, "Diese unzweifelhaft schonste aller bis jetzt bekannten Fliedersorten ist eine Zuchtung der hiesigen Baumschule. Sie wurde unter ca. 1 5000 Samlingen der besten Varietaten gewonnen. Die einzelnen Bliithen sowohl wie die Rispen sind sehr gross und von prachtvoll dunkel purpurroter Farbe, 258 THE LILAC nicht nur als Knospen, sondern auch bei vollstandig geoffneten Bluthen." — Dieck, Haupt-Verzeichn. Zoschen, Nachtr. i. 27 (1887). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896). — H. R. W. in Gard. Chron. ser. 3, xxvn. 115, fig. 35 (1900). — Gordon in Gar- deners' Mag. xliv. 495, fig. (1901), as Souvenir de Leon Spath. — L. Henry in Jardin, xv. 281, fig. 136 (1901), as Souvenir de Louis Spaeth. — D. in Garden, lxxviii. 413, t. (1914), as Souvenir de Louis Spaeth. — Spath-Buch, 222, fig. (1920). Introduced in 1883 by the firm of L. Spath, Berlin, Germany; the Spath catalogues give it as one of their productions and according to confirmatory information supplied by that firm in January, 1924, it was a chance seedling. By some attributed to Reinhold Behnsch, a nurseryman of Diirrgoy, near Breslau, Germany. The first published description was kindly sent me by the Spath firm in July, 1924. Ludwig Spaeth has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (486, 1923). The form appears frequently as Louis Spath, Souvenir de Spath, etc. ; it is commonly called Ludwig Spath. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 5, 1895, from plant received from A. Waterer in April, 1887; no. 1596-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes cucullate, saucer-shaped; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Schoenfeld's Purple to Magenta (xxvi.); when expanded Magenta with conspicuous margins of Liseran Purple or Pale Rose-Purple without, Dull Dark Purple or Dull Magenta Purple (xxvi.) within, a solid color. Clusters narrow, large, symmetrically filled but not crowded; the rhachis, pedicel and calyx are tinged Hay's Maroon (xiii.). A floriferous and highly satisfactory form and one of the best of the dark Lilacs with single flowers. Mentioned by Voss as especially good for forcing. Andre Laurent Nollent according to Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Suppl. Gen. Cat. [1908?] 2, "Thyrses grands, teinte rubis violine avec fond blanc rose, tres joli colons, '' with single flowers. In a letter of August 31, 1925, the curator of the Jardin Botanique de l'Etat, at Brus- sels, Belgium, informed me that Nollent was the name for the late firm A. Gouchault, of Orleans, France. Mr. R. Chenault, wrote me on October 12, 1925, in reply to a letter addressed to his father-in-law, Mr. A. Gouchault, that this form was "sent out by a firm called Goyer, successor of Laurent, at Limoges, about 1900." I have been unable to acquire any information from that source. The names Nollent and Laurent are not very different and Stepman-De Messemaeker may have confused the two. Andrew Dupont Kelsey, Circular, "Lilacs on their own roots," [cir. 1922], 2, name only. Mr. Harlan P. Kelsey wrote me on December 5, 1924, in regard to this, and to other forms referred to elsewhere: ". . . purchased by me from the Elizabeth Nursery Com- pany, Elizabeth, New Jersey, and I do not now have them in stock. If you will notice our list of Lilacs in Standardized Plant Names you will see that none of these names have been given standing and I doubt very much if there are really any such things as the ones named; at any rate, they are not in the American trade at the present time so far as I know . . . my suggestion is that those names be dropped. . . ." The Elizabeth Nursery Company wrote me on December 11, 1924, that they "did not originate these SYRINGA VULGARIS 259 Lilacs, but imported the stock from the Leroy Nurseries, Orleans, France ..." and "have sold out of them." I have been unable to obtain any information from the Leroy Nurseries. Anemonaeflora Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), name only. Appears in a list of forms of the Common Lilac offered for sale by the "Obst-und Geholzbaumschulen des Ritterguts Zoschen bei Merseburg, " Germany. Possibly another name for the form Renoncule, sometimes called Ranunculiflora ; the flowers of some of the species of Anemone and Ranunculus look somewhat alike but the Zoschen catalogue lists as distinct forms both Ranunculiflora and Anemonaeflora. Anite Duke Kelsey, Circular, "Lilacs on their own roots," [cir. 1922], 2, name only. The information here given in regard to the origin of the form Andrew Dupont is applicable to this form also. See Andrew Dupont. Anna Elisabeth Jacquet Felix and Dykhuis, Trade letter, July 25, 1924, "purple," with single flowers; Cat. [cir. 1925], 26, as Anna Elis. Jacquet, "purpur, " with single flowers. In a letter of September 1, 1925, the firm of Felix and Dykhuis, of Boskoop, Holland, wrote me as follows: "Anna Elizabeth Jacquet . . . [originated with] Moser fils Nurs- eries, Versailles, France." A letter from Moser & fils, dated October 6, 1925, however, states: "... nous vous faisons savoir que nous n'avons pas du tout cree de lilas des varietes que vous nous indiquez, ni d'aucune autre variete du reste. Nous ne pouvons done pas vous donner le renseignement que vous nous demandez et nous exprimons tous nos regrets." Archeveque Lemoine, Cat. no. 197, 19 (1923-1924), "Long straight spikes, round imbricated flowers, plum violet with pale gray reverses," flowers double. Introduced in 1923 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. (plant received from Lemoine in 1923). Flowers double, medium size; corolla-lobes broad or narrow, unsymmetrical, those at center curling inward; tone intermediate; color in bud Eupa- torium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded the outer lobes Laelia Pink, the inner Pale Laelia Pink without, the outer lobes Eupatorium Purple (xxxviii.) the inner Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac (xxxvii.) within. Clusters medium size, broad at base, compact. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 197, Archiduchesse Charlotte Duvivier in Jour. Hort. Pratique Belgique, ser. 2, v. 241, . xix. fig. 3 (1861), as Lilas Archiduchesse Charlotte. — E. Morren and A. De Vos, Index Bibliog. Hort. Belg. 556 (1887). According to Duvivier, named for the daughter of the king of the Belgians by a special commission of the Societe royale des Conferences horticoles of Liege. He tells us that it was produced by the amateur Brahy-Ekenholm from the same cross which produced the forms Croix de Brahy, Ekenholm, "d'azur a fleur double" [= Azurea plena], Charle- magne and Princesse Camille de Rohan. The forms used in the cross were Charles X. 260 THE LILAC and Noisette [see Noisettiana alba and 5. vulgaris var. alba]. The colored plate was painted by Ed. Van Mark of Liege. Duvivier describes it as follows: "Les thyrses sont grands, larges, ovoides et abondam- ment pourvus de fleurs; celles-ci, se pressant delicatement, ne se deforment aucunement; elles sont grandes et leur limbe est largement etale; les divisions de ce limbe se recourbent chacune tres-regulierement en un batelet peu profond et d'une elegance parfaite . . . coloris . . . d'un rose magnifique, non pas uniforme, mais offrant une gradation de teintes qui part du pourtour de la corolle pour arriver a sa gorge ou il forme un oeil presque entierement blanc. . . ." He tells us that it was raised from seed sown in 1855 and first flowered in 1861. I have found no other mention of this form except in the "Index Bibliographique de l'Hortus Belgicus" of E. Morren and A. De Vos, which is a "Catalogue methodique des plantes ornementales qui ont ete decrites, figurees ou introduites en Belgique de 1830 a 1880." Arthur William Paul Lemoine, Cat. no. 140, x. (1898), "Thyrses grands, fleurs de bonne forme, couleur cocardeau, revers des lobes blancs, produisant un effet eclatant." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 381 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (i9!7)- Introduced in 1898 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in November, 1920; no. 10,605 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, small to medium in size; corolla-lobes pointed or rounded at apex, curling inward, unsymmetrical; tone dark to intermediate; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Indian Lake (xxvi.); when ex- panded, the outer corolla Eupatorium Purple without, the inner corolla Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) without, both Dull Dark Purple (xxvi.) to Aconite Violet (xxxvn.) within, a solid color. Clusters long, interrupted, narrow; rhachis, pedicel and calyx tinged Hay's Maroon (xiii.). Large leaves frequently appear at the base of the sub- divisions of the inflorescence. The color of the buds is markedly different from that of the open flower; also the pale reverses of the inner corolla-lobes are a conspicuous contrast with the rest of the darker flower. Aucubaefolia Chenault, Cat. 1919-1920, 15, "Les feuilles tres ornementales sont largement ponctue de blanc; panachure tres constante; fieur bleu pale," as S. variegata Gouchaultii {Aucubaefolia). — Turbat, Cat. 1923-1924, 75, "nice double flowers, lilaceous rose in long elegant thyrsus, and with very ornamental foliage. Its leaves, of normal size, are largely punctuated with yellow, very constant," as Aucubaefolia {President Grevy foliis variegatis). Produced by Mr. A. Gouchault of Orleans, France, who kindly wrote me in November, 1924: "Syringa Aucubaefolia; I found in 1910 a branch of the variety 'President Grevy* having variegated leaves and I propagated it. It was sent out in 1919 by Messrs. Leon Chenault & Son who advertised it in their catalogue under the name I gave : aucubaefolia; several firms added : variegata Gouchaultii because I was the raiser. The flowers are of course the same as 'President Grevy' . . . still propagated and sold by Messrs. Turbat & Co." SYRINGA VULGARIS 261 While the information supplied me by Mr. Gouchault as to the form in which the name was first published does not precisely correspond with the name found in Chenault's catalogue of 1919-1920, I have followed, in the retention of the name Aucubaefolia, the information supplied me by Mr. Gouchault since I have not seen the French edition of Chenault's catalogue. The Chenault catalogue here cited states that the foliage is variegated with white while the Turbat catalogue notes "punctuated with yellow". It is doubtful whether such a difference is of any significance as far as variegated foliage is concerned although it has been considered sufficiently important, where other variegated forms have been mentioned, to justify their retention as distinct forms. See the forms Alba albo-varie- gata and Alba luteo-variegata. Young plants of this name were growing in 1927 in the nursery of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. The foliage is merely blotched with yellow. Aurea Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 141 (1880), " Nouveaute a feuilles toutes dorees, " and as Lilas commun dore. — Van Houtte, Cat. no. 225-L, 42 (1887-1888), name only. — Spath, Cat. no. 76, 122 (1889-1890), name only. — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.- Zeit. xrv. 206 (1899), as aurea Hort. (fol. aureis Hort.). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 89 (1920). Oudin (Cat. 1845-1846, 6) mentions, as a name only, a Lilas a feuilles dorees and later (Cat. 1849-1850, 6) adds the description "Fleurs bleu porcelaine; tres-beau." Ellwanger and Barry (Cat. no. 2, 43, 1867-1868) list a Lilac (Syringa) Gold leaved, with "Flowers light purple; very large yellowish green foliage." Under the name S. vulgaris foliis aureis they again (Cat. no. 2, 72, 1875) give the same description. Parsons (Cat. 1889, 49), as a name only, lists a S. vulgaris foliis aureis (Golden Leaved Lilac). All these are probably the same as the form Aurea. Spath attributes this to Van Houtte. A letter of November 27, 1924, from the Van Houtte firm tells me that they can give me no information as to its origin. Rehder notes that it is of more value than the forms S. vulgaris fol. Variegatis [=Variegata] and S. vulgaris fol. albo marginatis [= Albo-marginata]. Whether this form was at one time distinguished from that called Aureo-variegata is uncertain; the two were probably much alike. Undoubtedly some of the plants noted under the form Variegata may be referred to this form. As distinguished here this form is considered to have had foliage tinged throughout with yellow rather than merely marked or mottled with that color. See also the forms Aureo-variegata and Variegata. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Spath in 1892). Flowers single, medium size; corolla-lobes exceptionally narrow, almost filiform, cucullate; anthers conspicuous; tone pale; color in bud Light Russet- Vinaceous (xxxix.) to Tour- maline Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) ; when expanded Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) without, Light Lobelia Violet on Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.) within. Clusters long, narrow, open. The foliage has merely a yellowish tinge. The plant is more curious than beautiful and remarkable because of its narrow corolla-lobes rather than because of its foliage. 262 THE LILAC Aurea cucullata Wien. 111. Gartenz. xvn. 76 (1892). This appears in " Miscellen " as: u Syringa vulgaris aurea cucullata mit goldgefleckten gewundenen Blattern ist eine diesjahrige Neuheit, welche sich ganz vorzuglich zur Soli- tarpflanzung eignet. Sie stammt aus den Fiirstl. Lobkowitz'schen Baumschulen." I have found no mention of this form elsewhere. Aurea Joreauensis Baudriller according to Spath, Cat. no 76, 122 (1889-1890), name only. I have found no mention of this form elsewhere. AureoTvariegata Van Houtte, Cat. no. 117, 12 (1867), as foliis aur. var., name only. — Baumann, Cat. no. 159, 38 (1879), name only. — Lemoine, Cat. no. 109, 26 (1888), as fol. aureo variegatis Baudriller, name only. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1 894-1 895, 25, as foliis aureo variegatis, and as Lilas a feuille panachee jaune. "Le Bon Jardinier" (1783, 318) mentions a variety of the Common Lilac "panachee ... en jaune," as do A. Richard (Diet. Class. 401, 1826) and Dupuis and Herincq (Horticulture, Veg. d'Orn., texte, p. 295, in Reveil and others, Regne Vegetale, 1864- 1871). Ellwanger and Barry and Rowe (Cat. 1848-1849, 32) list as a name only, a Syringa panache jaune or Yellow striped leaved Lilac. These should probably be referred to this form. In an article entitled "Die Pflanzen- und Blumen-Ausstellung in Karlsruhe" (Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. v. 163, 1862) K. Koch mentions "den weiss- und gelb-buntblattrigen Flieder (Syringa vulgaris fol[iis] arg[entiis] et aur[eiis] var.)." The second of these is probably this yellow variegated-leaved form. Again he writes in the same periodical (xii. 43, 1869) "Vor einigen Jahren fanden wir aber eine buntblattrige Form bei dem Kunst- und Handelsgartner Scheurer in Heidelberg, die uns gefiel. Uebrigens hat schon Miller in seinem Gartner-Lexikon eine weiss- und gelb panachirte Form gekannt." And again (Dendr. 11. pt. 1. 265, 1872) he notes: "Dagegen durften die beiden bunt- blatterigen Formen des Handelsgartners Scheurer in Heidelberg, die eine mit goldgelb- die andere mit weiss-umrandeten Blattern, mehr Anerkennung finden." Whether the form with yellow margins to the leaves was distinguished from that with yellow markings is uncertain; the two were probably much alike. See also the form Albo-marginata. Lemoine attributes this form to Baudriller. In the only catalogue (no. 43, 141, 1880) of this firm which I have seen there appears a Syringa vulgaris aurea or Lilas commun dore, "Nouveaute a feuilles toutes dorees" [= Aurea]. It is likely that this is the form to which the Lemoine catalogue has reference. While it is probable that little difference, if any, existed between the form with yellow markings to the leaves and that with com- pletely yellow foliage, the two have been retained here as distinct forms since any identi- fication must remain uncertain at this date. See the form Aurea. Azurea plena Gartenflora, 111. 60 (1854), "... ist eine gefiillte Abart der gewohn- lichen blauen." — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 494 (1864), "Mochte von dem gewohnlichen, blaugefullten kaum verschieden sein." — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 561 (1875), as S. vulgaris azurea Hort. — Lemoine in Litt. according to Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1883, 550. — Carriere and Andre in Rev. Hort. 1889, 410. — V. Lemoine in Garden and Forest, 11. 326 (1889). — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. SYRINGA VULGARIS 263 i. 113 (1889). — Hartwig, 111. Gehdlzb. 380 (1892). — E. Lemoine in Jardin, vi. 152 (1892), as S. azurea plena. — L. Henry in Jardin, vin. 175 (1894); in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, n. 738 (1901). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896). — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xrv. 206 (1899). — Foussat in Jardin, xv. 281 (1901). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 414 (1903). — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 321. — Grignan in Rev. Hort. 1907, 14, and as/, pi. Liberti. — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. n. s. m. 22 (1917), and as S. vulgaris flore pleno Liberti; ix. 17 (1923). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7), as Syringa azurea plena and as S. vulgaris fl. plena "Liberti." — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pfianzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 89 (1920). — A. 0[sborn] in Garden, lxxxvti. 302 (1923). As noted below this form first appeared as Syringa vulgaris flore duplo Liberti. The name Azurea plena has been retained because of its common usage and because of the existence of a single form known only as Liberti (see Liberti) which has priority in the use of the name. Charles Morren, a botanist of Liege, Belgium, first described this form as Syringa vulgaris flore duplo Liberti (Bull. Acad. Roy. Sci. Lettres, Beaux-arts Belg. ser. 1, 273, t. (opp. p. 284), figs. 4-1 1, 1853; reprinted in Clusia, 173, t. xiii. figs. 4-11, 1852-1854). His description is as follows : " Le Lilas double de Libert a la vegetation entiere caracteris6e par moins d'ampleur que le Syringa vulgaris. On dirait d'une hybride entre le Lilas de Constantinople et le Lilas de Perse, bien cependant qu'il soit venu d'un semis du premier. L'arbuste a. fleurs doubles est plus leger dans son allure; les feuilles sont plus petites, les thyrses moins fournis, moins gros, les fleurs moins grandes et la coloration elle-meme subit des changements. Sur le Lilas a. fleurs doubles les boutons sont roses, les fleurs sont violettes par dessous dans leurs premieres corolles, et d'un beau bleu de ciel pale dans la corolle double et le dessus des fleurs; de sorte que ces teintes de rose, de violet, de lilas et de bleu jouent ensemble sur les thyrses de cette production. Les thyrses, enfin, sont souvent pourvus a leur base de rameaux thyrsiferes eux-memes, ce qui donne un aspect de grande richesse a cette vegetation." Again (Belg. Hort. rv. 68, t. vi. fig. 4 (fig. as Double azure), 1854) Charles Morren writes of this form under the name Lilas d'azur a. fieur double, and notes that almost three centuries had elapsed between the introduction of S. vulgaris to France and the production of a double form. He notes that since 1843 catalogues have announced another double Lilac under the name Syringa vulgaris, flore pur pur eo duplici. According to Charles Morren this double form was a seedling of S. vulgaris, produced in 1843 by the Belgian horticulturist Libert of Liege, Belgium. Edouard Morren (Belg. Hort. xxvin. 175, 1878) gives the name of the producer as Libert-Darimont and states that nurserymen cultivate it under the names violacea flore pleno, rubra plena, and flore pleno, although there are doubtless minor differences between these plants. He writes also that there is a Lilac with single flowers in trade under the name Liberti but that this name is used erroneously for the single form. See also the form Liberti. Again, writing with A. De Vos (Index Bibliog. Hort. Belg. 556, 1887) Morren notes this as Lilas d'azur a. fl. doubles. It was, according to these authors, offered for sale by Brahy-Ekenholm of Herstal [near Liege, Belgium]. Azurea plena is interesting as being the double-flowered form used by Victor Lemoine as the starting point in the production of his fine race of double Lilacs. He 264 THE LILAC writes that the rare flowers were largely hidden by the foliage and that the plant was more interesting teratologically than otherwise. The flowers had no stamens and the pistils were abortive or so hidden by the corolla-lobes as to be inaccessible to natural fertilization and no seeds were produced by natural means. Lemoine crossed it artificially with pollen from the species S. oblata and from some of the best garden forms of the Common Lilac such as Ville de Troyes, Sanguinea, etc., and in 187 1 the plant bore a few seeds which germinated and produced the first of the new double-flowered Lilacs. One of these was a true hybrid (S. oblata X S. vulgaris) and Lemoine named it S. hya- cinthiflora plena [= X S. hyacinthiflora]. Other seedlings which did not show the S. oblata strain but which were double or improved single forms of 5. vulgaris were also obtained and the best of the former was S. vulgaris jlore duplo Lemoinei [— Lemoinei]. Others were Renoncule, Rubella plena, Mathieu de Dombasle and Le Gaulois. From this time on Lemoine discarded Azurea plena as a seed parent. The new double-flowered race was then crossed with pollen from the best single forms and from this crossing resulted the Lilacs Alphonse Lavallee, Michel Buchner, President Grevy, M[ons]. Maxime Cornu, etc. Carriere quotes Victor Lemoine as stating that he bought his plant of Azurea plena from A. Wilhelm of Luxembourg and did not know whence it was obtained. Havemeyer writes most interestingly of Lemoine's work: "Now the flowers of these plants are small. This work of crossing demands good eyesight which Mr. Lemoine did not then have, and so, he told me, he sought the aid of Madame and placed into her care the very delicate work of cross fertilization. This work, first started during the Franco-Prussian War, when Nancy was occupied by the Germans, solely as a diversion from the trials of the time, was carried on by Mme. Lemoine for many years under the direction of her husband. Syringa azurea plena was most difficult to work on, the minute flowers being formed of many petals, nearly microscopic, without stamens, and with a pistil covered with the lobes of the interior petals, malformed and sterile. Yet this was the plant selected for the seed bearing. It was necessary to work from a step ladder on account of the size of the bush, uncovering a number of flowers to expose the pistil and then apply the chosen pollen to the flower when one was found in which the pistil was not too much malformed. . . . Thus it will be seen that the plants finally attained were the achievement of patience and tedious work. Even so, the results were ever in doubt, and from more than one hundred flowers crossed, the first year produced only seven seeds. The following year thirty fertile seeds were gathered, and the work continued. The first fruits of the work of Mr. and Madame Lemoine were seen in 1876 when three bushes flowered." Hugo De Vries (Species and Varieties, 763, 1905) writes: "The double variety seems to be as old as the culture of the lilacs. It was already known to Munting, who described it in the year 1671. Two centuries afterwards, in 1870, a new description was given by Morren, and though more than one varietal name is recorded in his paper, it appears from the facts given that even at that time only one variety existed. It was commonly called Syringa vulgaris azurea plena, and seems to have been very rare and without real ornamental value. . . ." The date of Abraham Munting's "Waare Oeffening der Planten" is 1672 but it is possibly to this work that De Vries had reference. On page 122 are mentioned four Syringa, only two of which, both with single flowers, I believe to be Lilacs. The other two, which Munting called Syringa jlore candido simplici SYRINGA VULGARIS 265 and Syringa flore candido pleno, from his description of the larger flowers and smaller leaves, I refer to the genus Philadelphus. No reference to a double-flowered blue Lilac has been found and I believe that the first description of such a Lilac is Morren's. The form Plena of Oudin's catalogue of 1841 is not found described till 1855. The first refer- ence to a double white Lilac, Alba plena, which I know is that of Loddiges' catalogue of 1823. Double Azure has been adopted as approved common name by " Standardized Plant Names" (486, 1923). Nash (Jour. N. Y. Bot. Gard. xx, 233, 1919) calls it Blue Lilac. Baudriller (Cat. no. 43, 141, 1880) gives it the name of Lilas commun a fleurs doubles azurees. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., (received from Spath in 1882). Flowers double, small, with 2 corollas and additional lobes at throat; corolla-lobes pointed at apex, forming a star-shaped flower; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Argyle Purple to Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvu.) ; when expanded Purplish Lilac to Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvu.) without, Light Campanula Blue (xxiv.) within. Clusters long, narrowly pyramidal, interrupted. Not valuable as a decorative form. Oudin (Cat. no. 77 [cir. 1854], 8) mentions, as a name only, a Syringa Azurea. It seems probable from the date that this is a reference to Azurea plena but it is not stated whether the flowers are single or double. The S. vulgaris Azurea mentioned by Hartwig and Riimpler (Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 561, 1875) is obviously a reference to Azurea plena since the authors state that it can scarcely be distinguished from S. vulgaris flore pleno [= Plena]. See also Plena and pre-Linnean synonyms of 5. vulgaris. Azure de Gathoye C. Morren in Belg. Hort. 1. 420 (1850), as Lilas azure de Gathoye, "Celle-ci se distingue deja par le feuillage et le port. L'arbuste est diffus, grele, d'une extreme legerete; les petioles des feuilles tres-longs, la feuille tres-acuminee. Le thyrse est tres-allonge, il mesurait pres d'un pied de long, le sommet pendant, les ramuscules laches, les fleurs tres-aigues, entierement lilacees passant au bleu, mais sur le dessus les quatre nervures medianes marquees d'un beau bleu d'azur. H est evident que ce lilas est sorti du Navarin [? = Charles X.]." Produced, according to Morren, by Gathoye, a nurseryman of Bayards, lez-Liege, Belgium; it flowered for the first time in 1850. Morren states that, when "a peine ne," it was used as a seed parent in a crossing made with Charles X. Banquise Lemoine, Cat. no. 161, 28 (1905), "Thyrses tres serres, fleurs tres pleines, blanches." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1905 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1904 but Mr. E. Lemoine wrote me on March 26, 1926: "Toutes ces varietes figurent dans notre repertoire de plantes aux dates donnees par Mr. Havemeyer, suivant mes indications, mais pour une raison ou pour une autre, comme multiplication insuffisante, ils n'ont pu etre offerts que dans le catalogue de l'annee suivante, comme vous l'avez mentionne." Mr. Lemoine also tells me that the word Banquise means "a very broad iceberg" [or ice-floe]. Notes on plant in the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1908). Flowers double, hose-in-hose ; color in bud Absinthe Green to Chrysolite Green (xxxi.) to white; when expanded white. Clusters narrow, open. 266 THE LILAC Belle de Nancy Lemoine, Cat. no. 119, x. (1891), "Thyrses tres volumineux, reunis ordinairement par 4 ou 5; fleurs doubles, a lobes arrondis, forme reguliere en coupe, rose satine brillant avec le centre blanc, teinte nouvelle." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 380 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1891 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1908). Flowers double, large; corolla-lobes rounded at apex, expanding into a round flower; tone pale ; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Eupatorium Purple to Tour- maline Pink (xxxvm.) ; when expanded, the outer corolla Eupatorium Purple without, the inner corolla Pale Laelia Pink marked with Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.) without, Lilac to Mauvette (xxv.) within; all corolla-lobes streaked conspicuously with white. Clusters extra long, narrow-pyramidal, showy. Beranger Simon-Louis according to Van Houtte, Cat. no. 121, 41, 42 (1867-1868), name only. — Ottolander in Sieboldia, 11. 187 (1876), "vormt een grooten heester, bloeit zeer mild; groote tros, matig groote bloem, zeer donker wijnrood; uitstekend schoon." — Parsons, Cat. [cir. 1879], 49, "Purplish lilac red flowers." — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 141 (1880), "Larges fleurs d'un beau rouge pourpre lilace; thyrses enormes affectant une forme pyramidal." — Transon, Cat. 1880-1881, 66, as Syringa Beranger. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — Spath, Cat. no. 79, no (1890-1891), "Grossbl., hellviolett mit weissem Stern; Knospe purpur, sehr schon." — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 380 (1892). — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1897-1898, 66, with single flowers. — Muskauer Baumschulen, Haupt- Katalog, 1910, 36. Van Houtte attributes this form to Simon-Louis but does not state whether the plant originated with that firm or whether they merelyjntroduced it. Parsons states that it was a seedling of the form Gloire de Moulins. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 5, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2944-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers prominent; tone intermediate; color in bud Dark Perilla Purple to Perilla Purple to Light Perilla Purple (xxxvu.); when expanded Argyle Purple with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac without, Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.), a solid color, within. Clusters open, medium to large. Bergen Farr, Cat., "Better Plants," 1922-1923, 59, name only. This name has not been found elsewhere and is probably a misnomer although it does not suggest to me the name of any other better-known Lilac. Bicolor Hort. according to Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 494 (1864), name only, and as Gemeiner zweifarbiger Flieder. — K. Koch, Dendr. n. pt. 1. 266 (1872), name only. — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 561 (1875), "Die Rohre der Bluthen, sowie ein Theil der Abschnitte der Krone weiss, die Blumen sonst violett," and as Zweifarbiger Flieder. — De Vos in Nederl. Fl. Pom. 11. 202 (1876), "Bloeit zeer licht, bijna vleeschkleurig en heeft een groote bloemstros"; in Sieboldia, 11. 198 (1876). — Ottolander in Sieboldia, 11. 186 (1876). — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — Van Geert, Cat. no. 169, 45 (1896). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. SYRINGA VULGARIS 267 Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903). — Muskauer Baumschulen, Haupt-Katalog, 1910, 36. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 89 (1920). Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists a S. vulgaris g. bicolor hort., which he notes is cultivated at Riga and at Reval. There is listed without specific name a Syringa bicolor, Lilas bicolor (Prince, Cat. 1856-1857, 44, name only) and a Syringa bicolor Hort. (Pasquale, Cat. Orto Bot. Napoli, 100, 1867). R. Schomburgk (Cat. PI. Gov. Bot. Gard. Adelaide, So. Australia, 1871) also lists a Syringa bicolor Hort. Since there is a form of the hybrid S. chinensis which was put in the market in 1853 by the Lemoine firm as S. rothomagensis bicolor [= S. chinensis f. bicolor], it is possible that this form of the Common Lilac arose as the result of confusion with the hybrid form. Such errors sometimes occurred as a result of omitting the specific name as in the instances cited. Ottolander (Sieboldia, 1. c.) had stated that the flowers of the form Philemon were like those of Bicolor but De Vos took exception to this statement. See the form Philemon. [K. Koch] (Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xii. 43, 1869) writes: "Von dem Marly-Flieder besass man friiher auch eine Form, wo nur die Spitzen der Blumen- abschnitte eine violette Farbe besassen, die iibrige Blume aber weiss war. Sie fuhrte deshalb den Namen der zweifarbigen (bicolor)." Evidently therefore this was considered to be a form of the Marly Lilac [ = S. vulgaris var. purpurea]. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (it is not stated where this plant originated; listed as 5. vulgaris Jlore bicolor). Flowers single, medium to large; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Dull Magenta Purple (xxvi.) ; when expanded Magenta with margins of Pale Rose-Purple (xxvi.) without, Mathews' Purple (xxv.) within. Clusters long, open, narrow-pyramidal. Blanc de Carriere Catalogo Jeneral ... del Criadero de Arboles de "Santa Ines" (Nos.) Chile, no. 5, ano xxrv. [= 1912], 356, "Flores blancas, grandes, de mui buena clase, mui olorosa." I have found no mention of this form elsewhere. Bleuatre L. Henry in Jardin, vm. 175 (1894), "Variete nouvelle. Fleurs rouge vineux a l'exterieur; bleuatres a, l'interieure. Inflorescences fortes et bien fournies, " with single flowers. — Lemoine, Cat. no. 146, 24 (1900). — Catalogo Jeneral del Criadero de Arboles de "Santa Ines" (Nos.) Chile, no. 5, ano xxiv. [= 1912], 356, " Grandes paniculos de flores, reves de los petalos rojo vinoso, con reflejos azulejos en la parte superior, colorido nuevo." Lemoine's catalogue attributes this form to Baltet but does not state whether he was the producer or merely the distributor. It is listed in Baltet's catalogue (1900-1901, 27) but no information is given as to its producer. Wister (House and Garden, March, 1926, 170) attributes it to Baltet but does not state his authority. The Lilas bleuatre which appears as a name only, in Oudin's catalogue for 1846-1847, 10, is probably a reference to S. vulgaris rather than to this form. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 25, 1900, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1895; no. 3807-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, symmetrical, medium size; corolla-lobes pointed, slightly cucullate; anthers visible; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xxiv.); 268 THE LILAC when expanded Pale Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) without, Lavender- Violet (xxv.) marked with white within. Clusters compact, conical, medium size, numerous. This form has flowers which are a distinct bluish lavender within. Boule azuree Lemoine, Cat. no. 191, 22 (1919), "Broad panicles of a rounded shape, large single flowers of a perfect form with cucullate lobes, lilac suffused azure blue." Introduced in 1919 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France and one of their productions. Notes on plant in collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. (plant re- ceived from Lemoine in 191 9). Flowers single, extra large; corolla-lobes broad, pointed at apex, sometimes cucullate, expanding into an extremely flat flower; anthers con- spicuous; corolla- tube slender, moderately long; tone pale; color in bud Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded white tinged with Light Pinkish Lilac without, Light Lobelia Violet tinged with Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.) with markings of white near junction of corolla-lobes within. Clusters large, well-filled, showy. The flowers fade soon after expanding. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine 's catalogue no. 191. Boussingault Lemoine, Cat. no. 134, 14 (1896), "Fleurs tres regulieres, lobes arrondis, imbriques, ardoise bleuatre, boutons pourpre carmin, couleur nouvelle." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1896 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1902). Flowers double, unsymmetrical, tone intermediate; color in bud Light Perilla Purple to Argyle Purple (xxxvn.); when expanded, the outer corolla Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac without, the inner corolla Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvn.) without, Bluish Lavender (xxxvi.) within. Clusters narrow-pyramidal, small. Brougnartii Oudin, Cat. 1849-1850, n, name only, as Syringa Brougnartii. Oudin calls this "Le plus beau du genre" and lists it under " Arbres et Arbustes rares." Since no specific name is given it is possible that I have not properly classified this as a form of the Common Lilac. Oudin appears to distinguish between the Mock- Orange which he calls on page 24 of his catalogue Serin gat {Philadelphus) and the Lilac which he calls Lilas; nor do I know of any Philadelphus of this name. I have not found such a plant mentioned elsewhere. Possibly Brougnart is a misspelling of the name of the French botanist Brongniart (1801-1876), although such an error would have no bearing upon the plant's correct classification. Caerulescens Oudin, Cat. 1845-1846, 6, name only, as Lilas caerulescens; 1846-1847, 17, name only, as Syringa (lilas) caerulescens. A doubtful plant. Possibly another name for S. vulgaris. Calvin C. Laney Dunbar, Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers single, J^ of an in[ch] across, lavender tinged violet." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 318 Dunbar) of Monge, named by him in 1923. Named for the former Superintendent of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. SYRINGA VULGARIS 269 Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers single, large, unsym- metrical; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone dark to intermediate; color in bud Dull Magenta Purple to Magenta (xxvi.) ; when expanded Magenta without, Auricula Purple (xxvi.) within. Clusters large, broad-pyramidal. Canadensis Kelsey, Circular, "Lilacs on their own roots," [cir. 1922], "White," with double flowers. The information given in regard to the origin of the Lilac Andrew Dupont is applicable to the form also. See the form Andrew Dupont. Candidissima Dammann, Cat. no. 34, 28 (1886-1887), name only. — Catalogo Jeneral ... del Criadero de Arboles de "Santa Ines" (Nos.) Chile, no. 5, ano xxrv. [= 191 2] 356, "Variedad de flores de color bianco purisimo, con centro amarillo, agrupadas en grandes paniculos sueltos, mui olorosas." This form has not been found mentioned elsewhere. Capitaine Baltet Lemoine, Cat. no. 193, 22 (1919), "Huge panicles of very large flowers of a warm shade of purple lilac, " with single flowers. Introduced in 1919 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. (plant received from Lemoine in 1919). Flowers single, extra large, corolla-lobes broad, sometimes curled, pointed at apex and cucullate but without raised margins, expanding into a flat flower; corolla-tube slender; anthers conspicuous; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud of corolla-tube Eupatorium Purple, of corolla-lobes Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxvni.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink (xxxvui.) without, Argyle Purple, a solid color, or tinged slightly with Ageratum Violet (xxxvn.). Clusters broad at base, with wide-spreading subdivisions, somewhat sparingly filled with large flowers. A showy form. The flowers are bluer when in bud than they are when expanded, and bluer within than without. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 193. Capitaine Perrault Lemoine, Cat. no. 199, 19 (1925-1926), "Grand spikes, big full flowers of a superb rosy mauve, buds of the same color, a superior and very late-flowering sort," with double flowers. Introduced in 1925 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 199. Carlsruhensis Hort. according to Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 494 (1864), "Eine schone, dunkelbliithige Form, ahnlich der 5. v. amoena," and as Karls- ruh'scher Flieder. — Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. vni. 88 (1865), as Karlsruhensis. — Jager, Ziergeholze, 530 (1865). — O. Kuntze, Taschen-flora von Leipzig, 82 (1867), "B. gelb berandet, " as Karlsruhensis Hort. — [K. Koch] in Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xii. 43, (1869); Dendr. n. pt. 1. 266 (1872). — Regel, Russ. Dendr. 207 (1870). — Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 560 (1875), "Bluthen dunkler, als bei der vorigen [S. vulgaris var. versaliensis Hort.], fast purpurroth, 270 THE LILAC in besonders stark entwickelten Bliithenstraussen," and as Flieder von Carlsruhe. — Lauche, Deutsche Dendr. 170 (1880), "Blumen gross, dunkelroth," as S. vulgaris c, S. Carlsruhensis Hort. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), as Karlsruhensis, and as Lilas commun de Karlsruhe. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), as Karlsruhen- sis. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1897-1898, 66, with single flowers. The plant is mentioned twice in the " Wochenschrif t des Vereines zur Beforderung des Gartenbaues in den Koniglich Preussischen Staaten fur Gartnerei und Pflanzen- kunde." Both articles are unsigned; the first reference appears in an article describing certain new plants growing in "der Laurentius'schen Gartnerei zu Leipzig"; the second reference which is evidently written by K. Koch, the editor of the periodical, reads: " Auch die Karlsruhe Flieder ist aus dem Marly- Flieder hervorgegangen und zeichnet sich durch etwas grossere und gedrangter stehende Bluthen aus." The form was evidently raised from the Marly Lilac [= S. vulgaris var. purpurea]. Hartwig and Riimpler give as "Lat[in] Syn[onyms]," var. amoena Hort. and S. rubra Hort. The form of the Common Lilac Amoena was in cultivation as early as 1845. S. vulgaris var. rubra I believe to be identical with S. vulgaris var. purpurea. Kirchner notes the resemblance of Carlsruhensis to Amoena. K. Koch and Baudriller list the two forms as distinct. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists a S. vulgaris n. carlsruhensis hort., which he notes is cultivated at Golgowsky according to Baron Mengden, at St. Petersburg according to Regel and at Riga according to Buhse. Possibly the form Karszubiana which he lists as a name only under his 5. vulgaris q. hybrida hort. od[erJ Amb[roise] Verschaffelt is the same. The name does not appear elsewhere so far as I have found and Klinge's names are sometimes incorrectly spelled. Carmen Lemoine, Cat. no. 192, 23 (1918-1919), "Flowers of a perfect shape, very pale mauve, almost white, a charming shade." Introduced in 1918 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1919). Flowers double with three corollas and additional lobes at throat, large; tone pale; color in bud, the corolla- tube Light Vinaceous-Purple (xliv.), the corolla-lobes Light Cinna- mon-Drab (xlvi.); when expanded, the outer corolla Light Vinaceous-Lilac, the inner corollas white without, white tinged with Dull Lavender (xliv.) within. Clusters open, much branched. This form growing in the collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., pro- duces extremely showy, long clusters, with wide-spreading subdivisions. The corolla- tube is short and stout, and the corolla-lobes are broad, pointed at apex, not cucullate, curled; they expand into a round flower. The flowers are so pale as to lack character. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 192. Cavour Lemoine, Cat. no. 176, vn. (1910), "Long thyrses eriges, bien fournis, fleurs de bonne taille, bleu ardoise tres fonce. ..." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (re- introduced in 1910 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. SYRINGA VULGARIS 271 Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Stepman-De Messe- maeker in 1914). Flowers single, medium to large; corolla-lobes slightly cucullate; tone dark; color in bud Dull Indian Purple to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) ; when expanded Argyle Purple with margins of Purplish Lilac without, Bishop's Purple turning to Aconite Violet with margins of Argyle Purple (xxxvu.) within. Clusters full, medium size, conical. The pale margins give a somewhat variegated appearance to the clusters. C. B. van Nes Andre in Rev. Hort. 1904, 102, "Cette variete est d'une fioribondite remarquable ; elle produit des thyrses fioraux volumineux meme sur les rameaux les plus faibles. Ces thyrses sont plus courts et plus larges que dans le Lilas de Marly [= S. vulgaris var. purpurea]. Les fleurs sont d'une rouge fonce analogue a celui de la variete Souvenir de Louis Spaeth [= Andenken an Ludwig Spath]," with single flowers. Produced by the firm of C. B. van Nes and Sons, Boskoop, Holland. The firm wrote me on December 12, 1924, that the description as it first appeared read "light red with a yellow eye." They state that it was found by Mr. J. H. van Nes among seedlings of 5. vulgaris, and add: "It proved to be a poor grower so that it did not have much commercial value and consequently was dropped by us and most other nurserymen, so that we do not suppose it is any more in the trade at present unless some French nurseryman at Orleans is still growing it." It is listed among the Lilacs growing in the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., but I have not seen the flowers. In the same collection grows a form listed as Mrs. E. van Nes which was received from Lemoine in 1905; the flowers appear to correspond closely with Andre's description of the form C. B. van Nes. In the letter just quoted, Messrs. C. B. van Nes write: "we only know of one variety and that is named by us C. B. van Nes. The variety Mrs. E. van Nes which you mention we do not know." Chamaethyrsus Andre in Rev. Hort. 1894, 370, figs. 137, 138. — Sargent in Garden and Forest, vii. 360 (1894). — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 206 (1899). — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. Suppl. 696 (1900), as Chamaethyrsa. — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-ii., 89 (1920). Andre states that Machet and Josem, nurserymen of Chalons-sur-Marne, France, found a Lilas de Marly [= S. vulgaris var. purpurea] flowering, before the foliage had expanded, upon young suckers, only a few inches above the ground; when this had been repeated for three successive years the habit was thought to be fixed and the form was put on the market about 1894. Andre calls it the Lilas nain. Nicholson refers to it as "ground thyrse" and describes it as a "dwarf monstrous form." It is merely of teratological interest. L. Henry (Rev. Hort. 1904, 277) refers to this Lilac and states that a Mr. Guerrapain (Bar-sur-Aube) sent a fragment of a plant which had produced the same phenomenon; This, planted out in the Jardin des Plantes, Paris, had not flowered at the date of Henry's article. The "Journal de Physique, de Chimie, d'Histoire Naturelle et des Arts" (xciv. 393, 1822) contains an article called "D'un exemple fort rare de Vegetation," which relates the following: "... II y a huit jours que M. Villaret, amateur de fleurs de cette ville, apercut dans son jardin deux jolis bouquets de lilas rez terre, auxquels il fit peu d'atten- 272 THE LILAC tion d'abord, parce qu'il crut qu'un enfant les avait coupes de l'arbre voisin et les avait piques la; comme ils resterent frais les jours suivans, que de nouveaux boutons s'epanoui- rent, il les observa attentivement et reconnut avec surprise qu'ils etaient enracines. C'etaient sans doute des especes de drageons qui portaient originairement des germes de fructification, et qui n'avaient besoin que de l'air et de la lumiere pour se developper et se colorer; ils tenaient et participaient a. l'arbre qui etait a. cdte, couvert de feuilles depuis quelque temps. Beaucoup de curieux sont venus voir ce petit phenomene, et dans l'idee qu'il pourrait interesser les naturalistes de l'Academie royale des Sciences, je priai M. Villaret de me donner un des deux thyrses que je joins ici avec la racine d'ou il sort, et je l'engageai a conserver le second, afin d'observer s'il croitrait en fructifiant et si sa tige pousserait des feuilles." A note of the editor states: "Nous avons appris depuis, par une lettre de M. D F , que plusieurs fleurs du second bouquet avaient avorte, que beaucoup ont produit des capsules pleines de graines, sans que la tige ait pris aucun accroissement." Other similar cases have been recorded by Dauthenay (Rev. Hort. 1900, 333) and by Baillet (Jardin, xxvi. 163, 1912). In neither of these references is the name of the form given upon which the abnormality occurred, nor is the form itself given a name. In "Le Jardin" (xrv. 274, 1900) a similar case is mentioned as occurring on the Common Lilac in the garden of a Mons. Reviron of Marcigny (Saone-et-Loire). Charlemagne C. Morren in Belg. Hort. rv. 69, t. xi. fig. 3 (1854), "Le thyrse de ce lilas est gros, plus arrondi que celui des varietes descrites plus haut [Croix de Brahy, Ekenholm, d'azur a. fleur double (= Azurea plena)], les fleurs sont plus grandes, plus espacees, le tube est plus visible en regardant l'ensemble du thyrse et le limbe plus plat a les bords des divisions moins eleves. Le coloris est le rose lilace . . .," as Lilas Charle- magne. — Gartenflora, in. 60 (1854). — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864), as Charlesmagne. — Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. vin. 88 (1865). — E. Morren and A. De Vos, Index Bibliog. Hort. Belg. 555 (1887), as S. vulgaris var. Lilas Charlemagne. — Dieck, Haupt-Verzeichn. Zoschen, Nachtr. 1. 27 (1887). According to Morren this form was produced by Brahy-Ekenholm, an amateur grower of Herstal, near Liege, Belgium; one of the parents was Charles X. The plant received its name from the fact that the garden in which it was raised was near the spot in Herstal where Charlemagne was said to have had his stables (stal-der-heer) from which arose the name Herstal. According to the figure given by Morren the flowers are single. The form is listed in various nursery catalogues such as: Baumann, no. 159, 38 (1879) ; Baudriller, no. 43, 141 (1880); Simon-Louis, 1886-1887, 58. Charlemberg Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 43 (1867-1868), "A distinct variety; flowers very small, light purple shaded with pink; compact truss." — Parsons, Cat. 1889, 49. — Olmsted, Colville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 485 (1923), as Charlem- bourg. Possibly a misnomer for Charlemagne which I have not seen. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Ellwanger and Barry in 1892 and listed as Charlemburg). Flowers single, small; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when ex- SYRINGA VULGARIS 273 panded Vinaceous-Lilac with margins of Pale Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) without, Light Lobelia Violet with margins of Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) within. Clusters compact, pyramidal. The flowers are dainty and have the simple appearance characteristic of the older forms. This is an interesting Lilac in appearance. Charles Baltet Lemoine, Cat. no. 125, ix. (1893), "Plante naine et tres florifere; des la taille de 75 centimetres le pied de semi portait 16 volumineux thyrses de fleurs grandes, pleines, serrees, d'une couleur lilacee au centre, se degradant en rose mauve sur les bords, avec les boutons roses." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 380 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1893 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., in November, 1906; no. 17,366 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, unsymmetrical, large; corolla-lobes broad or narrow, rounded or pointed at apex, curling; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Hellebore Red to Rocellin Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvm.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) without, Light Lobelia Violet shaded with Argyle Purple on margins and marked with Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.) within. Clusters large, compact. Charles Joly Lemoine, Cat. no. 134, rx. (1896), "Thyrses grands et longs, fleurs pleines, lie de vin ou mure noire, revers argentes, le plus fonce de tous les lilas. . . ." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 381 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). — D. Hill Nursery Co., Cat. Hill's Evergreens, t. fig. 5 (opp. p. 72) (1924). Introduced in 1896 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 29, 1904, from plant received from Spath in November, 1900; no. 4361-2 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, unsymmetrical, extra large; corolla-lobes broad or narrow, rounded or pointed at apex; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Schoenfeld's Purple (xxvi.); when expanded Auricula Purple to Schoenfeld's Purple (xxvi.) to Light Perilla Purple to Argyle Purple (xxxvn.) on inner lobes without, Auricula Purple (xxvi.) within, a solid color. Clusters open, medium size. The inner corolla-lobes which are paler without than within roll inward and give a slightly variegated appearance to the cluster. Charles Sargent Lemoine, Cat. no. 161, vm. (1905), "Thyrses gros et longs, compacts, fleurs enormes, d'une dimension inusitee, a lobes larges et longs, enchevetres, d'une mauve violace azure metallique." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 383 (1907). — Have- meyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1905 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1911; no. 17,367 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, extra large; outer corolla- lobes broad, round or pointed at apex, inner lobes narrow; corolla-tube short, stout; tone intermediate; color in bud Light Perilla Purple to Argyle Purple (xxxvn.); when expanded Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac without, Ageratum Violet (xxxvn.) 274 THE LILAC within, a solid color or occasionally marked with white at throat. Clusters large, com- pact, heavy, with a tendency to droop. Charles X. Audibert, Cat. 1831-1832, 51, name only, as Charles dix. — Loudon, Arb. Brit. 11. 1209 (1838), as Charles X. (S. v. Caroli Lodd. Cat., ed. 1836). — Oudin, Cat. 1839-1840, 1, as Lilas Charles X. — Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 9 (1855-1856), as S. Charles the Xth. — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 494 (1864), as Caroli Lodd. (Charles X. Hort.). — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 564 (1875), as Syringa rothomagensis var. regia Hort., Konigs-Flieder; French, Lilas royal, L. Charles X. — Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 169 (1877), as S. vulgaris var. purpurea major (Vulg. Lilas Charles X.). — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 77 (1885). — Nicholson, Diet. Gard. 111. 537, fig. 560 (p. 534) (1887); in Garden and Forest, 11. 88 (1889). — Dip- pel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 112 (1889), as Charles X. = rubra major. — L. Henry in Jardin, viii. 175 (1894), "Boutons rouge violace s'ouvrant en rouge pourpre. Fleurs devenant ardoisees. Inflorescences fortes et compactes mais assez courtes. Ancienne variete, toujours tres estimee. L'une des plus employees pour le forcage. . . ." as Charles X. {Rubra major). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896), as "Charles X." (syn. f. rubra major Hort.), Konigs-flieder. — Amer. Florist, xn. fig. (p. 1076) (1897). — Gordon in Gardeners' Mag. xliv. fig. (p. 497) (1901). — Clarke in Gard. Mag. v. 74, fig. (1907). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxm. fig. (p. 155) (191 6). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3298 (1917), as Charles X. (Caroli); 3301 (1917). — D. Hill Nursery Co., Cat. "Hill's Evergreens," t. fig. 4 (opp. p. 72) (1924). A number of other names for Charles X. are found in nursery catalogues as follows: superba (William Prince, 1835-1836, 51. — William R. Prince, 1841-1842, 40); Carolus decimus (Oudin, 1841, 22; 1845-1846, 25); violacea superba (Winter, 1843-1844, 62); Caroli (William R. Prince, 1844-1845, 70); grandiflora (Baumann, 1846, 15; no. 159, 38, 1879); Rubra major (A. Leroy, 1851, 47. — L. Leroy, 1858-1859, 94. — Dauvesse, no. 24, 42, 1859. — Baudriller, no. 43, 143, 1880. — Simon-Louis, 1886-1887, 58. — Spath, no. 69, 115, 1887-1888); Caroli X. (Parsons, 1850, 25. — William R. Prince, 1860-1861, 42); rouge de Trianon (Dauvesse, no. 20, 24, 1855); major (Van Houtte, no. 215-D, 46, 1855-1856); purpurea major (Van Houtte, no. 255-G, 36, 1893); rubra (Detriche, 1 893-1 894, 16). While this form has been commonly cultivated for many years it has been impossible to trace its origin or to find a description distinguishing it with any certainty from numer- ous somewhat similar forms. Whether such names as Grandiflora, Rouge de Trianon and Rubra major were cor- rectly used, in the above references, as corresponding names for Charles X. is uncertain; these names were more frequently used without reference to Charles X. and, where they have so appeared, have been retained as distinct forms, since at this date their identifica- tion and proper classification are impossible. In the case of Rubra major the name has also been applied to the Marly Lilac [= S. vulgaris var. purpurea]. Ottolander (Sieboldia, 11. 187, 1876) cites both Charles X. and Rouge de Trianon as corresponding names for his variety Rubra major. Wilhelm Ulrich (Internat. Worterb. Pflanzennamen, 230, 1872) gives as corresponding names for his S. vulgaris major, of which he gives no description, the English name Larger-red Lilac, the German name der grosse Lilak and the French names le lilas a grandes fleurs rouges, le lilas royal, le lilas Charles X. SYRINGA VULGARIS 275 It is certain that the form Charles X. nearly approaches 5. vulgaris var. purpurea. Both have been described as purple and as red. It is probable that the forms of the Common Lilac known as Purpurea grandiflora, Rouge royal, Rubra grandiflora, Rubra insignis and Rubra purpurea are also close to Charles X. It is wrongly classified as a variety of S. rothomagensis [= S. chinensis] by Hartwig and Riimpler. Decaisne and Naudin (Man. Amateur Jard. in. 88, fig. 27, 1862-1866) and Hemsley (Handb. Hardy Trees, 296, fig. 165, 1877) also wrongly classify it as a variety of S. dubia [= S. chinensis]. Mouillefert (Traite Arb. Arbis. 11. 998, 1892- 1898) mentions it as a sub-variety of S. vulgaris var. purpurea and calls it "rubra major, vulg. L. Charles X." While certain catalogues mention Caroli or Caroli X. as corresponding names for Charles X., yet Spath (Cat. no. 69, 114, 115, 1887-1888) mentions as separate forms S. vulgaris rubra major (Charles X.) and S. vulgaris Caroli Lodd.; Olmsted, Colville and Kelsey (Stand. PL Names, 485, 1923) keep as distinct Caroli and Charles the Tenth. The S. vulgaris caroli of Loddiges' catalogue (1836, 67) appears as a name only. Loddiges does not mention the form Charles X. although Loudon cites the name of Loddiges' plant as identical with the name Charles X. The plant mentioned by Loudon as Charles X. (S. v. Caroli Lodd.) was growing at the Loddiges arboretum and was received from Sou- lange-Bodin. Loudon writes that it "appears to be a variety of S. v. purpurea" although he notes that he saw it only in leaf. Kirchner considers the forms Charles X. and Caroli to be the same. The two names appear separately also in the catalogue of the Muskauer Baumschulen (Haupt-Katalog, 1910, 36). A plant bearing the name Caroli is growing in the Rochester collection, but, as described later, is not the same as either the Rochester or the Arnold Arboretum plant of Charles X. A. Leroy (Cat. 1850, 9) lists, as a name only, a Syringa royalis or Royal lilac which may be the same as Charles X. Carriere (Rev. Hort. 1877, 203) mentions Lilas royal as a corresponding name for Charles X. See the form Rouge royal. This form has been much used for forcing; its suitability for this purpose has been discussed by Carriere (Rev. Hort. 1877, 158, 203). Paillet (Rev. Hort. 1889, 103), Mottet (Rev. Hort. 1895, 241), Voss (1. c), and many others note that it is especially good for this purpose. Maumene (Jardin, xvi. 312, figs. 174, 175, 1902; xvni. 57, fig. 36, 1904) and Lochot (Rev. Hort. 1904, 252, fig. 103) discuss the use of ether in its forcing, and numerous illustrations show it as a forced plant. Instances of its abnormal flowering are given by Carriere (Rev. Hort. 1875, 403) and by Carriere and Andre (Rev. Hort. 1884, 315). The flowers of Charles X. in the Rochester and Arnold Arboretum collections are not the same. Both descriptions follow since I am uncertain which, if either, is true to name. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Spath or Barbier in 1908). Flowers single, medium size; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone intermediate; color in bud Schoenfeld's Purple (xxvi.) to Light Perilla Purple (xxxvii.); when expanded Argyle Purple without, Saccardo's Violet (xxxvn.) within. Clusters broadly pyramidal, open, medium size. The flowers appear to be paler without than within. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 10, 1895, from plant received from A. Waterer in April, 1887; no. 17,368-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes broad, cucullate, rounded or slightly 276 THE LILAC pointed at apex; anthers visible but not conspicuous; tone dark to intermediate; color in bud Neutral Red to Deep Hellebore Red to Eupatorium Purple (xxxviii.); when ex- panded Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.) without, Dull Magenta Purple (xxvi.) to Saccardo's Violet marked with Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) within. Clusters compact, medium size, conical. Notes on the plant of Caroli in the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1900). Flowers single, medium size; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone dark to intermediate; color in bud Neutral Red to Deep Hellebore Red (xxxviii.); when ex- panded Eupatorium Purple to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, Dull Magenta Purple (xxvi.) to Chinese Violet to Lilac (xxv.) within. Clusters broad-pyramidal. This has the appearance of an old form. A form of Charles X. with variegated leaves is mentioned as a name only by Dauvesse (Cat. no. 36, 46, 1872) as Lilas Charles X. a feuilles panachees jaune. Baudriller (Cat. no. 43, 143, 1880) lists it also as S. vulgaris rubra major foliis aureo variegatis and as Lilas commun Charles X. a feuilles panachees de jaune. L. Henry (1. c.) mentions the exist- ence of "une variation a feuilles panache dore." Although called S. vulgaris L. Charles X. fol[iis] arg[enteis] var. by C. van Kleef (Sieboldia, in. 376, 1877) the plant's leaves are described as yellow dotted, — "Met geel gevlekte bladeren," — which does not account for the use of the adjective "argenteis" or silvery. It is undoubtedly the same plant as that mentioned by Dauvesse, etc. Charlet Baltet, Cat. 1900-1901, 28, "Rouge vineux, " as Lilas Charlet. Probably the same as the Lina Charlet mentioned in the Journal de la Societe nationale d'Horticulture de France (ser. 4, xxi. 147, 1920) as a Lilac with single flowers exhibited at a meeting of that society on April 22, 1920, by Lorion of the firm of Abel Chatenay. The words Lilas and Lina might easily have been confused; or possibly an error for Charles X. This is a doubtful plant. Christophe Colomb Lemoine, Cat. no. 161, 30 (1905), "Fleurs enormes, tr&s rondes, lilas tendre." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). See Plates cxxix., cxxxiii. Introduced in 1905 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1904. See Banquise for the explanation of this difference in dates. Christopher Columbus has been adopted as approved common name by "Standard- ized Plant Names" (485, 1923). Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Lemoine in November, 1905; no. 51 17 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, symmetrical, large; corolla-lobes rounded at apex, cucullate, saucer-shaped; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when expanded Light Vinaceous- Lilac to Pale Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) without, Light Mauve (xxv.) to Hay's Lilac (xxxvu.) with markings of white near throat within. Clusters long, conical, well-filled, large. This is to me one of the most distinct of all the garden forms of the Common Lilac, with saucer-shaped, unusually symmetrical flowers and closely filled clusters. These are numerous, the plant often flowering from two pairs of lateral buds on the same branchlet. SYRINGA VULGARIS 277 Citriflora Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 141 (1880), name only, and as Lilas commun a fleurs d'Oranger. — Transon, Cat. 1882-1883, 67, name only; 1886-1887, 76, name only. — Dieck, Haupt-Verzeichn. Zoschen, Nachtr. 1. 27 (1887), name only. — Van Geert, Cat. no. 169, 44 (1896), name only. In all of the above references, with the exceptions of those of Baudriller and Dieck, the form appears merely under the descriptive name "a fleurs d'Oranger." Under that name it is listed without description by Dauvesse as early as 1872 (Cat. no. 36, 46, 1872). Baudriller mentions it as a " Variete nouvelle que Ton dit tres-remarquable." Parsons (Cat. 1903, 40) calls it Syringa vulgaris fleur d'oranges, "Beautiful white variety." In the manuscript catalogue of the plants in the garden of the Forest Academy at Muenden, Hanover, which was purchased by the Arnold Arboretum with the H. Zabel herbarium, an entry records that Syringa vulgaris citrifolia was received in October, 1884, from the Koster nursery. Clara Cochet Petit-Coq in Jour, des Roses, 1885, 176, t. 12, "Le pied- mere de ce lilas ne s'eleva qu'a deux metres et quelque chose, s'etendant, a cette hauteur, en une clme Slargie, couronn£e d'une elegante inflorescence thyrsoideuse, composee de legeres panicules de 14-15 centimetres de longueur, sur une egale largeur (a. la base bien entendu) montrant d'abord des boutons de couleur carnee foncee, a. tubes lilaces vif, auxquels se melent bientot des corolles ouvertes, blanches, a teinte carnee attenuee a peine d'une ombre de lilace pale, ayant un point central jaune verdatre du a la couleur des examines. Cette excellente variete de lilas fieurit abondamment et des sa deuxieme annee de greffe. . . ." — Viviand-Morel in Lyon-Hort. vin. no (1886). — Sargent in Garden and Forest, vi. 290 (1893). — Grosdemange in Rev. Hort. 1893, 2&6. — De Duren in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. xxi. 157 (1895). Petit-Coq states that this was a seedling found about 1855 by Cochet of Suisnes, France. Scipion Cochet put it on the market about 1885 and named it for his daughter. Viviand-Morel notes that in the "Annales de la Societe nantaise d'horticulture " [the reference is not given] Renault contested the newness of this form. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1915; no. 7328 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, symmetrical, small; corolla- lobes cucullate; anthers visible; tone pale; color in bud of corolla- tube Lilac (xxv.), of corolla-lobes Vinaceous to Hydrangea Pink (xxvii.) ; when expanded Pale Persian Lilac (xxxvni.) to Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvri.) to white both within and without. Clusters somewhat conical, open, medium size. An unusual color among forms of the Common Lilac, closely approaching a flesh color. This is a charming Lilac of simple appearance but not a profuse bloomer in the Arboretum. Clarence D. Van Zandt Dunbar, Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers single, Y% of an in[ch] across, buds dark red, rosy blush lilac when fully open, clusters 9 inches long. Branching habit compact." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 236 Dunbar) of Aline Moc- queris, named by him in 1923. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers single, large; tone dark to intermediate; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Magenta (xxvi.); when expanded 278 THE LILAC Magenta with occasional markings of Pale Rose-Purple (xxvr.) without, Mathews' Purple to Chinese Violet (xxv.) within; the flowers appear to be darker without than within. Clusters long, narrow, pyramidal, well-filled. Claude le Lorrain Lemoine, Cat. no. 113, 9 (1889), "Fleurs tres grandes, 2 centi- metres et demi de largeur, pourpre lie-de-vin passant au violet; thyrses volumineux." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7), as Claude de Lorraine. Introduced in 1889 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1890. See Banquise for the explanation of this difference in dates. Not^s on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Stepman-De Messemaeker in 1914). Flowers single, large, corolla-lobes cucullate at first, later open- ing flat, tone intermediate; color in bud Vinaceous-Purple (xxxvm.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple with margins of Laelia Pink without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.) within. Clusters dense, conical, medium size. Coerulea superba Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 38 (1869), "Flowers light purple in bud, when fully open a clear blue; truss very large; the finest of its color in cultiva- tion," as Coerulea Superba. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 141 (1880). — Transon, Cat. 1882- 1883, 67, as Syringa Coerulea superba. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — Parsons, Cat. 1903, 40. — Barry in Horticulturist, x. 499 (1909). Ellwanger and Barry (Cat. no. 2, 43, 1867-1868) state that this is one of their seedlings which was to be offered for sale in 1868. The name appears in 186 7- 1868 as Coerulea but in 1869 was changed to Coerulea Superba and this later name has here been retained since Syringa vulgaris 4. coerulea was used by Weston in 1770 and has appeared as a synonym of S. vulgaris. Royal Blue has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (487, 1923). Baudriller calls it the Lilas commun bleu superbe. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Ellwanger and Barry in 1892). Flowers single, medium size; corolla-lobes cucullate, forming a saucer- shaped flower; tone intermediate; color in bud Vinaceous-Drab (xlv.) to Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac (xxxvu.); when expanded Purplish Lilac to Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvu.) without, Light Lavender- Violet or Light Mauve (xxv.) within; the flowers appear to be paler without than within. Clusters long, open, poorly filled. The open flowers are a distinct blue when first expanded. In color the flowers of Coerulea superba are probably very similar to those of typical S. vulgaris. The color notes of Coerulea superba, a plant differing, it is probable, chiefly in the larger size of its flowers, have therefore been used as corresponding to those of the Common Lilac. See 6". vulgaris. Colbert Lemoine, Cat. no. 143, 22 (1899), "Fleurs grandes, pleines, cocardeau clair." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 321. — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1899 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1898. See Banquise for the explanation of this difference in dates. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 25, 1900, from plant received from Lemoine in April, 1900; no. 4607-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, SYRINGA VULGARIS 279 unsymmetrical, large; corolla-lobes broad or narrow, pointed at apex; tone intermediate; color in bud Neutral Red to Veraonia Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded, the outer corolla Tourmaline Pink (xxxvm.) without, Argyle Purple (xxxvn.) within, the inner corolla Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) without, Lilac (xxv.) marked with occasional white or rarely with Lobelia Violet (xxxvii.) at throat within. Clusters compact, medium size. Colmariensis Prevost in Ann. Fl. Pomone, ser. 2, iv. 253 (1846), as Syringa colmariensis (Lilas de Colmar); in Jour. Hort. Prat. Belg.v. 96 (1848). — Oudin, Cat. 1846-1847, 11, as Lilas de Colmar; 17, as Syringa (lilas) Colmariensis, and as Lilas de Colmar. — Ell- wanger and Barry, Cat. 1848-1849, 32, as Syringa Colmariensis; no. 2, 43 (1867-1868); no. 2, 72 (1876), and as Colmar Lilac. — L. Leroy, Cat. 1876, 72. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists a S. vulgaris 1. colmariensis hort., which he notes is cultivated at Riga according to Wagner's catalogue and at Reval according to Dietrich. Prevost, in an article entitled "Observations sur le merite reel de deux varietes nou- velles de Lilas, " writes of two Lilacs, — the first, Prince Notger, put on the market about 1840, and the second, Colmariensis, introduced slightly later, — as follows: "En 1845, ces deux Lilas m'ont donne quelques fleurs; mais sachant par experience que vouloir juger du merite des fleurs d'un Lilas qui n'a pas encore acquis une vigueur suffisant ni produit une belle vegetation est une faute, j'ai du attendre la fioraison de cette annee; elle a ete aussi belle que possible. Mais grande a ete ma surprise lorsque j'ai vu que le Prince Notger et le Lilas de Colmar se ressemblent, et ressemblent tous les deux a ces mauvais Lilas a. thyrses maigres, a fleurs petites et tres-pale, que nous trouvons assez souvent dans les semis et que je fais detruire autant que possible chez moi, afin de ne pas tromper desagreablement ceux qui achetent des Lilas communs. Voici en quoi le Lilas de Colmar differe du Lilas commun: i° Ses rameaux sont ordinairement plus minces, ses merithalles plus longs; 2° Ses feuilles, plus espacees et moins nombreuses, sont plus minces, plus fortement nervees et moins lisses, plus longuement acuminees, d'un vert moins fonce et moins agreable; 30 Ses thyrses sont plus etroits, moins volumineux, moins multiflores; 40 Son calice est moins court, sa corolle est plus petite, d'un gris bleuatre tres-pale, a tube plus allonge, a divisions plus etroites." After noting the differences in the Lilac Prince Notger Prevost continues: "Ces deux pretendues nouveautes peuvent done etre considerees comme identiques, et constituant la variete la moins fiorifere, la plus pale et la moins agreable de celles que produisent les graines du Lilas commun; variete sans merite et ne valant pas la culture." Prevost states that the persons who sold him his plants were honest and did so in ignorance of their true character, but he adds, " Quant aux charlatans qui les ont nommes et mis dans le commerce, je ne les connais pas et les en felicite, car j'aurais probablement succombe a. la tentation de citer leurs noms." It is of course possible that Prevost did not receive plants which were true to name. J. C. Wister (Nat. Hort. Mag. vi. 14, 1927) cites Colmariensis as a synonym for the Lilac Senateur Volland which was introduced in 1887 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils. Since the former was, according to Prevost, in trade soon after 1840, it is apparent that the two cannot be identical. Moreover Senateur Volland has double flowers and there is every reason to believe that those of Colmariensis were single. 280 THE LILAC Nash (Jour. N. Y. Bot. Gard. xx. 233, 1919) calls this the Colmar Lilac, and Colmar has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (485, 1923)- Apart from the articles by Prevost no description of this Lilac has been found. The Ellwanger and Barry catalogue no. 2, 43 (1867-1868) merely notes: "Very fine glossy foliage; flowers very large." Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Ellwanger and Barry in 1892). Flowers single, small; corolla-lobes cucullate, narrow; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac (xxxvu.); when expanded Hay's Lilac (xxxvu.) without, Light Hyssop Violet marked with Pale Bluish Lavender (xxxvi.) within. Clusters open, widely branched. The pale margins of the corolla-lobes give a slightly variegated appearance to the clusters. Compacta Miller (Bristol Nursery), Cat. 1826, 14, name only, as compacta, or Chinese Lilac. — Horticulture, v. 813 (1907) (Extract from Jour. Hort.; no reference given). In "Horticulture" this is listed under "good varieties in which the fragrance is not so well denned. . ."; it is said to be "single, white." As noted under S. chinensis, the Miller reference cited above may be a wrong classification of that hybrid as identical with S. vulgaris; or possibly it may be a form of S. vulgaris wrongly called Chinese Lilac. I have only found it mentioned in these two references. Comte Adrien de Montebello Lemoine, Cat. no. 176, vn. (1910), "Thyrses volumi- neux, obtus, plus larges que hauts, fleurs grandes, pleines, globuleuses, a. lobes arrondis, lilas azure fonce a centre bleu cendre, revers blanc. Plante tr&s florifere, dont tous les rameaux sont boutonnes." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1910 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 191 2). Flowers double, large; tone pale; color in bud Livid Brown (xxxix.) to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvin.) ; when expanded Purplish Lilac on Light Pinkish Lilac without, Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) within; the flowers appear to be paler without than within. Clusters large, open, widely branched, showy. Comte de Kerchove Lemoine, Cat. no. 143, x. (1899), "Plante dont tous les rameaux sont termines par de larges panicules compactes, fleurs moyennes, rose cendre, port ramasse, floribondite tres grande." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 322. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 382 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1899 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 20, 1905, from plant received from Lemoine in April, 1900; no. 4613-2 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, unsymmetrical, large; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Neutral Red to Deep Hellebore Red to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple or Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) without, Lilac (xxv.) shading to Purplish Lilac (xxxvu.) within. Clusters open, large. SYRINGA VULGARIS 281 Comte de Paris Froebel, Cat. no. 116, 17 (1893), "Grandes panicules de fleurs d'un beau rouge fonce, dans le genre de Charles X., tres belle variete." — Baltet, Cat. 1900- 1901, 28, "Belle panicule, violet pourpre," with single flowers. Only found mentioned by Froebel and by Baltet. Comte Horace de Choiseul Lemoine, Cat. no. 107, vin. (1887), "Thyrses de plus de 20 centimetres, fleurs dans le genre de celles de la variete rubella plena, mais d'un coloris plus fonce et plus rougeatre, tirant sur l'ardoise ou le lie de vin." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 379 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1887 by the ^m °f V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1915; no. 17,369 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, medium size; corolla- lobes rounded or pointed at apex; tone intermediate; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Magenta (xxvi.) ; when expanded Eupatorium Purple marked with Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) without, same within. Clusters open, widely branched, medium size, somewhat variegated in appearance. Comtesse Horace de Choiseul Lemoine, Cat. no. 119, x. (1891), "Plante identique pour son port, la forme de ses fleurs et la grandeur de ses thyrses, a la belle variete Pyra- midal dont elle provient; mais la couleur est d'un blanc porcelaine grisatre avec des reflets roses, et les boutons sont de nuance chair; magnifique variete." — Nicolas in Jardin, ix. 80 (1895). — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 380 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1891 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Dickson in 1892). Flowers double, medium to small in size ; corolla-lobes pointed, opening into a star-shaped flower; tone pale; color in bud Dark Olive-Buff to Olive-Buff (xl.) with a tinge of Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) ; when expanded white tinged with Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvn.) without, same turning to white within. Clusters long, widely branched, well-filled, rather feathery in appearance. Condorcet Lemoine, Cat. no. no, 13 (1888), "Longs thyrses volumineux, reunis par 2 ou 4 fleurs enormes, semi-double, a larges lobes arrondis, bleu ardoise, revers blancs." — Nicolas in Jardin, ix. 80 (1895). — Amer. Florist, xn. 1075, fig. (1897), as Condorset. — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 321. — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1888 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. Garden and Forest (x. 227, 1897) mentions a form Concordat as growing in the Arnold Arboretum; this is probably a misnomer for this form. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 5, 1895, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1889; no. 3450-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers semi- double to double, medium size, unsymmetrical ; corolla-lobes pointed or rounded at apex, narrow or broad; tone intermediate; color in bud Neutral Red to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink to Pale Laelia Pink marked Tourmaline 282 THE LILAC Pink without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxviii.) to Argyle Purple (xxxvii.) marked with white within. Clusters compact, medium size. Congo Lemoine, Cat. no. 134, n (1896), "Fleurs tres larges, thyrses enormes, rouge giroflee vif ; plus rougeatre que Souvenir de Spaeth." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 381 (1907). — Wilson, Aristocrats of the Garden, t. (opp. p. 213) (1917). — Have- meyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1896 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Under the title "' Kongo' eine empfehlenswerte einfachbluhende Treibfiiedersorte " O. Krauss (Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxix. 333, 1914) writes of this form for forcing purposes. Two other short paragraphs follow, written by R. Miiller and P. Ullrich, which deal with the same subject. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 30, 1900, from plant received from Lemoine in April, 1900; no. 461 1-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes broad, cucullate, opening into a symmetrical flower; anthers visible; tone dark to intermediate ; color in bud Indian Lake to Magenta (xxvi.) ; when expanded Argyle Purple with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvii.) without, Magenta (xxvi.) to Bishop's Purple with markings of Saccardo's Violet (xxxvii.) at throat within. Clusters open, large. Corinne Baltet, Cat. 1900-1901, 28, "Panicule tres compacte, rubis lilace vif," as Lilas Corinne. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1900). Flowers single, small; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Rocellin Purple (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Daphne Red to Tourmaline Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, Argyle Purple (xxxvii.) to Daphne Red (xxxviii.) within. Clusters pyramidal, somewhat open, medium size. The flowers suggest those of an old form and their color is interesting. Crampel Lemoine, Cat. no. 143, 24 (1899), " Fleurs enormes, a lobes tout a fait cuculles, lilas bleuatre, centre blanc, dans le genre d'un Phlox Drummondi." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1899 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Mr. E. Lemoine informs me that this was named for Paul Crampel, a French explorer, killed in central Africa. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1900). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes cucullate, broader above the middle, pointed at apex, saucer-shaped; tone pale; color in bud Eupatorium Purple to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Light Pinkish Lilac on white without, Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvii.) with white markings on corolla-lobes and at throat within. Clusters open, showy, handsome. Croix de Brahy C. Morren in Belg. Hort. 1. 419 (1850), "Le thyrse est d'une delicatesse extreme, large du bas, ni effile, ni pendant. Les fleurs plus petites, mais plus mignonnes que celles des types, sont remarquables par leur belle forme, plutot en entonnoir qu'en sous-coupe (hypocraterimorphe) ; le fond du coloris est un rose clair et tendre, mais a chaque extremite des divisions, en haut, se dessine en s'effacant graduellement une belle SYRINGA VULGARIS 283 teinte azuree et le rebord de ces divisions porte un lisere d'un pourpre vif," asLilas Croix de Brahy; iv. 67, t. XL fig. 2 (1854), as Lilas Croix de Brahy. — Gartenflora, 111. 60 (1854). — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864). — Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. viii. 88 (1865). — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 141 (1880), as crux de Brahy and as Lilas commun croix de Brahy. — A. Leroy, Cat. 1887, 26, as Lilas Crux Brahy. — E. Morren and A. De Vos, Index Bibliog. Hort. Belg. 555 (1887). Morren states that this was obtained by Brahy-Ekenholm, an amateur grower of Herstal, near Liege, Belgium, by crossing Charles X. and Noisette [= Noisettiana alba]. He waited three years to assure himself that the form was fixed and in 1853 gave it for propagation and distribution to Augustin Wilhelm, a nurseryman of Clausen, Luxemburg, Belgium. [K. Koch] (Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xn. 43, 1869) writes: "Endlich nennen wir die neueren Sorten Croix de Brahy und Victoria, wo die rosafarbenen Bluthen sich durch einen weissen Stern auszeichnen." Doubtless the form Croix de Broby listed by Ellwanger and Barry (Cat. no. 2, 43, 1867-1868) and by Parsons (Cat. 1889, 49) is a misnomer. It seems probable also that the form Gloire de Brahy listed by Froebel (Cat. no. 112, 22 [cir. 1890]) and described as "Lilarosa, grossdoldig" is the same. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 4, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 3003-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, small to medium in size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate on first expanding only; anthers hidden; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Neutral Red to Eupatorium Purple to Laelia Pink (xxxvm.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink (xxxvui.) without, Argyle Purple streaked with Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) on center of corolla-lobes within. Clusters compact, conical, medium size. D'Alger Dauthenay in Rev. Hort. 1898, 58, name only. Mentioned in a list of Common Lilac forms growing in the collection of Mons. Abel Chatenay at Vitry-sur-Seine, France. Dame Blanche Lemoine, Cat. no. 155, 29 (1903), "Thyrses tres divises, 5-6 grappes, fleurs blanches a 2 ou 3 corolles, boutons paille." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917)- Introduced in 1903 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Lemoine in 1905; no. 51 18 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, hose-in-hose, with 2 or 3 corollas, large; corolla-lobes broad, pointed at apex, sometimes slightly cucullate; color in bud Chalcedony Yellow to Pale Chalcedony Yellow (xvn.); when expanded white. Clusters well-filled, narrow- pyramidal, medium to large. Small leaves are frequently present at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescence. Danton Lemoine, Cat. no. 179, 5 (191 1), "Thyrses larges et compacts, fleurs enormes, rondes, lie de vin pourpre, c'est une des varietes les plus rouges qui existent." — Have- meyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). — Wister in House and Garden, March, 1926, 172. Introduced in 191 1 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. 284 THE LILAC Wister mentions this form as a weak grower and says he does not recommend it. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1916). Flowers single, extra large, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate, curling backward; tone dark; color in bud Auricula Purple (xxvi.);when expanded Magenta with occasional margins of Liseran Purple without, Magenta to Dull Magenta Purple (xxvi.) within. Clusters narrow, conical, open, medium to large. Darimonti Van Houtte, Cat. no. 165-LL, 18 (1875-1876), name only. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 141 (1880), and as Lilas commun de Darimont, name only. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1886-1887, 58, name only. — D6trich6, Cat. 1893-1894, 16, name only. Dr. Darimont is said to have been the producer of the Lilac Dr. Lindley. E. Morren (Belg. Hort. xxvni. 175, 1878) notes that a Mons. Libert-Darimont originated the form Azurea plena while C. Morren (Clusia, 173, 1852-1854) refers to its producer as Libert, a horticulturist of Liege, Belgium. All these names probably apply to the same individual. Possibly the Lilac Darimonti was named in honor of this grower, or it may have been used as a corresponding name for one of the plants originating with him. Dark Blue Transon, Cat. 1875-1876, 49, as Syringa dark blue, name only; 1880-1881, 66, as Syringa Dark blue, name only. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), name only, as Dark Blue and as Lilas commun Dark bleu. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1886-1887, 58, name only. — Spath, Cat. no. 76, 122 (1889-1890), "Bl. gross, hellblau, Rispe lang, locker." — Waterer, Cat. [cir. 1893], 31. It is not stated whether the flowers are single or double. See Additions. Decaisne Lemoine, Cat. no. 176, 31 (1910), "Thyrses moyens, fleurs bleu azure clair, plante tres florifere et boutonnant facilement." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917)- Introduced in 1 910 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1914). Flowers single, large; corolla-tube slender; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xxrv.) to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvin.) ; when expanded Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac on Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvu.) without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvin.) to Argyle Purple (xxxvu.) within. Clusters somewhat pyramidal, open, medium to large. Decorative Farr, Cat. "Better Plants," 1922-1923, 58, name only. "The Plant Buyers Index" (94, 1927) notes such a form as for sale by the Blue Hill Nurseries, South Braintree, Mass. Unknown to me. De Croncels L. Leroy, Cat. 1876, 72, as Syringa de Croncels, name only. — Transon, Cat. 1876-1877, 55, as Gloire de Croncels, name only. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880), "Nouvelle variete a thyrse tres-volumineux; fleurs large, d'un rouge carmin nuance de pourpre." — Mohr in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. vn. 84 (1882), ". . . excellente variete Lilas de Croncels, si riche et si parfume." — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), as Gloire de Croncels. — L. Henry in Jardin, vm. 175 (1894), "Fleurs relativement tres larges, rouges purpurin vif avec centre ardoise; boutons rouge carmine. Thyrses grands SYRINGA VULGARIS 285 et bien degages. Tres belle variete, bien distincte." — Van Geert, Cat. no. 169, 44 (1896), as Gloire de Croncels. — Dauthenay in Rev. Hort. 1898, 58, as Gloire de Croncels. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1900-1901, 67, "Lilas rougeatre," with single flowers. — Morel, Cat. 1906-1907, 88 (mentioned under rose or flesh colored varieties), as Gloire de Cron- cels. — Farr, Cat. "Hardy Plants, " [cir. 1913], 66, "Large panicles; bright red in bud; ex- panding lilac-red," with single flowers, as Gloire de Croncels. — Turbat, Cat. 1923-1924, 84, "Red," with single flowers, as Croncels. Lemoine (Cat. no. 88, 24, 1881) attributes the form which he calls De Croncels to Baltet, as does Mohr (1. c). The Baltet nurseries are at Troyes (Aube), France. They were sometimes called the Grandes Pepinieres de Croncels. Mr. E. Lemoine wrote me on January 15, 1925, of the form De Croncels: "Evidemment le meme que Gloire de Croncels. Croncels est un faulbourg de Troyes ou se trouvent les pepinieres Baltet." Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Farquhar in 191 7; listed as Gloire de Courcels). Flowers single, medium size, unsymmetrical; tone inter- mediate; color in bud Deep Brownish Vinaceous (xxxix.) to Rocellin Purple with corolla- tube Eupatorium Purple (xxxvin.) ; when expanded Laelia Pink with margins of Pale Laelia Pink without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvin.) within. Clusters open, pyramidal. De Humboldt Lemoine, Cat. no. 122, 15 (1892), "Thyrses tres volumineux, fleurs enormes, tr&s pleines, rose violace purpurin." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917)- Introduced in 1892 by the firm of V. Lemoine et flls, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1891. See Banquise for the explanation of this difference in dates. Humboldt has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (486, 1923). The form Alexander Humboldt which they also list is unknown to me. A plant of the name growing in the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., which was re- ceived from Lemoine in 1900, proved to be identical with De Humboldt as it grows in the Arnold Arboretum. Alexandre de Humboldt, listed as a name only by Transon (Cat. 1894-1895, 93), with single flowers, is probably the same. As 5. vulgaris Alexander von Humboldt, " rosaviolett, starkgefullt, " it appears in the catalogue, Gra.fl. zur Lippe'schen Baumschulen zu Dauban (1909, 43). Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken in June, 1900, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1895; no. 3814-2 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, unsymmetrical, large, hose-in-hose, with stout buds; tone intermediate; color in bud Dahlia Carmine (xxvi.) to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvin.) ; when expanded Eupatori- um Purple to Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) without, Chinese Violet to Lilac (xxv.) within. Clusters long, narrow, open, symmetrically filled. De Jussieu Lemoine, Cat. no. 119, 13 (1891), "Thyrses compacts et allonges, fleurs pleines, globuleuses, lilas bleuatre borde rose, boutons rouge." — Nicolas in Jardin, ix. 80 (1895). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917), as Dr. Jussieu. Introduced in 1891 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1890. See Banquise for the explanation of this difference in dates. 286 THE LILAC Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1900). Flowers double, medium size; corolla-lobes unsymmetrical, broad or narrow; tone inter- mediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Eupatorium Purple to Tour- maline Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Laelia Pink or Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, Lilac or Mauvette or white marked with Light Lavender- Violet (xxv.) within. Clusters dense, pyramidal, medium size. Delepine William R. Prince, Cat. 1856-1857, 44, name only, as Syringa Dehpine, Lilac Delepine. — Van Houtte, Cat. no. 117, 12 (1867), name only; no. 165-LL, 18 (1875-1876), as Delepine, name only. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), as Delepine, name only. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1887-1888, 58, name only; 1900-1901, 67, "lilas bleuatre, " with single flowers. — A. Leroy, Cat. 1887, 26, as Syringa, Lilas, Delepine. — Grosdemange in Jardin, vin. 119 (1894), "violet a reflet bleuatre," with single flowers, as Delepine. — Soc. Anonyme Hort. Calmpthout, Cat. no. 4, 45 (1902-1903), as De Lepine. Grosdemange mentions this form as exhibited by Simon-Louis Freres at the Societe nationale d'Horticulture de France on April 26, 1894. Mons. Kort, President of the Societe Anonyme Horticole de Calmpthout (successors to the Van Geert nurseries), wrote me on November 3, 1924, that this Lilac has single flowers, "rouge violace devenant tres fonce, fleur moyenne." De Louvain Dauvesse, Cat. no. 20, 24 (1855), as Lilas de Louvain, name only; no. 24, 42 (1859), as Syringa De Louvain, De Louvain Lilac, name only. — Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 42 (1867-1868), "a very fine variety; a profuse bloomer; flowers light purple, very distinct," as Lilac, Syringa, De Louvain; 1900, 88, fig., "Flowers single, silvery pink, a distinct and beautiful shade; panicles large and very erect, showing off the individual flowers to good advantage," as Lovaniensis. — Van Houtte, Cat. no. 117, 12 (1867), as Lovaniensis; no. 225-L, 43 (1887-1888), as Lovanensis. — Ellwanger in Horticulturist, 1875, 98, "A strong grower and profuse bloomer; flowers light purple and very distinct." — Transon, Cat. 1880-1881, 66, as Syringa Lavanensis. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880), " Variete bien distincte par ses fleurs rose came passant au blanc," as Lilas commun de Louvain and as Lovanensis. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), as L ovanens is. — Spath, Cat. no. 69, 115 (1887-1888), as Lovaniensis. — L. Henry in Jardin, vm. 175 (1894), "Fleurs mauve rose clair, coloris tres frais, palissant et devenant presque blanc a la fin de la floraison," with single flowers, as De Louvain (Lovanensis). — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1900-1901, 67, "carne," with single flowers, as Lovanensis. — Dunbar in Gard. Mag. 1. 233 (1905), "silvery pink," with single flowers, as Lovaniensis. — Muskauer Baumschulen, Haupt-Katalog, 1910, 37, as Louvainiensis Hort. — Felix and Dykhuis, Cat. [cir. 1925], 26, "s" [= einfach = single], "zart lila, " as Syringa, Flieder, Lavoniensis. L. Henry (Jardin, vm. 174, 1894) objects to the confusion caused by the use in nursery catalogues of Latin titles without specific name; among such he cites Lovanensis. Louvain has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (486, 1923). Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June, 1900, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2929-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, SYRINGA VULGARIS 287 medium size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers visible but not prominent; tone pale ; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac to Light Vinaceous- Lilac (xliv.) ; when expanded Laelia Pink with margins of Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) without, Pale Lilac tinged with Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvii.) within. Clusters large, open, somewhat conical, numerous. De Miribel Lemoine, Cat. no. 155, 31 (1903), "Grands thyrses allonges et serres, fleurs moyennes, violet bleuatre, revers blanchatres." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1903 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Lemoine in 1905; no. 5123 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, symmetrical, medium to large; corolla-lobes broad, rounded at apex; tone dark; color in bud, corolla-lobes Dahlia Carmine (xxvi.) to Light Perilla Purple (xxxvii.), corolla- tube Manganese Violet (xxv.); when expanded, corolla- tube same, corolla-lobes Argyle Purple with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvii.) without, Manganese Violet shaded with Chinese Violet (xxv.) within. Clusters medium to large, open, narrow. De Saussure Lemoine, Cat. no. 152, 32 (1902), "Thyrses nombreux, fleurs moyennes, pleines, rouge violace purpurin, boutons rouge pourpre, revers mauve clair." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 324. — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1902 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1905). Flowers double, large; corolla-lobes sometimes opening at a right angle to corolla-tube, sometimes twisted or curling inward; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine (xxvr.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple with margins of Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) without, Bishop's Purple (xxxvii.) marked with Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) or white on inner corolla- lobes within. Clusters long, pyramidal, well-filled, showy and somewhat variegated in appearance. Desfontaines Lemoine, Cat. no. 164, 28 (1906), "Grands thyrses compacts, fleurs moyennes a. deux ou trois corolles emboitees, lilas mauve, teinte violette de Parme." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1906 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1905. See Banquise for the explanation of this difference in dates. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1913; no 17,580 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, large; corolla-lobes opening at a right angle to corolla-tube, outer lobes broad, inner lobes narrow, pointed at apex; tone intermediate; color in bud Neutral Red to Deep Hellebore Red to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.) ; when expanded Chinese Violet to Lilac (xxv.) or Light Lobelia Violet within, Argyle Purple to Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvii.) without. Clusters open, large. Deuil d'Emile Galle Lemoine, Cat. no. 158, vni. (1904), "Gros thyrses compacts, formes de trois ou quatre rameaux, fleurs enormes, doubles ou pleines, a. larges lobes 288 THE LILAC ronds, imbriques et cuculles, mauve carmine teinte d'analine, boutons purpurins." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 321. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 383 (1907). — Havemeyerin Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1904 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Lemoine in November, 1905; no. 5127 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, large; corolla-lobes rounded or pointed at apex; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Hellebore Red to Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) ; when expanded, the outer corolla Tourmaline Pink with margins of Pale Laelia Pink without, the inner corolla Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) or white with- out, Light Lavender- Violet or Light Mauve (xxv.) marked with much white within. Clusters open, interrupted, large. There is a noticeable contrast between the dark buds and the paler open flowers, as well as, when the flowers are expanded, between the dark outer and the pale inner corollas. Diderot Lemoine, Cat. no. 189, 22 (1915), "Enormous erect panicles, 1 foot long, large round flowers, claret purple, very free." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). — Duffy in Garden and Home Builder, May, 1927, fig. (p. 258), 310. See Plate cxxv. Introduced in 191 5 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in October, 1918; no. 7914 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, extra large; corolla- lobes cucullate with pronouncedly raised margins forming a small pocket; anthers visible; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Magenta (xxvi.); when expanded Light Perilla Purple with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvii.) without, Dull Magenta Purple (xxvi.) to Bishop's Purple (xxxvii.) within, solid colors. Clusters extra long, narrow, interrupted. A fine example of the modern showy, single-flowered, dark Lilac. The flowers appear to be darker within than without and leaves are often present at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescence. It blooms somewhat late. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 189. Dr. Charles Jacobs Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Cat. [1908], 2, "Tres grands thyrses allonges, rouge lie-de-vin. Arbuste de croissance vigoureuse dont les jeunes sujets boutonnent des les premieres annees de culture. Cette variete peut etre considered comme de tout premier ordre," as Docteur Charles Jacobs. — De Corte in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. xxxiv. 207 (1908). — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxni. 351 (1908), as Docteur Charles Jacobs. Introduced in 1908 by the firm of Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Brussels, Belgium; their catalogue states that this was a seedling resulting from a cross between the forms Dr. Lindley and Marie Legraye. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Stepman-De Messemaeker in 1914). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Schoenfeld's Purple (xxvi.) ; when expanded Magenta with margins of Liseran Purple without, Dull Magenta Purple (xxvi.) within. Clusters long, open. The pale margins of the lobes give a variegated appearance to the clusters. SYRINGA VULGARIS 289 Dr. Lindley Van Houtte in Fl. Serres, xiv. 237, t. 1481, t. 1482 (1861), "Void le plus beau des Lilas; ses magnifiques thyrses tres-denses, d'un purpurin brillant, depassant ceux de toutes les varietes connues, tant sous le point de vue de volume, des dimensions hors ligne de ces gigantesques bouquets, que sous celui de la perfection dans la forme des corolles, " as Lindleyi and as Lilas du Dr. Lindley. — A. Leroy, Cat. 1865, 100, as Syringa Lindleyana and as Lilas de Lindley. — Horticulturist, 1874, 265. — L. Leroy, Cat. 1876, 72, as Syringa lindleyana. — Ottolander in Sieboldia, 11. 187 (1876). — Wiener Obst-Garten-Zeit. 1. 564 (1876). — Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1877, 359, as Docteur Lindley. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), as Lindleyana and as Lilas commun docteur Lindley. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 77 (1885). — E. Morren and A. De Vos, Index Bibliog. Hort. Belg. 556 (1887), as Lindleyi. — L. Henry in Jardin, vin. 175 (1894), as Docteur Lindley; in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 733 (1901), as Docteur Lindley. — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896), as Doctor Lindley. Since the name Dr. Lindley is commonly used in referring to this form, to avoid con- fusion it has here been retained rather than the Latinized name Lindleyi used also by Van Houtte. Van Houtte states that this is a seedling obtained by Dr. Darimont [probably the Dr. Libert-Darimont who is said to have produced the form Azurea plena] and put in the market by the Van Houtte firm about 1859. Carriere writes later, apparently in igno- rance of this statement, that the origin of this Lilac is unknown; he thinks it is probably English and imported by Makoy of Liege, Belgium, a long time previous to the date at which he writes. He believes that it was Bertin the elder of Versailles who first intro- duced it to France, about 1864. The two plants whose descriptions follow both bear this name but are not the same in appearance and I am uncertain which is true to name. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 7, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2975-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, symmetrical, medium to large in size; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Daphne Red to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvin.); when expanded Tour- maline Pink to Laelia Pink marked with Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) on margins without, Lilac (xxv.) within. Clusters compact, medium size. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Ellwanger and Barry in 1892). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes cucullate, rounded at apex, sym- metrical; tone intermediate; color in bud Magenta (xxvi.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple to Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) without, Rose Purple marked with Pale Rose Purple (xxvi.) within. Clusters compact, pyramidal, medium size. The flowers appear to be darker without than within. Dr. Lyals Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 486 (1923), name only. A plant bearing this name was received at the Arnold Arboretum from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in February, 1885, but has since disappeared. Mr. Rehder tells me that he based his list of Lilacs, used by Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in the compilation of the "Standardized Plant Names" list, in part upon the Arnold Arboretum catalogue. I have found no mention of such a form elsewhere. 290 THE LILAC Dr. Maillot Lemoine, Cat. no. 131, 12 (1895), "Lilas bleuatre clair, genre de President Carnot." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1895 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from grafts made February 13, 1897, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1895; no. 3805-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, medium to large in size, with 2 corollas and additional lobes at throat; corolla- lobes broad, rounded, or pointed at apex, opening at a right angle to corolla-tube into a round flower; tone pale; color in bud Vinaceous-Lilac to Light Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) without, Mauvette (xxv.) turning to white within. Clusters long, narrow, interrupted, showy. A some- what late bloomer. Dr. Masters Lemoine, Cat. no. 140, x. (1898), "Thyrses longs de 30 centimetres, fleurs d'une grande legerete, parfaitement rondes, doubles, couleur lilacee, plus claire au centre." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 321, fig. 132. — Moller's Deutsch.Gartn. -Zeit. xxii. 381 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1898 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken in June, 1900, from plant received from Lemoine in April, 1900; no. 4605-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double to semi-double, medium to large in size; corolla-lobes broad or narrow, pointed at apex; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Hellebore Red to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded, the outer corolla Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.), the inner corolla white without, white tinged with Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) within. Clusters long, narrow, open, showy. Dr. Nobbe Hort. according to Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 560 (1875), "Bliithen gross, von dem Bau der Bliithen des vorigen [Professor Stoeckhardt] zart-rosalila, mit weisslicher Sternzeichnung, in grossen, compakten Straussen von der Form der Rispen des Marly-Flieders. Von demselben Zuchter [Moritz Eichler of Chem- nitz]," as Doctor Nobbe Hort., and as Nobbe-Flieder. — Ottolander in Sieboldia, n. 187 (1876). — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), as doctor Nobbe and as Lilas commun docteur Nobbe. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1886- 1887, 58, as Docteur Nobbe. — Spath, Cat. no. 68, 114 (1887-1888), "helllila, fruhbl., sehr voll, Rispe kurz," as Docteur Nobbe. — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 380 (1892), as Doctor Nobbe. See Additions. It seems probable that this and the form Dr. Noble were originally the same but the descriptions are so slight as to be worthless for purposes of identification. However, the Lilac Dr. Nobbe as grown in the Arnold Arboretum is not the same as the Dr. Noble of the Rochester collection. See Dr. Noble. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 7, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2942-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, small, symmetrical; corolla-lobes rounded at apex, cucullate; anthers visible but not conspicuous; tone pale; color in bud Light Russet-Vinaceous to Light Purplish- Vinaceous (xxxix.) to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, SYRINGA VULGARIS 291 white tinged with Pale Mauve (xxv.) within. Clusters open, abruptly pyramidal, medium to large, symmetrical. A form of Dr. Nobbe with variegated leaves is listed by Baudriller (Cat. no. 43, 142, 1880) as S. vulgaris doctor Nobbe foliis maculatis and as Lilas commun docteur Nobbe a. feuilles maculees, "Feuilles completement maculees et poudrees; panachure bien constante, resistant parfaitement au soleil." Dr. Noble Dauvesse, Cat. no. 36, 46 (1872), as Lilas docteur noble, name only. — A. Waterer, Cat. 1872-1873, 36, name only. — Transon, Cat. 1887-1888, 77, name only, as Syringa Docteur Noble, name only. — Van Houtte, Cat. no. 225-L, 43 (1887), name only. — A. Leroy, Cat. 1887, 26, name only. — Van Geert, Cat. no. 169, 44 (1896), name only, as Docteur Noble. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1897-1898, 66, as Docteur Noble, with single flowers; 1900-1901, 67, "lilas fonce," with single flowers, as Docteur Noble. It seems probable that this and the form Dr. Nobbe are the same although the descrip- tions of both are so slight as to be worthless for purposes of identification. See the form Dr. Nobbe. See Additions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Dickson in 1892). Flowers single, small; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone pale; color in bud Light Russet- Vinace- ous (xxxrx.) to Laelia Pink (xxxviu..); when expanded Purplish Lilac with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvu.) without, Light Mauve marked with Pale Mauve (xxv.) within. Clusters open, medium to large in size. The pale margins give a somewhat variegated appearance to the clusters. Simon-Louis notes that this form is " lilas fonce " ; if this is correct the Rochester plant which is pale in tone is not true to name. Dr. Troyanowsky Lemoine, Cat. 149, vin. (1901), "Enormes panicules, plus larges que hautes, formant des touffes elegantes de fleurs bien degagees les unes des autres; celles-ci sont doubles ou pleines, en forme de jacinthe, d'une mauve bleuatre passant au lilas azuree." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 321. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 382 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1901 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. in November, 1920; no. 10,588 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, unsymmetrical, medium to large; corolla-lobes narrow or broad, twisted; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when expanded, the outer corolla Argyle Purple, the inner corolla Light Pinkish Lilac without, Lobelia Violet to Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) often tinged at throat Lavender- Violet (xxv.) within. Clusters broad, full. Dr. von Regel Spath, Cat. 1883, 2, "Rispen sehr gross, freistehend, Knospen hellrot, Blumen innen schon hrmmelblau, in voller Bliithe bedeutend mehr blau als Syringa Eckenholm. Rispe freistehend." — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), as Dr. Regel. — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896), as Doctor von Regel. Introduced in 1883 by the firm of L. Spath, Berlin, Germany, and one of their produc- tions; according to information supplied me by that firm in January, 1924, it was a chance seedling. The firm kindly sent me the first description in July, 1924. 292 THE LILAC Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 15, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2936-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, symmetrical, medium size; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers conspicuous; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Hellebore Red to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Pale Laelia Pink with margins of white without, Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) marked with much white within. Clusters compact, medium size. Doyen Keteleer Lemoine, Cat. no. 131, x. (1895), "Thyrses gros, compacts et longs, fleurs irregulieres, rose giroflee pale; tres florifere. Cette variete qui se prete au forcage presente les thyrses les plus volumineux." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 324. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 380 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1895 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Mr. E. Lemoine informs me that this was named for the horticulturist Keteleer of the firm of Thibaut and Keteleer of Sceaux, Seine, France, who died at an advanced age, — hence the designation Doyen. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from grafts made February 13, 1897, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1895; no. 3816-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, unsymmetrical, medium to large; corolla-lobes pointed at apex, broad or narrow; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when expanded Lilac to Pale Lavender- Violet (xxv.) to Pale Lobelia Violet within, Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) without. Clusters compact, long, narrow. Due de Massa Lemoine, Cat. no. 161, vin. (1905), "Thyrses moyens, serres, droits, a 3 ou 4 branches, fleurs enormes, rondes, regulieres, imbriquees, violet clair a reflets purpurins, gros boutons pourpre." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 383 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). See Plate cxxxi. Introduced in 1905 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. in October, 1918; no. 7195 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, extra large, with two corollas and additional lobes at throat; corolla-lobes broad, pointed at apex, opening into a saucer-shaped flower; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.); when expanded, corolla-tube Lobelia Violet, corolla-lobes Lobelia Violet within, Argyle Purple (xxxvu.) marked with white without. Clusters large, broadly pyramidal, well-filled, with spreading subdivisions, showy, handsome. The flowers are somewhat globular in shape at first, then saucer-shaped, later the corolla-lobes open at a right angle to the corolla-tube and the flower looks rather flat. Occasionally they are single. A somewhat late-flowering form. Due d'Orleans Hort. according to Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864), name only. — Van Geert, Cat. no. 169, 44 (1896), name only. In a letter of November 3, 1924, Mr. Kort, President of the Societe Anonyme Horticole de Calmpthout, successors to Van Geert, wrote me that this form has single flowers, "Rose pale, fleur moyenne." SYRINGA VULGARIS 293 Duchesse de Brabant Duvivier in Jour. Hort. Pratique Belgique, ser. 2, v. 241, t. xrx. fig. 2 (1861), as Lilas Duchesse de Brabant. — E. Morren and A. De Vos, Index. Bibliog. Hort. Belg. 556 (1887). According to Duvivier this was produced by the amateur Brahy-Ekenholm, and from the same crossings which produced the forms Croix de Brahy, Ekenholm, "d'azur a fleur double" [= Azurea plena], Charlemagne and Princesse Camille de Rohan. They were the result of crossing the Lilacs Charles X. and Noisette [= Noisettiana alba]. The colored plate was painted by Ed. Van Mark of Liege. Duvivier tells us that it was raised from seed sown in 1852 and first flowered in i860 at which time it received a "medaille de vermeil" from the Societe royale des Conferences horticoles of Liege, but has never before been described or figured ; a special commission of this Society gave it its name. Duvivier describes it thus: "Le port et le feuillage du Lilas Duchesse de Brabant n'oflrent rien de remarquable; ils sont ceux du Lilas ordinaire. Le thyrse, delicat et d'une forme conique allongee, est mieux fourni que celui du Lilas Louise-Marie; les fleurs ont le tube regulier et le limbe parf aitement dessine ; les divisions de celui-ci, aigues a leur extremite, sont fort peu recourbees sur les bords, ce qui le distingue du Lilas Eken- holm, dont il se rapproche d'ailleurs sous plusieurs rapports. Le colons est un lilas rose clair, avec une legere teinte blanchatre qui contribue puissamment a lui donner un cachet de distinction tout particulier. . . ." I have found no other mention of this form except in the "Index Bibliographique de l'Hortus Belgicus" of E. Morren and A. De Vos, which is a "Catalogue methodique des plantes ornementales qui ont ete decrites, figurees ou introduites en Belgique de 1830 a 1880." Duchesse de Nemours Oudin, Cat. 1845-1846, 6, name only, as Lilas duchesse de Nemours. — Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 42 (1867-1868), "Very light purple, distinct, fine." — Baumann, Cat. no. 159, 38 (1879). — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880). — Parsons, Cat. 1889, 49. J. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) mentions this form, as a name only, under his S. vulgaris q. hybrida hort., od[er] Ambfroise] Verschaflelt. Duchesse d'Orleans Oudin, Cat. 1845-1846, 6, name only, as Lilas duchesse d'Or- leans. — Van Houtte, Cat. no. 117, 12 (1867), name only. — Baumann, Cat. no. 159, 38 (1879), name only. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), name only. — Dauvesse, Cat. no. 56, 22 (1892), name only. — E. M. in Garden, Lxxvn. 217 (1913) "Is quite a new light blue," with single flowers. If the Lilac mentioned in "The Garden" is the same as that listed by Oudin it is certainly not a new form. J. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) mentions this form, as a name only, under his S. vulgaris q. hybrida hort., od[er] Amb[roise] Verschaflelt. Duplex O. Kuntze, Taschen-Fl. Leipzig, 82 (1867), "Bth. monstros mit 2 Blkr." Probably scarcely different from the form Plena. Not to be confused with S. ckinensis f. duplex, first introduced by Lemoine (Cat. no. 134, rx. 1896) as Syringa Varina Duplex. 294 THE LILAC Eburonensis Van Houtte, Cat. no. 165-LL, 18 (1875-1876), name only. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), name only. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1910-1911, 54, "Lilas rose," with single flowers. Mr. E. Lemoine wrote me on January 16, 1925: "Les Eburons etaient un peuple de la Gaule Belgique, habitant les bords de la Meuse, dans la region de Liege. Un certain nombre de Lilas ont ete obtenus a Liege." L. Henry (Jardin, viii. 174, 1894) objects to the confusion caused by the use in nursery catalogues of Latin titles without specific name; among those so used he mentions Eburo- nensis. Edith Cavell Lemoine, Cat. no. 190, 24 (1916), "Big pyramidal thyrses, large regular imbricated flowers, pure milk white, buds suffused cream and pale sulphur." — Have- meyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 191 6 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1918; no. 7916 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, extra large; corolla- lobes long, narrow, expanding to a right angle with corolla-tube or curling, occasionally broad, pointed or rounded at apex; color in bud Dull Green- Yellow to Chalcedony Yellow to Light Chalcedony Yellow (xvn.); when expanded white. Clusters open, spreading, long or extra long, showy. Leaves are frequently present at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescence. A fine double-flowered white Lilac. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 190. Edmond About Lemoine, Cat. no. 170, vm. (1908), "Vari6te extremement florifere; dont tous les rameaux sont termines des la taille de 80 centimetres par de gros bouquets serres de fleurs pleines, a lobes arrondis et imbriques, lilas mauve tendre, boutons mauve." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1908 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1910). Flowers semi-double or double, unsymmetrical, large; tone pale; color in bud Light Vinaceous-Drab (xlv.) to Purplish Lilac to Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvri.); when ex- panded Light Pinkish Lilac tinged with Purplish Lilac without, Pale Lobelia Violet tinged with Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) with occasional markings of white on corolla- lobes and at throat within. Clusters dense, large, broad-pyramidal. Edmond Boissier Lemoine, Cat. no. 164, 30 (1906), "Thyrses tres volumineux, larges fleurs violet petunia fonce, passant au violet metallique; c'est un des Lilas les plus fonces." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1906 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1905. See Banquise for the explanation of this difference in dates. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in 1913; no. 15,657 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, unsymmetrical, extra large; corolla-tube short; corolla-lobes narrow or broad, pointed or rounded at apex, occa- sionally cucullate; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Magenta (xxvi.); when SYRINGA VULGARIS 295 expanded Light Perilla Purple with margins of Purplish Lilac (xxxvu.) without, Dull Magenta Purple (xxvi.) to Chinese Violet (xxv.) with occasional margins of Liseran Purple (xxvi.) within. Clusters long, open, broad-pyramidal, large. Edouard Andre Lemoine, Cat. no. 146, xi. (1900), "Thyrses larges, fleurs irregulieres, rose tendre, boutons plus fonces, variete hative." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 323. — Grignan in Rev. Hort. 1907, 14, t. fig. 2. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 382 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). — Kache in Gartenschonheit, v. t. (opp. p. 81) (1924). Introduced in 1900 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1907). Flowers double, hose-in-hose, medium size; corolla-lobes pointed, tone pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvrn.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink without, Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) to white within; the flowers appear to be paler within than without. Clusters open, pyramidal, much branched. Ekenholm C. Morren in Belg. Hort. iv. 67, t. xi. fig. 1 (1854), "Le thyrse est long, haut, fourni, produisant souvent a la base des thyrses supplementaires au nombre de cinq, ce qui donne alors une inflorescence d'une richesse et d'une magnificence telles qu'un seul bout de branche devient a lui seul un bouquet. Les fleurs se pressent sur ce thyrse sans se deformer; leur tube est regulier et leur limbe parfaitement dessine. Les divisions sont arrondies a. leur extremite, en forme de cuilleres relevees sur les bords en faisant la navicule ou le batelet. Le coloris est un lilas azure des plus delicats, chatoyant d'une teinte de rose et imitant ces soieries appelees vulgairement gorges de pigeon. La gorge ou entree du tube est plus foncee. Le parfum de cette plante est d'une suavite extra- ordinaire," as Lilas Ekenholm. — Gartenflora, m. 60 (1854). — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864), as Eckenholm. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 42, 142 (1880). — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — E. Morren and A. De Vos, Index Bibliog. Hort. Belg. 555 (1887). C. Morren states that this was obtained by Brahy-Ekenholm, an amateur grower of Herstal, near Liege, Belgium, and named for Madame Brahy whose maiden name was Ekenholm. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Spath in 1892). Flowers single, medium size; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.) without, same with margin's of white on corolla-lobes within. Clusters medium size, well-filled, pyramidal. The white margins give a somewhat variegated appearance to the clusters. Elihu Root Dunbar, Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers semi-double, i3/i6 inches across, azure lavender, cluster dense, late." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 334 Dunbar) of Gilbert, named by him in 1923. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers double, large, with two corollas and additional lobes at throat; corolla-lobes broad, pointed at apex, curling 296 THE LILAC inward; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Light Perilla Purple (xxxvn.) to Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac to Pale Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) without, Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.) within. Clusters narrow, pyramidal. Emile Gentil Lemoine, Cat. no. 189, 22 (1915), "Good thyrses of large, full, and imbricated flowers, bright cobalt blue, a very rare shade among lilacs." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 191 5 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. in May, 1923; no. 11,843 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, extra large; corolla-tube short, stout; corolla-lobes broad, pointed at apex, or occasionally rounded, expanding at a right angle to corolla-tube into a round flower; tone pale; color in bud, corolla- tuba Dark Lavender to Light Vinaceous-Purple to Deep Vinaceous-Lavender (xliv.), corolla- lobes Purple-Drab (xlv.); when expanded Dull Lavender (xliv.) to white without, Light Dull Bluish Violet to Deep Lavender (xxxvi.) marked with white at throat and on corolla-lobes within. Clusters dense, broadly pyramidal, short, showy. The corolla- lobes have a somewhat streaked appearance. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 189. Emile Lemoine Lemoine, Cat. no. 113, xix. (1889), "Bouquets formes normalement de 4 a 6 thyrses roses reunies et divergents, leur donnant une largeur de 25 centimetres au moins, fleurs bien grandes, d'une belle forme globuleuse, couleur extremement tendre, d'un beau rose lilace de jacinthe." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 322. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 379 (1907). — Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. 1908, 59, t.; 1900, 87, fig. (p. 86). — Barry in Horticulture, x. 499, fig. (1909). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 i1^)- Introduced in 1889 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 5, 1895, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1889; no. 3452-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, medium size; corolla-lobes broad, rounded or pointed at apex, curling inward; tone pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) without, Mauvette (xxv.) to Pale Lobelia Violet tinged with Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.) within. Clusters pyramidal, widely branched, open, large. Emil Liebig Spath, Cat. no. 69, 4 (1887-1888), "Mit sehr breiten und schon gebauten Rispen. Knospen dunkelviolettrosa im Aufbliihen heller. Centrum in's Blauliche ubergehend. Spitzen der Blumenblatter ein lebhaftes Aussehen. Geruchmandelartig." — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896). Introduced in 1887 by the firm of L. Spath, Berlin, Germany, and one of their produc- tions; according to information kindly supplied me by the firm in January, 1924, this was a chance seedling. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June n, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2998-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, SYRINGA VULGARIS 297 medium to small in size ; tone intermediate to pale ; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.); when expanded Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.). Clusters compact, small. Erzherzog Johann Hort. according to Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864), "Rispe sehr grossblumig, lilaroth; Blumen mittelgross, stark gerundet." — Jager, Ziergeholze, 530 (1865). — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — Spath, Cat. no. 79, in (1890-1891), "hell-lila-rosa." — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 380 (1892). Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Spath in 1892). Flowers single, small; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone pale; color in bud, corolla-tube Deep Dull Lavender (xliv.), corolla-lobes Grayish Olive (xlvi.) ; when expanded Dull Lavender (xliv.) without, Light Lobelia Violet with markings of Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvti.) within. Clusters open, broadly pyramidal. Etna Lemoine, Cat. no. 200 bis, 7 (1927), "Broad panicles of medium-sized regular flowers, deep claret purple, late; probably the most approaching to red," with single flowers. Introduced in 1927 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 200 bis. Etoile de mai Lemoine, Cat. no. 161, 29 (1905), "Thyrses moyens, fleurs grosses, demiglobuleuses, cocardeau violet a. revers blancs, produisant l'effet d'une panachure." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 324. — Grignan in Rev. Hort. 1907, 15, fig. 3, t. fig. 1. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxh. 383 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917)- Introduced in 1905 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1904. See Banquise for the explanation of this difference in dates. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1907). Flowers double, hose-in-hose, large; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Schoen- feld's Purple (xxvi.) ; when expanded, the outer corolla Dahlia Carmine to Schoenfeld's Purple, the inner corolla white tinged with Magenta (xxvi.) or all white. Clusters nar- row, interrupted, with flowers somewhat fascicled. The inner corollas, which are almost white, appearing through the dark outer corolla, give a curiously variegated appearance to the cluster and make this one of the most distinct of all the forms of the Common Lilac. Extra White Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 486 (1923), name only. Grafts bearing this name were received at the Arnold Arboretum from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in February, 1885, but the plant has disappeared. Mr. Rehder tells me that he based his list of Lilacs, used by Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in the compilation of the "Standardized Plant Names" list, in part upon the Arnold Arboretum catalogue. I have found no mention of such a form elsewhere. Farrionensis Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 486 (1923), name only. Farrion has been adopted as approved common name by " Standardized Plant Names" (486, 1923). I have found no mention of this form in any other work. 298 THE LILAC Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (received as grafts from the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., in April, 1905; no. 5476 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, medium to small in size, corolla-lobes narrow, pointed at apex, cucullate; tone pale; color in bud Hellebore Red to Rocellin Purple to Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, Pale Lavender- Violet (xxv.) marked with white at throat within. Clusters narrow, small, open. The habit of this form is distinct, somewhat dwarfed, with spreading, stout branches. This form is growing in the Rochester collection also ; its description in their catalogue reads: "Flowers single, lilac, loose flowered clusters, 'pretty'." Flore-albescente Klinge, Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24 (1883), as^. albescente. Johannes Klinge, assistant-director of the Botanic Garden of the University of Dorpat, Russia, mentions this Lilac as growing in the Botanic Garden; he describes the flowers as smaller and paler [than S. vulgaris] but thinks this appearance possibly occurs on very old shrubs. A doubtful plant. Francisque Morel Lemoine, Cat. no. 134, ix. (1896), "Thyrses tres longs, fleurs enormes, forme de jacinthe double, rose cendre bleuatre." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.- Zeit. xxn. 381 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1896 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1900). Flowers double, large, unsymmetrical ; corolla-lobes narrow, curling or opening at a right angle to corolla- tube; tone intermediate; color in bud Cinnamon-Drab (xlvi.) to Vinace- ous-Lilac (xltv.) to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, Lilac to Mauvette (xxv.) marked with white on inner corolla- lobes and at throat within. Clusters long, narrow, open, pyramidal. Frau Bertha Dammann Spath, Cat. 1883, 3, "Herrlich rein-weisse Sorte mit enorm grossen Bliitenrispen, die sich durch dankbares Bliihen schon als ganz junge Pflanze aus- zeichnet und sehr zu empfehlen ist." — Dieck, Haupt-Verzeichen. Zoschen, Nachtr. 1. 27 (1887), as Bertha Dammann. — Van Houtte, Cat. no. 240-w, 44 (1890), as Berths Dam- mann. — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896). — Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. 1892, 100, t., as Frau Dammann (p. 96). — Amer. Florist, xn. 1077, fig. (1897). — Nicholson, HI. Diet. Gard. Suppl. 696 (1900), as Frau Dammann. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1900-1901, 67, as Alba Bertha Dammann, with single flowers. — Muskauer Baumschulen, Haupt- Katalog, 1910, 36, as Bertha Dammann, "bluht weiss." — Spath-Buch, 1920, 222, as Frau Berta Dammann. See Additions. Introduced in 1883 by the firm of L. Spath, Berlin, Germany, and one of their produc- tions; according to information kindly supplied me by the firm in January, 1924, this was a chance seedling. The firm also sent me the first description. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Ellwanger and Barry in 1892). Flowers single, medium size; corolla-lobes cucullate; corolla- tube long; color in bud Chrysolite Green to Deep Sea-foam Green (xxxi.); when expanded white. Clusters unusually open, large, narrow-pyramidal. SYRINGA VULGARIS 299 Frau Wilhelm Pfitzer Kanzleiter in Gartenwelt, xni. 129, t. fig. 2 (1909), "Frau Wil- helm Pfitzer, mit einfachen Blumen, ist von zarter, feiner lilarosaer Farbung. Die Bliiten vereinigen sich zu pyramidalen, schlanken Rispen, welche die Pflanze iiberaus zahlreich iiberdecken, so dass diese Sorte durch die Reichbliitigkeit, verbunden mit zarter, feiner Farbung, besonders schmuckvoll wirkt, auch wegen der reinen Farbe ein beliebtes Binde- material liefern wird." — Pfitzer, Hauptkatalog, 1910. Mr. Paul Pfitzer wrote me on November 7, 1924, that this form is the result of a cross made by his grandfather, Mr. Wilhelm Pfitzer, in his private garden at Stuttgart. It was chosen when in flower from among many other seedlings, then was transplanted and carefully observed for years. Mr. Pfitzer was aided in its choice by several well- known Lilac specialists. Mr. Paul Pfitzer tells me that it first appeared in the firm's Hauptkatalog for 1910 which I have not seen. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Stepman-De Messemaeker in 1912). Flowers single, large, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Light Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when expanded Dull Lavender (xliv.) to Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvn.) without, Mauvette (xxv.) marked with white within. Clusters long, open, broad-pyramidal. Fiirst Biilow Spath, Spath-Buch, 1920, 222, fig., "Die neue Sorte gleicht dem bekann- ten Flieder Andenken an Ludwig Spath' in der Grosse, edlen Gestalt und aufrechten Haltung der Rispen und in der Grosse schonen Form und dunkeln Farbe ihrer Bliiten. Doch der Farbenton ist noch dunkler als der Mutterblute: aufbliihend dunkelpurpur, dann iibergehend in ein wundervolles, leuchtendes Violett. Der hubsch geschlossene und rund sich bauende Strauch bringt seit Jahren eine reiche Fulle grosser, bis 23 cm. langer Rispen und ist der spateste Bliiher meines reichhaltigen Sortiments von Formen der Syringa vulgaris," with single flowers. — A. Purpus in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxxvi. 63, fig. (192 1). Introduced in 1920 by the firm of L. Spath, Berlin, Germany, and one of their produc- tions; according to information supplied me by the firm in January, 1924, this was pro- duced by crossing the forms Andenken an Ludwig Spath ( Q ) and Hyazinthenflieder ( 6 ) . Fiirst Liechtenstein Spath, Cat. no. 69, 4 (1887-1888), " Jeder Strauss mit imposant grossen, pyramidal geformten Rispen. Knospen rothlich mit seidenartigem Glanze. Bliithe sehr gross, blaulich rosa, nach der Mitte zu in weisslich blau iibergehend; ausserst dankbar bliihend In vollster Bliithenpracht ist der Strauch eine Leuchte in der reichen Gruppe der Flieder zu nennen," as Fiirst Lichtenstein. — Spath-Buch, 1920, 222. Introduced in 1887 by the firm of L. Spath, Berlin, Germany, and one of their produc- tions; according to information supplied me by the firm in January, 1924, this was a chance seedling. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 6, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 3000-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, large, symmetrical; corolla-lobes broad, cucullate; anthers visible; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) to Light Perilla Purple (xxxvn.); when expanded Argyle Purple tinged with Light Pinkish Lilac without, same within but with markings of Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.) at throat. Clusters open, large, pyramidal. This is a fine, single-flowered, pink Lilac. 300 THE LILAC Garteninspector Gireoud Muskauer Baumschulen, Haupt-Katalog, 1910, 37, name only. In a letter of July 2, 1924, Mr. H. L. Spath supplied the following information in regard to a form Hermann Gireoud which is presumably the same: "The variety Her- mann Gireoud, a seedling received from a gentleman of that name, has never been used, being not judged good enough for dissemination." Gaudichaud Lemoine, Cat. no. 155, 30 (1903), "Genre President Carnot, thyrses plus longs, fleurs plus doubles, floraison tardive." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 323. — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1903 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Mr. E. Lemoine informs me that it was named for the French botanist, Charles Gaudichaud-Beaupre (1780-1854). Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in 1918; no. 17,371 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, symmetrical, extra large; corolla-lobes pointed at apex; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac (xxxvu.) ; when expanded Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvui.) without, Light Mauve to Pale Mauve (xxv.) with much white near throat within. Clusters long, symmetrical, large. Leaves are often present at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescence. Geant des Batailles Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. vm. 88 (1865), name only. — Van Houtte, Cat. no. 117, 12 (1867), name only. — A. Leroy, Cat. 1868, 99, as Syringa geant des batailles, name only. — Ottolander in Sieboldia, 11. 187 (1876), "elijkt veel op de varieteit Aline Mocqueris; de kleur der bloem is evenwel iets lichter wijn- rood." — Baumann, Cat. no. 159, 38 (1879). — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), "Superbe, a thyrses et a fleurs enormes, d'un beau rouge pourpre; une de nos meilleurs varietes," as elevatus dimicatio and as Lilas commun Geant des Batailles. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — Spath, Cat. no. 69, 115 (1887-1888), "roth." — L. Henry in Jardin, vm. 175 (1894), "Fleurs grandes, ardoise rougeatre clair, revers pourpre; boutons carmine vif. Inflorescences fortes et bien fournies." — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 206 (1899), "rosafarben in Blaulila iibergehend," with single flowers; in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3298 (1917), "bluish lilac." — Baltet, Cat. 1900-1901, 28, "lilas carmine vif," with single flowers. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1900- 1901, 67, "Lilas rougeatre," with single flowers. Mentioned in the " Wochenschrif t des Vereines zur Beforderung des Gartenbaues in den Kdniglich Preussischen Staaten fur Gartnerei und Pflanzenkunde" edited by K. Koch who possible wrote the article. It, with others, is referred to as an old form: "welche sich seit langer Zeit schon Anerkennung erworben haben." Geheimrat Heyder Spath, Cat. 3, 1883, "Bukett sehr gross, Knospen rot, Blume nach dem Aufbrechen hellblau, im Zentrum weiss, reichbliihend," as Geheimrath Heyder. — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896). — Muskauer Baumschulen, Haupt-Katalog, 1910, 37, "Blume rot, in Aufbrechen hellblau, im Zentrum weiss, reich- bliihend," as Geheimer Rath Heyder Hort. — Spath-Buch, 1920, 233, "Schon geformte, grosse Rispen. Von den zart hellila-farbenen Bluten heben sich die roten Knospen reizend ab." SYRINGA VULGARIS 301 Introduced in 1883 by the firm of L. Spath, Berlin, Germany, and one of their produc- tions; according to information supplied me by the firm in January, 1924, this was a chance seedling. The firm kindly sent me the first description in July, 1924. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 5, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 3006-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single > symmetrical, medium size; corolla-lobes cucullate, broad, rounded at apex; anthers visible; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Hellebore Red to Tour- maline Pink (xxxvm.) ; when expanded Argyle Purple tinged with Light Pinkish Lilac without, Light Lobelia Violet marked with Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) within. Clusters open, medium size. Sometimes found in French nursery catalogues as Conseiller Heyder. A plant of this name growing in the collection at Rochester, N. Y., and which was received from Transon in 1892, appears to be the same upon comparison with the plant just described. Geheimrat Singelmann Spath, Cat. no. 69, 4 (1887-1888), "Grosse dichte Strausse bildend; hellpurpurviolett wie Marlyensis, jedoch mit grossem, weissem Stern. Gleich- massig im Aufbliihen und sehr dankbar bluhend; stark und angenehm duftend," as Geheimrath Singelmann. — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896). — Muskauer Baumschulen, Haupt-Katalog, 1910, 37, as Geheimer Rat Singelmann. — Spath-Buch, 1920, 223. Introduced in 1887 by the firm of L. Spath, Berlin, Germany, and one of their produc- tions; according to information kindly supplied me by the firm in January, 1924, this was a chance seedling. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 5, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 3004-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, symmetrical, medium size; corolla-lobes rounded at apex, cucullate; anthers visible; tone dark to intermediate; color in bud Neutral Red to Daphne Red to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvth.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink with margins of Pale Laelia Pink without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvth.) to Hay's Lilac tinged with Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvu.) within. Clusters long, well-filled, somewhat conical, large. The name of this form sometimes appears in French nursery catalogues as Conseiller Singelmann. A plant of this name growing in the Rochester collection and received from Transon in 1892 proved to be the same upon comparison with the plant just described. General Drouot Lemoine, Cat. no. 116, 9 (1890), "Fleurs tres grandes, violet vin rougeatre tres fonce." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1890 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Stepman-De Messemaeker in 1914). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes narrow; tone dark to inter- mediate; color in bud Perilla Purple to Light Perilla Purple (xxxvu.); when expanded Bishop's Purple with occasional margins of Light Pinkish Lilac without, Bishop's Purple (xxxvii.) marked with Mauve (xxv.) at throat within. Clusters narrow, open, long. General Elwell S. Otis Dunbar, Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers semi-double, azure lavender, very dense spikes." 302 THE LILAC Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 323 Dunbar) of Gilbert, named by him in 1906. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers semi-double to double, extra large; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple with occasional margins of Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) without, Bishop's Purple to Light Lobelia Violet marked with Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) within. Clusters open, narrow-pyramidal, symmetrically filled. General Grant Dunbar according to Horticulture, xxvi. 35 (1917), name only; xxvh. 534 (1918), "... single, with varying shades of porcelain lavender." — Dunbar, Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers single, 1 inch across, buds reddish lilac, pinkish lavender when fully open, clusters 6 to 7 inches long." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this form (no. 268 Dunbar) was of unknown parentage and was named by him in 1922. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes narrow, pointed at apex, opening at a right angle to corolla-tube or curling backward; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvni.) ; when expanded Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.) within. Clusters open, widely branched. General Haig Dunbar according to Horticulture, xxvn. 534 (1918), "large clusters, single, pearly mauve." — Dunbar, Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers single, silvery lavender with a tinge of Cattleya rose when fully open, clusters very prominent and well built." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this form was of unknown parentage and was named by him in 1917. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers single, symmetrical, large ; corolla-lobes cucullate ; tone pale ; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinace- ous-Lilac (xliv.) to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvni.) ; when expanded Purplish Lilac to Light Pinkish Lilac without, Hay's Lilac to Pale Lilac (xxxvn.) marked with considerable white within. Clusters somewhat conical, dense. General Kitchener Dunbar in Florists Exch., September 22, 1923, 831, "Bears numer- ous dense thyrses of semi-double flowers, bluish lilac with a tinge of violet"; Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers semi-double, % of an inch across, buds reddish lilac with a tinge of violet when fully open, spikes dense, 9 inches long, compound. Branching habit fairly compact." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 243 Dunbar) of Aline Moc- queris named by him in 191 7. There are 2 photographs of this form in the collection of the Arnold Arboretum (nos. 8891, 8892). Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers double or semi-double, large; corolla-lobes opening at a right angle to corolla-tube or curling backward; tone SYRINGA VULGARIS 303 intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Eupatorium Purple (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Tourmaline Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvrn.) without, Chinese Violet to Lilac (xxv.) within. Clusters open, much branched. The flowers appear to be darker without than within. General John Pershing, new name. — Dunbar according to Horticulture, xxvn. 534 (1918), "Semi-double, large blossoms, porcelain lavender in color," as General Pershing. — Dunbar in Florists Exch., September 22, 1923, 831, "with semi-double blossoms tinged a very delicate light azure lilac, flowers freely and is a remarkably beautiful lilac"; Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers semi-double, buds deep lilac, bluish lavender with a tinge of very delicate light azure lilac when fully open, % of an inch across. Branching habit medium, dense." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 240 Dunbar) of Aline Moc- queris, named by him in 191 7. There is a photograph of this form in the collection of the Arnold Arboretum (no. 6893). As introduced by Mr. Dunbar the name appeared as General Pershing; six years later Mr. Lemoine introduced a form bearing the same name. Mr. Dunbar's name has priority over Mr. Lemoine's but since two forms may not bear the same name I have, to distinguish them, changed Mr. Dunbar's name to General John Pershing. Although Mr. Lemoine's name should rightfully have been changed rather than Mr. Dunbar's it has seemed wise to let it stand since his plant is more widely cultivated. To avoid confusion between the two forms it is recommended that the distinction in name be observed. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers semi-double, medium size; tone pale; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Daphne Red (xxxviii.); when ex- panded Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.) to white without, Argyle Purple (xxxvu.) marked with white at throat within. Clusters open, much branched. The flowers appear to be paler without than within and the clusters somewhat variegated. General Pershing Lemoine, Cat. no. 198, 20 (1924-1925), "Double flowers of a quite unusual size, broad lobes, of a rich purplish violet, with paler reverses, big purple buds, late; an improvement on the handsome variety Charles Sargent." Introduced in 1924 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. In 1 91 8 the late Mr. John Dunbar introduced a form General Pershing. As noted under Mr. Dunbar's form, and for reasons there stated, I have changed his name to General John Pershing, despite the fact that his name had priority over that of Mr. Lemoine's. To avoid confusion it is recommended that the distinction in name be observed. Notes on plant in collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. (plant received from Lemoine in 1924). Flowers double, unsymmetrical, sometimes hose-in-hose, sometimes single except for a curled lobe at throat; corolla-lobes broad or narrow, ex- tremely curled, sometimes cucullate; tone intermediate; color in bud Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded, the outer corolla-lobes Tourmaline Pink with markings of Eupatorium Purple and of white, the inner Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, all lobes Purplish Lilac marked with Light Pinkish Lilac and with 304 THE LILAC Ageratum Violet (xxxvu.) within. Clusters extremely long, well filled, with long sub- divisions near the base; these are held erect and the cluster appears compact. The inner corolla-lobes, which are pale without, curl over, and give a pale look to the center of the flower and a variegated appearance to the entire cluster. A showy form. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 198. I have retained the French accents as they undoubtedly appeared in the original. General Schmidt Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), name only. — Dieck, Haupt- Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), name only, as General Schmidt. General Sheridan Dunbar according to Horticulture, xxvu. 534 (19 18), "Semi- double, white, erect clusters." — Dunbar in Florists Exch., September 22, 1923, 381, fig., "Produces freely numerous large clusters of pure white flowers. The individual blossoms are not large as in some double flowering white Lilacs but the clusters stand out boldly"; Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers semi-double, not large but are occa- sionally super-imposed on each other somewhat like a hose-in-hose, white, primrose clusters good size. Branching habit inclined to be thin." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 274 Dunbar) of Princess Alex- andra named by him in 191 7. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers double, large, hose-in- hose; corolla-lobes rounded at apex; color in bud Absinthe Green to Chrysolite Green to Deep Sea-foam Green (xxxi.); when expanded white. Clusters long, narrow with ascending subdivisions. General Sherman Dunbar according to Horticulture, xxvi. 35 (191 7), name only; xxvu. 534 (1918), "... single, with varying shades of porcelain lavender." — Dunbar in Florists Exch., September 22, 1923, 831, "... has immense, many shouldered upright clusters of single flowers, of which the color might be described as creamy lavender. We consider this perhaps one of the most beautiful Lilacs in cultivation;" Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers single, % of an inch across, deep lavender in bud, creamy lavender lilac when fully open with faint tinge of porcelain blue in the center, spikes 3 to 4 com- pound, well formed. Branching habit compact." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 225 Dunbar) of Marlyensis pallida, named by him in 191 7. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., in November, 1922; no. 11,420 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, symmetrical, large; corolla-lobes broad, rounded at apex, cucullate; tone pale; color in bud Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) to Purplish Lilac (xxxvu..); when expanded Purplish Lilac to Light Pinkish Lilac without, Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) marked with much white at throat within. Clusters open, symmetrical, large. Georges Bellair Lemoine, Cat. no. 146, xn. (1900), "Plante tres florifere, thyrses larges et compacts, fleurs grandes d'une forme parfaite giroflee vineux, boutons cocar- deau." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 322. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 382 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). SYRINGA VULGARIS 305 Introduced in 1900 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1913; no. 17,372 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, large, tone intermediate; color in bud Indian Lake (xxvi.) to Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac (xxxvu.); when expanded Argyle Purple turning to Light Lobelia Violet within, Purplish Lilac on Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvu.) without. Clusters medium to large, interrupted, broad-pyram- idal. George W. Aldridge Dunbar, Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers single, 7/8 to 18/i6 of an inch across, mauve tinted violet, dense clusters." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 218 Dunbar) of President Massart, named by him in 1923. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers single, large, sym- metrical ; corolla-lobes cucullate ; tone intermediate ; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple with margins of Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) without, Argyle Purple (xxxvu.) within. Clusters somewhat conical, open. Gigantea Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 43 (1867-1868), "Very large spikes of flowers of a dark bluish purple, rich foliage. ..." — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), and as Lilas commun Geant. — Dieck, Haupt-Verzeichn. Zoschen, Nachtr. 1. 28 (1887). Ellwanger and Barry state that this is "One of our seedlings." Giant has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (486, 1923). Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Ellwanger and Barry in 1892). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Schoenfeld's Purple (xxvi.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple (xxxvui.) with margins of Purplish Lilac (xxxvti.) without, Chinese Violet (xxv.) within. Clusters open, large, narrow. The pale margins of the corolla-lobes give a slightly variegated appearance to the clusters. Gigantea de Marly Baumann, Cat. no. 159, 38 (1879), name only. Whether this was distinct from the Marly Lilac [= S. vulgaris var. purpurea] is uncertain. No mention of this form has been found elsewhere. Gilbert Lemoine, Cat. no. 179, 37 (191 1), "Thyrses enormes, fleurs grandes, bien rondes, lilas bleuatre." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 191 1 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1918; no. 7918 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, large to extra large; corolla-lobes broad, pointed at apex, cucullate, with a pronounced hook, opening at a right angle to corolla- tube ; anthers scarcely visible; tone intermediate; color in bud Light Perilla Purple to Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac (xxxvu.) ; when expanded Argyle Purple without, Saccardo's Violet turning to Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) within, solid colors both within and without. Clusters long, open, with wide-spreading subdivisions. 306 THE LILAC Gloire de Bordeaux Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. vin. 88 (1865), name only. Mentioned among new forms of the Common Lilac in an article entitled "Ueber einige, besonders neue Pflanzen der Laurentius'schen Gartnerei zu Leipzig." Gloire de Cass Blossom in Landscape Arch. April, 191 5, 140; October, 1923, 33. Mr. H. H. Blossom gives the following information in regard to this form which he cites as growing in the Arnold Arboretum: form, single; size of flower, medium; size of truss, medium; color of flowers, bluish light lavender; he also mentions dates of bloom. No plant of this name appears in the records of the Arnold Arboretum nor have I found it mentioned except by Mr. Blossom. Gloire de la Rochelle A. Leroy, Cat. 1865, 100, as gloria Rupellae and as Lilas commun g[loi]re de la Rochelfle], "lilas, mai." — Transon, Cat. 1875-1876, 49, as Syringa Gloire de la Rochelle. — Van Houtte, Cat. no. 165-LL, 18 (1875-1876). — L. Leroy, Cat. 1876, 72, as gloria rupellae. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), "Rose vif, passant au lilas; tres-beau, " as gloria Rupellae and as Lilas commun Gloire de la Rochelle. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — Croux, Cat. 1886-1887, 89, as Gloria Rupellae. — Van Geert, Cat. no. 169, 45 (1896). To avoid confusion the name Gloire de la Rochelle, which is commonly used for this form, has been retained rather than the Latinized name Gloria Rupellae. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 10, 1905, from plant raised from cuttings received from Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., in July, 1902 ; no. 5479-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, small to medium size, symmetrical; corolla- lobes narrow, cucullate; anthers hidden; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Neutral Red to Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.) without, Argyle Purple marked with Saccardo's Violet near throat, to Pale Lobelia Violet marked with Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvii.) within. Clusters open, medium size. Gloire de Lorraine Lemoine, Cat. no. 74, ix. (1876), "Fleurs de la grandeur de celles du beau Lilas Gloire de Moulins, violet clair satine avec ceil blanc au centre. Cette variety, dont tous les rameaux sont floriferes, produit beaucoup d'effet." — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880). — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — L. Henry in Jardin, vin. 175 (1894), "Fleurs grandes, rose lilace nuance hortensia; boutons roses. Inflores- cences fortes et compacts. Belle variete." — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896). Introduced in 1876 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass. in April, 1907; no. 5324 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, symmetrical, large; corolla- lobes broadest below the middle, tapering to an acuminate apex, slightly cucullate on first expanding; anthers visible; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Argyle Purple with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvii.) without, Light Mauve or Lilac (xxv.) marked with white near throat within. Clusters compact, medium size. A handsome form and a late bloomer in the Arboretum. SYRINGA VULGARIS 307 Gloire de Moulins A. Leroy, Cat. 1865, 100, as Syringa Rothomagensis gloria Molinae and as Lilas Varin gloire de Moulins, name only. — Dauvesse, Cat. no. 36, 46 (1872), as Lilas Gloire de Moulins, name only. — L. Leroy, Cat. 1872, 84, as Syringa rhotomagen- sis (varin) gloria molinae, name only. — Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 561 (1875), "Diese Form besitzt unter den Syringen die schonsten Strausse und ent- wickelsten Blumen," and as Moulins-Flieder. — Ottolander in Sieboldia, n. 187 (1876), as Gloire des Molins. — Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 168 (1877), as S. dubia var. Gloire de Moulins. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), "Magnifique variete a. thyrses volumi- neux, fleurs tres-grandes, d'une belle couleur rose vif lilace," as gloria Molinae and as Lilas commun gloire de Moulins. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — E. Lemoine in Jardin, vi. 152 (1892). — Hartwig, HI. Geholzb. 380 (1892), and as Fleider Ruhm von Moulins. — L. Henry in Jardin, vin. 175 (1894), "Fleurs rose lilace, nuance bleuatre. Inflorescences grandes et bien fournies"; xv. 281, fig. 135 (1901). — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xrv. 206 (1899), "blassrosa in Helllila iibergehend." — Gordon in Gardeners' Mag. fig. (p. 499) (1901). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxin. fig. (p. 155) (1916). — Spath-Buch, 1920, 223, "Rispe gross und gut geformt. Bliiten rosalila, Knospen zart rosa. Bluht friih auf." To avoid confusion the name Gloire de Moulins, which is commonly used for this form, has been retained rather than the Latinized name Gloria Molinae. By some this form was considered, wrongly, to be a variety of the hybrid S. chinensis. L. Henry notes this incorrect classification. This was one of the forms used by Mr. V. Lemoine to pollinize Azurea plena. See Azurea plena. Mr. E. Lemoine wrote me on January 16, 1925: "Cette variete a du £tre obtenue par un horticulteur de Moulins les Metz, peut-etre M. Lapied." I have been unable to obtain any reply from this source. In the catalogue of Van Geert (no. 169, 45, 1896) appears as a name only, a S. vulgaris Gloire de Toulon. The same form is listed in the catalogue of the Societe Anonyme Horticole de Calmpthout (no. 4, 45, 1902-1903) the successors to the Van Geert firm. Mr. Kort, the president of this firm, wrote me on November 3, 1894, that this is identical with the Lilac Gloire de Moulins; he describes it as "Boutons rouge brun, interieur rose lilace, fleur simple enorme." I have found no mention of such a name elsewhere. Possibly the form Triomphe de Moulins is identical with Gloire de Moulins. See Triomphe de Moulins. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 12, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2978-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes narrow, cucullate; anthers visible but not con- spicuous; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvni.) ; when expanded Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink without, white marked with Laelia Pink or Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) within. Clusters open, conical, medium size. A fine, simple form. Gloire de Versailles Felix and Dykhuis, Trade letter, July 25, 1924, name only; Cat. [dr. 1925], 26, "dunkel lila," with single flowers. In a letter of September 1, 1925, the firm of Felix and Dykhuis of Boskoop, Holland, wrote me as follows: "... Gloire de Versailles [originated with] Moser fils Nurseries, 308 THE LILAC Versailles, France." A letter from Moser et fils, dated October 6, 1925, states how- ever: "... nous vous faisons savoir que nous n'avons pas du tout cree de lilas des varietes que vous indiquez, ni d'aucune autre variete du reste. Nous ne pouvons done pas vous donner le renseignement que vous nous demandez et nous exprimons tous nos regrets." Possibly the same as the old form Versaliensis. Glory of Mt. Hope Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 43 (1867-1868), "Flowers very delicate, deep red shaded with violet; truss very compact." — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), and as Lilas commun Gloire de Mount Hope. Ellwanger and Barry state that this is one of the firm's seedlings which was to be offered for sale in the autumn of 1868. Introduced with the firm's other forms Sanguinea and Coerulea superba. Mount Hope was the name of the Ellwanger and Barry nurseries at Rochester, N. Y. Godron Lemoine, Cat. no. 170, 30 (1908), "Fleurs enormes, doubles ou pleines, lilas bleuatre, a centre eclaire de blanc." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1908 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1907. See Banquise for the explanation of this difference in dates. The form of the Common Lilac Godroy listed by Nash (Jour. N. Y. Bot. Gard. xx. 235, 1919) as a name only is probably a misnomer, according to Mr. Boynton of the N. Y. Botanical Garden (Litt. ined. October 25, 1924). Syringa Gordon listed by Turbat (Cat. 1910-1911, 59) as "(double) enormous flowers, bluish lilac, with centre lighter white" is, from the description, a misnomer for this form. Mr. E. Lemoine informs me that this was named for the ex-director of the Jardin Botanique of Nancy, and author of the "Flore de Lorraine." Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1910). Flowers double or semi-double, large; corolla-lobes frequently curling; tone intermediate; color in bud Neutral Red to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.); when expanded Argyle Purple on Light Pinkish Lilac without, Saccardo's Violet streaked with Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvii.) within. Clusters open, much branched. Goliath Van Houtte, Cat. no. 130, 252 (1869-1870), name only. — Dauvesse, Cat. no. 36, 46 (1872), as Lilas Goliath, name only. — A. Waterer, Cat. 1872-1873, 36, name only. — Transon, Cat. 1876-1877, 55, as Syringa Goliath, name only. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), name only. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), name only. — Spath, Cat. no. 69, 115 (1887-1888), name only. — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 113 (1889), "purpurrot bluhende, mit sehr grossen Rispen." — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 380 (1892). — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1900-1901, 67, "rouge violace," with single flowers. — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vr. 3298 (1917), "Purplish lilac," with single flowers. — Spath-Buch, 1920, 223, "Grosse, verzweigte Rispe mit purpur lilafarbenen Bluten und roten Knospen." Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Spath in 1902). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes slightly cucullate; tone dark; color in bud Neutral Red to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.) ; when expanded Eupatorium Purple with margins SYRINGA VULGARIS 309 of Pale Laelia Pink without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxviii.) within. Clusters long, pyramidal. Grand-Due Constantin Lemoine, Cat. no. 131, x. (1895), " Thyrses compacts, fleurs tres grandes, serrees, couleur uniforme, lilas cendre, plante excellente pour le forcage." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 323. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 380 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1895 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1913; no. 17,373 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, large to extra large, un- symmetrical; corolla-lobes irregular in form, rounded or pointed at apex; tone intermedi- ate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.); when expanded Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac without, Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) within. Clusters compact, large, showy. The flower clusters are frequently produced from as many as three pairs of buds on the same branchlet. Grandiflora Audibert, Cat. 1831-1832, 51, and as Lilas commun a. grandes fleurs, name only. — Oudin, Cat. 1845-1846, 25, as grandiflorus, name only. — Parsons, Cat. 1846, 38, as Syringa grandiflora, and as Large flowering Lilac, name only. — Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 1855-1856, 9, as Syringa grandiflora and as Large flowering Lilac, name only. — William R. Prince, Cat. 1856-1857, 44, as Syringa grandiflora and as Large flowering Lilac, name only. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1886-1887, 58, name only. — Nichol- son, 111. Diet. Gard. 111. 537 (1887), "Flowers red, large." Bailly (Rev. Hort. 1859, 538) in writing of the form Rouge de Trianon states that it was obtained from S. vulgaris grandiflora or "gros rouge de Trianon." Whether the latter name was commonly used for this form is uncertain. Bosse (Vollst. Handb. Blumen- gartn. 111. 461, 1842) mentions S. vulgaris grandiflora Hort., as a synonym of S. vulgaris flore rubro major, which he identifies with the Lilas de Marly [= S. vulgaris var. pur- purea]. Baumann (Cat. 1846, 15) calls Syringa grandiflora the Lilas Charles X. Wil- liam Miller (Diet. English Names Plants, 76, 1884) gives as a synonym of Charles X., S. vulgaris var. grandiflora. Possibly the "gros rouge de Trianon" and Charles X. were the same. But the name grandiflora was undoubtedly applied by nurserymen of the day to any form of the Common Lilac and of its white or purple varieties which they considered to be superior, and has little significance. William Prince (Cat. 1829, 51) calls his S. vulgaris grandiflora the Great white flowered Lilac and is probably referring to the form Alba grandiflora. The frequent usage of this adjective is evidenced by the names Rosea grandiflora, Rubra grandiflora and Purpurea grandiflora. In the catalogue of Audibert (181 7, 23) is listed a S. vulgaris a grandes fleurs, or Lilas double. If the name applies to this form it is the only reference where the flowers are mentioned as double. The Lilac Grandiflora is a doubtful plant. It seems probable that the name was applied, in the references given, to a Lilac with single flowers, of dark or intermediate color tone and was possibly used indiscriminately as a corresponding name for any one of a number of very similar Lilacs such as Charles X., Rubra insignis, Rubra major, as well as for the Marly Lilac, here considered to be identical with 5. vulgaris var. purpurea. 310 THE LILAC Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists a S. vulgaris h. grandiflora hort., which he notes is cultivated at Riga according to Wagner's catalogue. Guizot Lemoine, Cat. no. 137, 23 (1897), " Variete precoce, teint du Syringa Lemoinei, bouquets plus compacts et plus gros." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1897 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken in 1902 from plant received from Spath in November, 1900; no. 4340-2 Arn. Arb.). Flowers semi-double, medium size, unsymmetrical; corolla-lobes pointed at apex; tone intermediate; color in bud Tourmaline Pink (xxxvni.) to Argyle Purple (xxxvn.); when expanded Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac without, Lobelia Violet to Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.) within. Clusters compact, medium size, numerous. Henri Martin Lemoine, Cat. no. 182, 37 (1912), "Longs thyrses eriges, fleurs moy- ennes, doubles, imbriquees, lobes arrondis, lilas mauve clair, boutons carmines." — Have- meyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 191 2 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 191 1. See Banquise for the explanation of this difference in dates. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1914). Flowers semi-double to double, large ; corolla-lobes expanding to a right angle to corolla- tube or curling inward; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xxrv.) to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.); when expanded Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac on Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvn.) without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.) to Hay's Lilac (xxxvn.) marked with white within. Clusters long, dense, much branched, heavy. Henry Clay Dunbar, Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers single, Y% oi an inch across, large and showy, white." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 329 Dunbar) of A. B. Lamber- ton, named by him in 1923. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers single, large; corolla- lobes cucullate; color in bud Absinthe Green to Chrysolite Green to Sea-foam Green (xxxi.); when expanded between Sea-foam Green (xxxr.) and white. Clusters open, conical. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 831, "Bears clusters of semi-double flowers, light bluish lilac"; Litt. ined. October 2, 1923, "Flowers semi-double, 7/$ of an inch across, buds deep reddish lilac, light bluish lilac when fully open, clusters 7 to 8 inches long." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 245 Dunbar) of Aline Moc- queris, named by him in 1920. There is a photograph of this form in the collection of the Arnold Arboretum (no. 8894). Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers double, large, hose-in- hose; corolla-lobes opening at a right angle to corolla- tube or curling; tone intermediate; SYRINGA VULGARIS 311 color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) ; when expanded Pur- plish Lilac to Light Pinkish Lilac without, Ageratum Violet to Argyle Purple (xxxvn.) within. Clusters open, widely branched. Henry Ward Beecher Dunbar, Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers semi-double, 1^ inches across, pale lilac lavender, dense clusters." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 345 Dunbar) of Princesse Clementine, named by him in 1923. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers double, with 2 corollas and additional lobes at throat, extra large; corolla-lobes broad, cucullate at first, curling; tone pale; color in bud Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink without, the outer corolla-lobes Eupatorium Purple within, the inner corolla-lobes Pale Laelia Pink or white marked with Eupatorium Purple (xxxvih.) within. Clusters long, narrow-pyramidal, irregularly filled. Herman Eilers Turbat, Cat. 1923-1924, 74, "Very distinct color rose," with single flowers. Fr. Meyer (Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xl. 376, 1925) mentions among forms of the Common Lilac: "Unsere hiesigen Treibgartnereien schatzen auch den Sinai-Flieder (= H. Eilers) der friiher in den Kulturen von Sinai, Frankfurt, gehiitet worden sein soil, aber eines Tages doch den Weg hinaus fand. Ich empfehle ihn aufs warmste auch fur das Freiland." On November 7, 1924, Mr. Paul Pfitzer wrote me as follows: "Die beiden Sinai- Flieder rot und rosa haben Sie nicht angefragt und will ich raten bei Herrn Friedr. Sinai, Frankfurt a. M., Eschenheimerlandstrasse anzufragen. Die beiden Sorten sind sehr ausgezeichnete Treibflieder." I have unfortunately been unable to obtain a reply from this source. Evidently the form Herman Eilers is identical, according to Meyer, with one at least of the Sinai Lilacs. In the wholesale catalogue (1923-1924, 26) of Smits, Naarden, near Amsterdam, Holland, is listed a form of the Common Lilac, Sinai, "rose," with single flowers. Notes on plant in the collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. Flowers single, small or medium in size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes sometimes slightly cucullate, broad, pointed at apex; tone pale; color in bud Vinaceous-Purple to Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Pale Laelia Pink tinged with white without, Pale Laelia Pink with margins of Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) and marked with much white near throat within. Clusters long, narrow, open. Herycorthiana Hort. according to Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864), "Rispe eiformig, compact; Blumen gerundet, blauviolett, dunkel." — Jager, Ziergeholze, 530 (1865). — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880). — Muskauer Baumschu- len, Haupt-Katalog, 1910, 37. See Additions. Mr. E. Lemoine wrote me on January 16, 1925, in reply to an inquiry concerning this form: "N'est pas Hericartiana? a rapprocher du nom de la fraise, Vicomtesse Hericart de Thury." 312 THE LILAC Hippolyte Maringer Lemoine, Cat. no. 173, vin. (1909), "Larges thyrses compacts, surmontant tous les rameaux, grandes fleurs echevelees, mauve purpurin." — Have- meyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1909 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1910). Flowers double, large; corolla-lobes round; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Dull Indian Purple (xliv.) to Light Perilla Purple (xxxvu.) ; when expanded Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac without, Bishop's Purple to Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvu.) to white within. Clusters long, open, narrow, subdivisions ascending. Hiram H. Edgerton Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 831, "Has single, many-flowered thyrses, the individual flowers being large and of a deep bluish slate color; the variety has an excellent compact habit"; Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, " Flowers single, % of an inch across, reddish lilac in bud, bluish lilac to violet lavender when fully open, spikes 9 inches long and well formed. Branching habit compact and broad at top." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 216 Dunbar) of Lilarosa, named by him in 1919. He states in "The Florists Exchange" that he named it "as a compli- ment to the late Hiram H. Edgerton, for 14 years Mayor of the city of Rochester, a most excellent executive, and a staunch supporter of the policy of developing the public parks." Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers single, large; corolla- lobes cucullate; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Magenta (xxvi.); when expanded Magenta with margins of Pale Rose-Purple without, Dull Magenta Purple marked with Liseran Purple (xxvi.) within. Clusters open, widely branched. Hortulanus Witte Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 486 (1923), name only. A plant bearing this name was received at the Arnold Arboretum in April, 1897, from Messrs. James Veitch and Sons, but has since disappeared. Mr. Rehder tells me that he based his list of Lilacs, used by Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in the compilation of the " Standardized Plant Names " list, in part upon the Arnold Arboretum catalogue. I have found no mention of this plant elsewhere. Witte has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names." Hugo Koster Anonymous in Jour. Hort. Home Farmer, ser. 3, lxvi. 260 (March 13, 1913), "This Lilac promises to become the most popular of its kind for early forcing. It was raised from seed as the result of cross hybridisation, but the parents are not known. It forces earlier than Mary Legraye and flowers equally as free as that variety. The individual flowers and the trusses are of abnormal size. It is a single-flowered variety, and the colour is a beautiful mauve; in all a great advance upon the favourites Charles X. and Souv. de Louis Spath. We understand the firm will not send out the stock until the autumn of 1914," as Lilac Hugo Koster. — Garden, lxxvii. 139 (March 15, 1913), "... a pale lilac, the flowers being of large size and well formed. In its natural flowering season in the open we imagine it would prove one of the most attractive and distinct," as Syringa (Lilac) Hugo Koster. — Florists Exch. xxxvi. 405 (August 23, 1913), ". . . SYRINGA VULGARIS 313 shown on March 4 before the Royal Horticultural Society, London, by M. Koster & Son of Boskoop. ... It easily gained an Award of Merit." — Koster, Wholesale Trade List, 1914-1915, "... The colour is bright mauve, flowers single and larger than Mary Le- graye; spikes and individual pips are very large; it is extremely sweet scented . . . when forced flowers as early as Mary Legraye . . . many people . . . call it: 'the Mauve Mary Legraye/ " as Lilac Hugo Koster; Koster Circular, "Syringa Hugo Koster (Le Marie Legraye bleu)," tt. (pp. 2, 3). Introduced in 19 14 by the firm of M. Koster & Sons, Boskoop, Holland. Mr. Koster wrote me on November 18, 1924: "We hybridised Marie Legraye, President Grevy and Souvenir de L. Spath, and out of this lot came Hugo Koster. We cannot exactly tell which were the parents." Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Kallen and Lunne- man in 1914). Flowers single, large; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.) ; when expanded Eupatorium Purple with margins of Laelia Pink without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.) within. Clusters open, pyramidal, medium size. H. W. Sargent Parsons, Cat. 1903, 40, "Cherry red in bud; flowers a dark violet when open." It is not stated whether the flowers are single or double. I have not found this form mentioned elsewhere. Hyazinthenflieder Spath, Cat. no. 121, 132, fig. 195 (1906-1907), "Dieser hier gefal- lene, schone Samling erinnert in dem gefalligen Bau seiner schlanken Rispen lebhaft an Andenken an Ludwig Spath, von dem er auch abstammt, die Form der grossen Bluthen jedoch und ihr Farbenton — ein leuchtendes Purpurlila mit hellblauer Mitte, aus hellroter Knospe hervorkommend — fuhren so tauschend das Bild der Hyazinthenbliite vor Augen, dass der Name Hyazinthenflieder sich als der bezeichnendste von selbst aufdrangte." — Spath-Buch, 1920, 223, fig. Introduced in 1906 by the firm of L. Spath, Berlin, Germany, and one of their pro- ductions; according to information supplied me by the firm in January, 1924, it was obtained by crossing the forms M[ons]. Maxime Cornu ( 2 ) and Andenken an Ludwig Spath (6). Not to be confused with the hybrid Syringa hyacinthijiora, produced by Mr. V. Lemoine. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Barbier in 1908). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes narrow, curling backward, cucullate; tone dark to intermediate; color in bud Vernonia Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvni.); when ex- panded Purplish Lilac (xxxvn.) without, Chinese Violet to Lilac marked with Mauve (xxv.) at throat within. Clusters long, open, narrow, irregularly filled. Hybrida Oudin, Cat. 1841, 22, name only, and as Lilas commun hybride. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), name only, and as Lilas commun hybride. — Spath, Cat. no. 69, 115 (1887-1888), "dunkel-lila, Knospen sehr dunkel." Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists a S. vulgaris q. hybrida hort., od[er] Amb[roise] Verschaffelt. Under this he names many forms of the Common Lilac. Probably Hybrida is here used merely as a name for the so-called hybrids of garden origin but Klinge's reference is not clear. 314 THE LILAC Or possibly a confusion with S. chinensis Willdenow; William R. Prince (Cat. 1844- 1845, 7°) lists a S. hybrida or Chinese Rouen hybrid Lilac, which is obviously Varin's hybrid. As noted in many instances the habit of omitting the specific name frequently led to such confusion. See S. chinensis. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 6, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2945-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, unsymmetrical, medium size; corolla-lobes cucullate, with raised margins; anthers visible; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Eupatorium Purple to Laelia Pink (xxxvin.); when expanded Purplish Lilac with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac without, Saccardo's Violet to Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) within. Clusters compact, medium size. The pale outer margins of the corolla-lobes form a marked contrast with the dark color of the flowers within and give a variegated look to the clusters. Intermedia Froebel, Cat. no. 90, 78 (1880), name only. Although listed by Froebel as a variety of the Common Lilac it is possible that this is a confusion with S. chinensis, called by Dumont de Courset Lilac media, and by "Le Bon Jardinier" Syringa media. See S. chinensis. Jacques Callot Lemoine, Cat. no. 74, x. (1876), "Thyrses volumineux, fleurs les plus grandes connues, surpassant en dimension celles du Lilas Gloire de Moulins, d'une teinte plus lilacee que ce dernier, thyrses compacts et eriges." — Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1877, 280. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880). — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). Introduced in 1876 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Ellwanger and Barry in 1892). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when expanded Purplish Lilac to Light Pinkish Lilac without, Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) marked with white at throat within. Clusters open, large. James Booth A. Leroy, Cat. 1868, 99, name only, as Syringa James Booth. — Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 561 (1875), "Blumen himmelblau, dicht in kleinen Rispen zusammenstehend, welche einen langen Strauss bilden." — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880). — Parsons and Sons, Cat. 1890, 94. — Transon, Cat. 1894-1895, 94, as Syringa James Booth. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1897-1898, 66, with single flowers; 1900- 1901, 67, "Lilas bleuatre," with single flowers. See Additions. Listed in numerous other catalogues as a name only: Transon, 1886-1887, 76; Par- sons, 1889, 49, etc. At the present time it is listed by one nurseryman of the United States but the specimen sent me for examination had the appearance of a modern showy form and it seems improbable that it is true to name. Jan van Tol Anonymous in Het maandschrift der Nederlandsche Maatschappij voor Tuinbouw en Plantkunde, March 22, 1916, ". . . De bloemen van deze sering zijn zuiver sneeuwwit, van de zelfde tint als wij aan treffen bij de Roos Frau Karls Drushki; daarbij zijn zij groot en zeer goed van vorm. De bloempluimen zijn prachtig van vorm, los en toch goed gesloten, het hout is krachtig en lang. . . ." — De Tuinbouw, March 24, 1916. — Onze Tuinen, April 28, 1916, "Marie Legray[e] was tot dusverre de mooiste witte sering, maar zij moet het tegen Jan van Tol afleggen. . . ." — De Veldbode, SYRINGA VULGARIS 315 June 3, 1916. — Jan van Tol, Circular, "De nieuwe Sering Jan van Tol," 1-4, tt. (pp. 2, 3) [cir. 1 91 6], "Zij onderscheidt zich van de bestaande seringen voornamelijk door haar zuiver witte kleur, door haar elegante nieuwe bloemvorm, door haar groote trossen, door haar reusachtige groote nagels en door haar bijzonder sterke en heerlijke geur. Als potcultuur geeft ze trossen van 25 c.M. en langer met hyacintvormige nagels van 30 a 35 m.M., als regel . . . . " — Florists Exch. April 19, 1924, 1232. — Gard. Chron., ser. 3, lxxv. 153, fig. 63 (p. 157) (March 15, 1924), "... The flowers are pure white, single, fragrant, and developed in long trusses. It will no doubt prove a very valuable variety for garden decoration . . .," as Syringa Jan van Tol. — Garden, Lxxxvm. 192, fig. (p. 191) (March 22, 1924), as Syringa Jan van Tol. — Gartenwelt, xxvni. 138 (1924). Raised by Mr. Jan van Tol of Boskoop, Holland. According to verbal information said to have been obtained from this grower, it was the result of crossing the forms Mme. Lemoine and Marie Legraye, the seed having been sown in 19 10. These two Lilacs, according to Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker (Suppl. Gen. Cat. 1908, 2), were also the parents in the cross which produced the Lilac Princesse Clementine. According to a photograph of this form, issued by Mr. van Tol, where the flowers are said to be life-size, the individual blossom is iK inches in diameter; the flowers are single, with cucullate corolla-lobes, and the clusters 10 inches long and symmetrically filled. The plant in the Arnold Arboretum is too small to have yet produced a normal cluster. The citations given from the Dutch journals were taken from the circular issued by Mr. van Tol. This form is possibly more valuable for forcing than for garden usage. Jean Bart Lemoine, Cat. no. 113, xix. (1889), "Port tout special, tres longs thyrses groupes ensemble, tous les rameaux etant florifere; fleurs tres pleines, de forme irregu- liere, rose vineux, boutons carmin." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit xxn. 379 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1889 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 6, 1895, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1889; no. 3456-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, hose-in-hose, medium size; corolla-lobes pointed at apex; tone intermediate; color in bud, corolla- tube Bishop's Purple (xxxvn.), corolla-lobes Tourmaline Pink (xxxvin.); when expanded Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) without, Light Lobelia Violet to Pale Lilac tinged with Hay's Lilac (xxxvn.) within. Clusters open, medium size. Jean Mace Lemoine, Cat. no. 189, 21 (1915), "Broad compact panicles, irregular flowers, mauve fading to bluish, an early and very floriferous sort." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1915 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in October, 1918; no. 7919 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, large, unsymmetri- cal; corolla-lobes broad or narrow, pointed at apex, expanding at a right angle to corolla- tube or curling backward; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vina- 316 THE LILAC ceous to Vinaceous-Lilac to Light Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) ; when expanded Vinaceous- Lilac (xliv.) to Light Pinkish Lilac marked with white without, Purplish Lilac or Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvii.) marked with white within. Clusters long, large, well-filled, broadly pyramidal. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 189. Jeanne d'Arc Lemoine, Cat. no. 152, viii. (1902), "Panicules enormes, fleurs tres larges, pleines, a lobes arrondis, forme de giroflee, blanc pur, gros boutons blanc creme." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 324. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 383 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). — Wister in House and Garden, March, 1926, 170, fig. (p. 73). — House and Garden's Second Book of Gardens, 161, fig. (1927). Introduced in 1902 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., in November, 1906; no. 5193 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, with two corollas and additional lobes at throat, unsymmetrical, large to extra large; corolla-lobes broad or narrow, rounded or pointed at apex, globular on first expanding, later opening into a flat round flower; color in bud Primrose Yellow to Marguerite Yellow (xxx.) ; when expanded white. Clusters long, narrow, open. Leaves are frequently present at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescence. This is a showy, fine white form and blooms rather late in the Arnold Arboretum. Jeanne Morie Kelsey, Circular, "Lilacs on their own roots," [cir. 1922], 2, name only. The information given in regard to the origin of the form Andrew Dupont is applicable to this form also. See Andrew Dupont. Jeanne Saint-Didier Morel, Cat. 1906-1907, 88, name only. This is mentioned under rose or flesh-colored forms with single flowers. I have not found it appearing elsewhere. Joan Dunbar Dunbar, Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers semi-double, large (% of an inch across) but somewhat star shaped, fleecy effect, white." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. In a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 343 Dunbar) of Thunberg, named by him in 1923. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers double, frequently with three corollas, large; corolla-lobes narrow, pointed at apex, curling; corolla-tube long, slender, conspicuous, holding the three corollas tightly together at throat; color in bud Chrysolite Green to Sea-foam Green (xxxi.); when expanded white. Clusters unusually open and widely branched. This form is distinct in appearance and Mr. Dunbar's use of the word "fleecy" to describe the effect of the flowers is well chosen. Jules Ferry Lemoine, Cat. no. 167, viii. (1907), "Larges thyrses volumineux, fleurs pleines, chiffonnees, mauve argente, boutons rose carmin produisant un agreable contraste avec les fleurs epanouies, variete tardive." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1907 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, SYRINGA VULGARIS 317 Mass., in April, 1913; no. 17,374 Am. Arb.). Flowers semi-double to double, large, unsymmetrical ; corolla-lobes rounded at apex, sometimes cucullate, curled; tone inter- mediate to pale; color in bud Perilla Purple to Light Perilla Purple (xxxvn.) to Tour- maline Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Purplish Lilac marked with Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvn.) without, Mauvette tinged with Lilac (xxv.) and marked with white within. Clusters open, irregularly filled, branching broadly at base. Jules Simon Lemoine, Cat. no. 170, viii. (1908), "Larges et hautes panicules com- pactes, tres grandes fleurs a lobes ronds, imbriques, lilas mauve passant a un Was azure d'un tres bel effet." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1908 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Stepman-De Messemaeker in 1914). Flowers double, hose-in-hose but not conspicuously so when fully expanded, frequently with 5 corollas, extra large; corolla-lobes curled; tone inter- mediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded, the outer corollas Lilac, the inner corollas Mauvette (xxv.) to white. Clusters large, compact, heavy, pyramidal, showy. The flowers appear to be darker without than within. Julien Gerardin Lemoine, Cat. no. 190, 24 (1916), "Compact thyrses of large, full and imbricated flowers, bright cobalt blue, a very rare shade among Lilacs." — Have- meyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1916 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in October, 1918; no. 7935 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, large; corolla- lobes rounded or pointed at apex; tone pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) ; when expanded Pale Vinaceous-Lilac tinged with Light Vina- ceous-Lilac without, Pale Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) tinged with Argyle Purple (xxxvn.) to white tinged with Verbena Violet (xxxvi.) within. Clusters compact, densely filled, broad at base. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 190. Justii Hort. according to Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864), "Mit schonen, langen, lockeren blassrothen, grossblumigen Bluthenrispen," and as Just's Flieder. — Regel, Russ. Dendr. 207 (1870), as Josti. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), and as Lilas commun de Just. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), as Justi. — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 380 (1892), "Knospe rotviolett," as Justi. Appears as a name only in various catalogues: Simon-Louis, 1886-1887, 58. — Spath, no. 69, 115 (1887-1888), as Justi. — Muskauer Baumschulen, Haupt-Katalog, 1910, 37. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists as a name only under S. vulgaris q. hybrida hort., od[er] Ambfroise] Verschaffelt a form Josti which he notes is cultivated at St. Petersburg. This is undoubtedly a misnomer. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 4, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2927-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, large, symmetrical; corolla-lobes narrow, pointed at apex, slightly cucullate on first ex- 318 THE LILAC panding; anthers visible but deep-set; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when expanded Purplish Lilac with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvu.) without, Pale Mauve (xxv.) with markings of white at throat within. Clusters narrow, compact, medium size. Kate Harlin Kanzleiter in Gartenwelt, xin. 129, t. fig. 3 (1909), "Kate Harlin, eben- falls einfach, ist von vornehmen Alabasterweiss. Die einzelnen Bliiten sind auffallend gross und stehen in gleichmassiger Entfernung auseinander, so dass die Rispen ein ele- gantes, leichtes Aussehen erhalten. Durch diese grazios und gleichmassig gebauten Rispen kommt jede einzelne Blume zur vollen Geltung, auch werden die Blumen nicht rostig, was bei der weissen Farbung ein grosser Vorteil ist und diese Sorte fiir die Zukunft als wertvolle Schnittblume erscheinen lasst." — Pfitzer, Hauptkatalog, 1910. Mr. Paul Pfitzer wrote me on November 7, 1924, that this form was the result of a crossing made by his grandfather Mr. Wilhelm Pfitzer, in his private garden at Stuttgart. It was chosen when in flower from among many other seedlings, then transplanted and carefully observed for years. Mr. Pfitzer was aided in its choice by several wellknown Lilac specialists. Mr. Paul Pfitzer tells me that it first appeared in the firm's Haupt- katalog for 1 910 which I have not seen. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Stepman-De Messemaeker in 1914). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes broad, cucullate, saucer- shaped; corolla-tube long, slender; color in bud Absinthe Green to Deep Sea-foam Green (xxxi.); when expanded between Sea-foam Green (xxxi.) and white; the color is never a pure white. Clusters well-filled, large, long, showy. Katherine Havemeyer Lemoine, Cat. no. 196, 19 (1922), "Large and compact panicles, enormous flowers of the most perfect shape, with broad imbricated lobes, cobalt lilac flushed mauve, certainly one of the handsomest double Lilacs." Introduced in 1922 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Named for Mrs. T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. Notes on plant at Moreau Delano's, Orange, N. J. (received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in 1924). Flowers semi-double to double, large; corolla-lobes broad, rounded or pointed at apex; tone pale; color in bud Light Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) to Purplish Lilac (xxxvu.) ; when expanded Pale Lobelia Violet tinged with Purplish Lilac without, white tinged with Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) within. Clusters interrupted, medium to large in size, broad-pyramidal. Leaves are frequently present at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescence. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 196. On a plant of this form growing in the collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., the clusters appeared too compact and crowded for real beauty. Koenig Johann Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), name only, and as Lilas commun Roi Jean. It is possible that this is a corresponding name for the Lilac Erzherzog Johann. Mr. Rehder suggests that it may have been named in honor of Konig Johann von Sachsen. Konigin Luise Pfitzer, Cat. 192 1, "Ausdem grossen Sortiment der Flieder hebt sich diese herrliche Neuheit besonders hervor. Seit mehr als 10 Jahren wurde diese Sorte in SYRINGA VULGARIS 319 meinen Kulturen ausprobiert und fiir gut befunden, dem Handel iibergeben zu werden. An Grosse der Dolden und Bliihwilligkeit iibertrifft sie die alte bekannte Sorte Marie Legraye. Als Treibfiieder ist sie von grosster Zukunft, da ihr grosser Vorteil in der absolut sicheren Treibfahigkeit liegt. Die grossen, iippig vollen Blutenrispen sind vom reinsten Weiss, der Wuchs der Pfianze ist sehr kraftig und gedrungen. Durch ihre vorzuglichen Eigenschaften wird sich 'Konigin Luise' bald iiberall einen ersten Platz erringen und behaupten." — H. Gehringer in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxxvi. 16 (1921). In a letter of November 7, 1924, Mr. Paul Pfitzer informed me that this was raised by his grandfather Mr. Wilhelm Pfitzer, in his private garden at Stuttgart, and was selected from among other seedlings on May 20, 1900. I have not seen the firm's catalogue for 1 92 1 and the description there contained was sent me by Mr. Paul Pfitzer. Lamarck Lemoine, Cat. no. 104, 16 (1886), "Thyrses de plus de 20 centimetres; fleurs larges de 2 centimetres, formees de 3 ou 4 corolles emboitees et souvent disposees par etages; lilas bleuatre passant au rose quand on va de l'interieure a. l'exterieure de la fleur; centre blanc bien apparent; superbe variete qui se prete au forcage." — Have- meyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1886 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 6, 1895, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1889; no. 3467-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, large, symmetrical; outer corolla-lobes broad, inner corolla-lobes narrow, slightly pointed at apex ; tone intermediate ; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous- Lilac (xliv.) to Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, Lilac (xxv.) with margins of white on corolla- lobes within. Clusters somewhat conical, handsome. La Mauve Lemoine, Cat. no. 125, 16 (1893), "Thyrses compacts, fleurs pleines, lilas mauve; cette variete est une de celles qui reussissent le mieux au forcage." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1893 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1900). Flowers double, small; tone pale; color in bud Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink without, Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.) with a white eye within. Clusters narrow, pyramidal, small to medium in size. Languis Makoy according to Dauvesse, Cat. no. 36, 47 (1872), as Lilas Languis (Makoy), name only. — De Vos in Nederl. Fl. Pom. 11. 202 (1876), "Bloeit bleek-rose kleurig," as Longuis. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), "Thyrses grands et com- pactes, fleurs carnees." — Transon, Cat. 1880-1881, 66, as Syringa Languis. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), as Longuis rosea. — Detriche, Cat. 1893-1894, 16, as Syringa Longuis. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1897-1898, 66, with single flowers. — Croux, Cat. 1905-1906, 106, "Tres longs thyrses de grandes fleurs, rose lilace tres pale," as 320 THE LILAC Unguis. — Moon, Cat. 1922, 61, "Double. Clusters full and large. Buds deep lilac, flowers bluish lilac. (R) 'Pale Wistaria Blue.' " Dauvesse attributes this form to Makoy but does not state whether he was the pro- ducer of the plant or merely its introducer. Simon-Louis classifies it with Lilacs with single flowers; Moon notes the flowers as double. It is uncertain which is correct. The plant in the Arnold Arboretum has double flowers, that at Rochester single. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., in November, 1906; no. 5194 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, unsymmetrical, large; corolla-lobes pointed at apex; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when expanded Purplish Lilac or Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvii.) without, Lilac turning to Mauvette (xxv.) within. Clusters long, narrow, symmetrically filled. See Additions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Ellwanger and Barry in 1892). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone pale; color in bud Rocellin Purple to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded, the corolla-lobes Pale Laelia Pink, the corolla-tube Eupatorium Purple (xxxviii.) without, Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvii.) marked with white within. Clusters long, narrow, open. Laplace Lemoine, Cat. no. 185, 40 (1913), " Variete tres florifere, longs thyrses, fleurs moyennes, reflechies, violet vineux." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1913 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Mr. E. Lemoine informs me that this was named for the French mathe- matician, Pierre Simon Laplace (1 749-1827), who was a follower of Newton. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in October, 1918; no. 7921 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, extra large; corolla- lobes cucullate, with raised margins forming a small pocket; anthers almost hidden; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Indian Lake to Schoenf eld's Purple (xxvi.) ; when expanded Bishop's Purple to Argyle Purple with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac without, Bishop's Purple or Lobelia Violet (xxxvii.) within, a solid color. Clusters open, extra large, long, with spreading subdivisions. A handsome, showy, dark-flowered form. La Tour d'Auvergne Lemoine, Cat. no. no, x. (1888), "Thyrses droits, boutons tres serres et tres gros, rouge pourpre avant l'epanouissement; fleurs tres grandes, bien doubles, violet purpurin." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1888 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 7, 1895, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1889; no. 345 1-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, large, corolla-lobes pointed at apex, opening into a star-shaped flower, tone inter- mediate; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.); when ex- panded Eupatorium Purple (xxxviii.) without, Ageratum Violet to Hay's Lilac (xxxvii.) within. Clusters narrow, open, variable in size. Laura Cox Pfitzer, Hauptkatalog, 1907, " Einfachbluhend, zart-lilarosa, sehr feine Farbung." Mr. Paul Pfitzer wrote me on November 7, 1924, that this is a seedling found by his SYRINGA VULGARIS 321 grandfather, Mr. Wilhelm Pfitzer, growing in the garden of Mr. Cox at Cannstatt near Stuttgart. Mr. Wilhelm Pfitzer introduced it. The letter states that it first appeared in the firm's catalogue with the description given above. Lavaliensis A. Leroy, Cat. 1865, 100, and as Lilas commun de Laval, name only. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), and as Lilas commun de Laval, name only. — L. Henry in Jardin, vm. 175 (1894), "Fleurs came clair, nuance lilas; boutons legerement roses. Inflorescences moyennes," with single flowers, as De Laval {Lavaliensis). — Baltet, Cat. 1900-1901, 28, "blanc lave de rose carmine," as Lilas de Laval. L. Henry (Jardin, vm. 174, 1894) objects to the confusion caused by the use in nursery catalogues of Latin titles without specific name; among those so used he mentions La- valiensis. La Vierge Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1890, 425, " Arbuste vigoureux, fioribond, a rameaux dresses. Feuilles grandes, cordiformes, longuement acuminees en pointe aigue, tres- entieres, fortement nervees, d'un vert pale, comme legerement ondulees. Inflorescence enorme, tres-ramifiee, relativement courte, compacte, brusquement attenuee, arrondie au sommet, a ramifications spiciformes, dressees, formant par leur reunion de fortes pani- cules. Fleurs tres-grandes, bien faites, a divisions largement arrondies, finement et agreablement odorantes, d'un beau blanc mat tres-pur." Carriere states that this was obtained some years earlier by Bertin the elder, a nursery- man of Versailles, France, and was to be put on the market in the autumn of 1890 or the spring of 1891. He mentions it as an early bloomer but does not state whether the flowers are single or double. See Additions. Lavoisier Lemoine, Cat. no. 185, 40 (1913), "Thyrses extra larges, d'une jolie teinte mauve rose, plante tres florifere." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1913 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1914). Flowers single, medium to small in size ; corolla-lobes broad, rounded or pointed at apex, cucullate; tone pale; color in bud Drab to Light Drab (xlvi.) to Light Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when expanded Light Vinaceous-Lilac with margins of Pale Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) without, Light Pinkish Lilac marked with Hay's Lilac (xxxvn.) within. Clusters open, narrow, long. Le Gaulois Lemoine, Cat. no. 98, 12 (1884), "Thyrses tres larges et serres, fleurs pleines, irregulieres, couleur fieur de pecher fonce, plus clair au centre." Introduced in 1884 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. For the origin of this form see Azurea plena. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 5, 1895, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1889; no. 3453-1 Arn. Arb.)- Flowers double, medium size; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red (xxxviii.); when expanded Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.). Clusters narrow, unsymmetrical, medium size. Lemoinei Lemoine, Cat. no. 80, vm. (1878), "Thyrse allonge de 20 centimetres sur 25 de largeur, pyramidal et bien fourni, fleurs pleines, fermes, a. nombreux pe tales dis- posers en rosaces de couleur tendre. Les boutons et le dessous de la corolle sont roses, 322 THE LILAC tandis que les fleurs epanouies sont de nuance lilas. . . ," as flore duplo Lemoinei. — E. Morren in Belg. Hort. xxviii. 175, t. vni. (1878), as flore duplo Lemoinei. — De Vos in Belg. Hort. xxix. 140 (1879), as fl. dupl. Lemoinei. — Sieboldia, rv. 77, 255 (1879), as flore duplo Lemoinei. — Belg. Hort. xxrx. 225 (1879), as Lilas double de Lemoine. — Andre in Illustr. Hort. xxvi. 62 (1879), as S. Lemoinei. — Gard. Chron., ser. 2, xv. 368, fig. 71 (1881), as Lemoine's new double Lilac. — Mohr in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. viii. 84, t. (1882), as flore pleno Lemoinei. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen? 78 (1885), as Lemoinei flore pleno. — Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1883, 550, as Syringa Lemoinei; 1885, 310, as Syringa Lemoinei. — E. Morren and A. De Vos, Index Bibliog. Hort. Belg. 555 (1887), as^. dupl. Lemoinei. — Carriere and Andre in Rev. Hort. 1889, 411. — V. Lemoine in Garden and Forest, 11. 326 (1889). — Hartwig, 111. Gehdlzb. 380 (1892), as flore pleno Lemoinei and as Lemoine's gefullter Fl[ieder]. — E. Lemoine in Jardin, vi. 152 (1892). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896), as plena Lemoinei. — L. Henry in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 738 (1901), as Lemoinei flore pleno. — Foussat in Jardin, xv. 281 (1901). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 414 (1903), as flore pleno Lemoinei. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxri. 378 (1907), as Syringa Lemoinei. — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7), as Syringa Le- moinei.— Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 89 (1920), &s flore pleno Lemoinei. See Plate cxxx. Introduced in 1878 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. This is especially interesting as being the best double seedling raised by Mr- Victor Lemoine in his hybridization of Azurea plena. Havemeyer notes that it first flowered in 1877. See Azurea plena. Double Lemoine has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (486, 1923). Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 5, 1895, from plant received from A. Waterer in April, 1887; no. 185-2 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, with 2 corollas, sometimes hose-in-hose, large; corolla-lobes pointed at apex; tone pale; color in bud Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Tour- maline Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, Deep Lavender (xxxvi.) within. Clusters interrupted, medium size, numerous. Le Notre Lemoine, Cat. no. 196, 18 (1922), "Long straight spikes, big globular flowers, deep violet, with paler reverses . . . , " with double flowers. Introduced in 1922 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. (plant received from Lemoine in 1922). Flowers double, medium size, with two or three corollas and additional lobes at throat, often hose-in-hose; tone intermediate; color in bud Eupa- torium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded the outer corolla-lobes Purplish Lilac with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac to white, the inner white without, Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) within, a solid color. Clusters extremely long, well-filled, with long erect subdivisions. The inner lobes, pale without and curling inward, give a variegated appearance to the cluster. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 196. SYRINGA VULGARIS 323 Leon Gambetta Lemoine, Cat. no. 167, vni. (1907), "Grands thyrses, fleurs rondes, r6gulieres, imbriquees, lilas rose; cette magnifique variete, qui fleurit habituellement vers le i^mai, est une des plus natives." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). — Dunbar in Florists Exch. 830, fig. (1923). — Marshall, Circular, "The Lilac," [cir. 1924], fig. (p. 7). Introduced in 1907 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Mrs. Bayard Thayer, Lancaster, Mass., in April, 1913; no. 7135 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, large ; corolla- lobes broad or narrow, usually pointed at apex; tone pale; color in bud, corolla-lobes Light Cinnamon-Drab (xlvt.), corolla- tube Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) to Purplish Lilac (xxxvn.) ; when expanded, corolla-tube Purplish Lilac, corolla-lobes Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvii.) without, white marked with Verbena Violet (xxxvi.) within. Clusters long, narrow, open, symmetrically filled. Curiously, this form which Lemoine states is early flowering is one of the latest to bloom in the Arnold Arboretum. A fine Lilac. Leonie Lambert Peter Lambert, Cat. 1913-1914, 101, "... Neuheit, Blutenrispe extra gross, breit u. lang, einzelne Bliitchen s. gross, einfach, flach, breite runde Corolle, sehr dunkel violett bis Bordeauxrot mit heller Mitte, Knospen blutrot, halt lang, duftend, s. reichbluh., hoch liber dem grossen Laub stehend (Andenken an L. Spath X Marie Legray[e])," as Syringa Leonie Lambert (P. Lambert, 1909). A production of the firm of Peter Lambert, Trier, Germany, and, according to their catalogue of 1913-1914, introduced in 1909. Leon Portier E. Turbat, Litt. ined. October 31, 1924. In a letter of which Mr. J. C. Wister kindly sent me a copy, Mr. Turbat states that this form is "Tres beau vineux clair," and that it originated with Bruchet, a nurseryman of St. Rambery-sur-Loire (Loire), France; he adds that Bruchet tells him this was lost during the war. Leon Simon Lemoine, Cat. no. no, x. (1888), "Thyrses rigides, atteignant 35 centi- metres de circonference, biquadrifurques, compacts, serres, bourres de fleurs; celles-ci qui sont agglomerees les unes sur les autres, sont tres pleines et tout a. fait globuleuses, couleur giroflee bleuatre, boutons corail clair. L'ensemble du thyrse produit l'effet d'un paquet de giroflees reunies. Cette plante est tout a fait exceptionelle, et n'a ni pour le port ni pour la beaute aucun analogue, soit dans les simples, soit dans les doubles." — V. Lemoine in Garden and Forest, 11. 328 (1889). — Nicholson in Gardeners' Mag. xxxv. 62, fig. (1892). — Lackner in Gartenflora, xliii. 506, t. 1407 (1894). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1888 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 5, 1895, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1889; no. 3465-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, medium size, often hose-in-hose; corolla-lobes pointed at apex, curling toward center, form- ing a somewhat globular flower; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) ; when expanded Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) without,Light Lobelia Violet shaded with Argyle Purple (xxxvn.) within. Clusters short, narrow, compact. 324 THE LILAC Leopold II. Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Cat. [1908], 2, "Splendide variete a thyrses compacts de dimensions extraordinaire, tres larges fleurons mauve clair. La plante est caracterisee par son bois tres gros, parfois un peu tortueux . . . . " — De Corte in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. xxxiv. 207 (1908). — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxm. 350 (1908). Introduced in 1908 by the firm of Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Brussels, Belgium; according to their catalogue it was a seedling produced by crossing the forms Dr. Lindley and Marie Legraye. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker in 1914). Flowers single, large, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate, saucer-shaped; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Eupatorium Purple (xxxviii.); when expanded Argyle Purple with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac without, Bishop's Purple (xxxvii.) within. Clusters long, open, widely branched, unsymmetrically filled. The pale margins of the corolla-lobes give a varie- gated appearance to the clusters. Le Printemps Lemoine, Cat. no. 149, 29 (1901), "Thyrses bifurques, serres et com- pacts, fleurs moyennes, bien pleines, violet rose clair a reflets satines. Variete tres hative, epanouissant ses fleurs avant le lilas commun." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 322. — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1901 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1907; no. 17,376 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, medium size; tone inter- mediate to pale ; color in bud, of corolla-tube Argyle Purple (xxxvii.), of corolla-lobes Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.); when expanded inner corolla-lobes Pale Lobelia Violet tinged Argyle Purple and outer corolla-lobes Argyle Purple, a solid color, without, Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvii.) within. Clusters compact, large. The flowers appear to be darker without than within. Liberti Ch. Ljemaire] in Fl. Serres, in. 252b (1847), and as Lilas de Libert, "... une variete de Lilas fort distincte de toutes celles qu'on a obtenues jusqu'ici de cet arbrisseau, et que recommandent des thyrses de 40 a. 45 centimetres de hau- teur, garnis de fleurs tres denses, tres regulierement et elegamment disposees, d'un beau bleu lilace, a reflet ardoise, d'un effet magnifique. Le bois en est tortueux, mais robuste, peu eleve et garni d'un ample et beau feuillage . . . . " — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864), " Grossblumig, lila," and as Libert's Flieder. — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 559 (1875), "Bluthen lila-blau, ziemlich gross," and as Libert's Flieder. — Dieck, Haupt-Verzeichn. Zoschen, Nachtr. 1. 28 (1887). — E. Morren and A. De Vos, Index Bibliog. Hort. Belg. 556 (1887).— Van Houtte, Cat. no. 225-L, 43 (1887), "Very compact clusters of lilac blue flowers with a metallic reflex." — L. Henry in Jardin, viii. 175 (1894), "Ancienne variete. Fleurs ardoise bleuatre. Inflorescences longues, mais assez peu fournies," with single flowers, as Lilas de Libert (Liberti). This should not be confused with the double-flowered Lilac, Azurea plena, first de- scribed by Charles Morren as Syringa vulgaris flore duplo Liberti. Petzold and Kirchner, although they do not state that the flowers of Liberti are single, keep the form distinct SYRINGA VULGARIS 325 from Azurea plena and one may infer that they were writing of the single form. Edouard Morren (Belg. Hort. xxvirr. 175, 1878) in writing of Azurea plena which he calls flore pleno Liberti states: "C'est le veritable Lilas de Libert, bien que ce nom ait ete applique aussi a une variete a fleurs simple, mais a tort." The following references which do not state whether the flowers are single or double may apply to either form: Bon Jard. 11. 783 (1850), "Variete nouvelle a fleurs tres regu- lieres, d'un bleu lilace a reflects ardoises, disposees en thyrses tres denses" as 6*. v., var. Liberti. — Decaisne and Naudin, Man. Amateur Jard. 111. 87 (1862-1866), "ou elles [les fleurs] ont un reflet bleuatre assez sensibles," as Lilas de Libert. — Dupuis and Herincq (Horticulture, Veg. d'Orn., texte, p. 295, in Reveil and others, Regne Vegetale, 1864- 1871), "fleurs bleu lilace, a reflets ardoises (Lilas de Libert)". — A. Leroy, Cat. 1865, 100, as Libertii and as Lilas commun de Libert. — Pasquale, Cat. Orto Bot. Napoli, 1867, 100, as Syringa Libertii; Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), as S. vulgaris Liberti and as Lilas commun de Libert. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists as a name only a form Liberti under his S. vulgaris q. hybrida hort., od[er] Amb[roise] Verschaffelt. He does not state whether this is a single- or double-flowered form but he also mentions Azurea plena as a distinct plant. C. Lemaire notes that this form was acquired from its originator Mons. Libert of Thiers-a-Liege, Belgium, by Jacob Makoy and named by him for the producer. It is probable that both the double and the single forms originated with Libert. See Azurea plena. L. Henry (Jardin, vni. 174, 1894) objects to the confusion caused by the use in nursery catalogues of Latin titles without specific name; among those so used he cites Liberti. Liberty A. Leroy, Cat. 1852, 58, name only. — L. Leroy, Cat. 1858-1859, 94, name only. — Baumann, Cat. no. 159, 38 (1879), name only. — Bertin in Jardin, xh. 121 (1898), name only. Possibly a misspelling of the name of the form Liberti. See Liberti. In a later catalogue (1865, 100) A. Leroy lists, as a name only, the form S. vulgaris Libertii or Lilas commun de Libert; this may have been a correction of his earlier spelling, Liberty. See Additions. Lilarosa Spath, Cat. no. 69, 115 (1887-1888), name only. — Dunbar in Gard. Mag. 1. 233 (1905), "Silvery to creamy pink," with single flowers. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., in November, 1906; no. 17,377 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size; corolla- lobes narrow, cucullate, pointed at apex; anthers deep set and only rarely visible; tone pale; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxvui.); when expanded Laelia Pink with margins of Pale Laelia Pink without, Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvui.) with a white eye within. Clusters long, narrow, interrupted, numerous. This has a somewhat dainty appearance because of the narrow corolla-lobes. Linne Lemoine, Cat. no. 116, xiii. (1890), "Thyrses tres longs, garnis de fleurs grandes, irregulieres, echevetrees a lobes pointus et chiffonnees, rouge lilace, centre plus fonce, revers tres clairs." — Nicolas in Jardin, ix. 80 (1895). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). 326 THE LILAC Introduced in 1890 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 30, 1900, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1895; no. 3809-2 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, medium to large in size; corolla-lobes narrow, pointed at apex, curling; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Hellebore Red to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Eupatorium Purple to Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink with- out, Eupatorium Purple to Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) within. Clusters open, large, narrow- pyramidal. The flowers appear to be darker within than without. It seems probable that the Lilac Lume, listed by Farr (Cat. "Better Plants," 1922- 1923, 59) as a name only, is a misnomer for this form. L'Oncle Tom Lemoine, Cat. no. 155, 31 (1903), "Grands thyrses, fieurs rondes bien regulieres, couleur pourpre violace tres fonce." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1017)- Introduced in 1903 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Uncle Tom has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (488, 1923) . Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Lemoine in November, 1905; no. 10,586 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, symmetrical, medium size; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers visible; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Magenta to Liseran Purple (xxvi.) ; when expanded Bishop's Purple to Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac without, Light Perilla Purple or Bishop's Purple or Sac- cardo's Violet (xxxvn.) within, a solid color. Clusters open, spreading at base, sym- metrically filled, long. Lorenz Booth Ottolander in Sieboldia, 11. 178 (1876), "sterke heester, bloeit mild; zeer groote maar ijle bloemtros, matig groote bloemen, licht paars gekleurd; deze varieteit is, naar ons gevoelen, een der minst aanbevelenswaardige." Ottolander states that this form is not the same as James Booth. Louise-Marie Duvivier in Jour. Hort. Pratique Belgique, ser. 2, v. 241, t. xix. fig. 1 (1861), as Lilas Louise-Marie. — E. Morren and A. De Vos, Index Bibliog. Hort. Belg. 556 (1887). According to Duvivier this was produced by the amateur grower Brahy-Ekenholm, of Liege, Belgium, and from the same crosses which produced the forms Croix de Brahy, Ekenholm, "d'azur a. fleur double " [= Azurea plena], Charlemagne and Princesse Camille de Rohan. They were the result of crossing Charles X. and Noisette. The colored plate was painted by Ed. Van Mark of Liege. He tells us that this Lilac was dedicated, by a special commission of the Societe royale des conferences horticoles of Liege, to the late queen of the Belgians, and he describes it as follows: " . . . un bel arbuste, aux feuilles nombreuses, larges et d'un vert un peu plus pale que celui du type specifique. Le thyrse, qui a la forme d'un ovoide allonge, est grele, delicat et d'une excessive elegance; des thyrses supplementaires, en nombre indetermine, naissent souvent de sa base et concourent ainsi a donner plus de grace encore au thyrse principal. Les fieurs, peu serrees, s'epanouissent librement; leur tube est regulier, mais SYRINGA VULGARIS 327 chacune des divisions de la corolle semble avoir subi sur son axe un mouvement de torsion, ce qui donne a. l'ensemble un aspect tout particulier et parfaitement caracteristique; de plus beaucoup de fleurs ont leur limbe divise tantot en trois, tantot en cinq parties . . . la couleur de ce Lilas est du blanc de lait le plus pur. ..." Duvivier states that this was raised from seed sown in 1851, but at the date of his writing, 1861, had not yet been introduced to trade. I have found no other mention of this form except in the "Index Bibliographique de l'Hortus Belgicus" of E. Morren and A. De Vos, which is a "Catalogue methodique des plantes ornementales qui ont ete decrites, figurees ou introduites en Belgique de 1830 a 1880." Louis Henry Lemoine, Cat. no. 128, x. (1894), "Panicules enormes et compactes, longues et larges, fleurs pleines, de tres grande taille, rose violace mele de rose bleuatre. Cette variete, magnifique en pleine terre, se force parfaitement." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 380 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1894 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Louis Henry was in charge of the cultural work at the Museum of Natural History, Paris. Notes on plant in the Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 25, 1900, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1895; no. 3808-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, unsymmetrical, large to extra large; corolla-lobes broad or narrow, rounded or pointed at apex, curling; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xxrv.) to Light Perilla Purple (xxxvii.) to Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) without, Liseran Purple (xxvi.) to Hay's Lilac (xxxvn.) marked with white at throat within. Clusters heavy, broad at base, unsymmetrical. Louis van Houtte Van Houtte, Cat. no. 175-w, 54 (1877-1878), "A magnificent novelty. Enormous bouquet of red flowers." — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 144 (1880), "Belle nouveaute, donnant des thyrses enormes de fleurs d'un beau rouge," as Van Eouttei and as Lilas commun Louis Van Houtte. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — Froebel, Cat. no. 116, 16 (1893), "Magnifique nouveaute, encore beaucoup trop peu connue et repandue, donnant d'enormes thyrses de fleurs d'un tres-beau rouge. Les fleurs individuelles ont iJ^-2 cm. de diametre." — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 113 (1889), with single flowers. — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896). — Van Geert, Cat. no. 169, 45 (1896), as L. Van Houtte. — Spath-Buch, 1920, 223, "Rispen gross, locker, pyramidal. Bluten gross, lilarosafarben, Knospen dunkler, hubsch abstechend," with single flowers. Commonly attributed to the Van Houtte firm of La Pinte-lez-Gand, Belgium; but on November 27, 1924, the director of the firm wrote me that they could not give me any information in regard to its origin. Mr. E. Lemoine wrote me on January 16, 1925: "Obtenu par Van Houtte d'apres nos notes, peut-etre une erreur." Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Ellwanger and Barry in 1892). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes cucullate on first expanding; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Eupatorium Purple 328 THE LILAC (xxxviii.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink with margins of Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, Argyle Purple with markings of Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvn.) at throat within. Clusters well-filled, medium size. Lucie Baltet Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1888, 21, "L'arbuste, d'une vigueur moyenne, est excessivement floribond; sa tenue est bonne et son feuillage tres-abondant, courte- ment pedoncule, est vert un peu blond. Grappe dressee, largement et gracieusement pyramidale, arrondie au sommet, bien fournie sans pour cela etre compacte, courtement ramifiee, a ramifications bien garnies. Fleurs tres-rapprochees, ordinairement reunies par petits groupes, plus rarement solitaires, assez finement et longuement tubulees, d'un beau rose carmine qui s'accentue un peu avec la floraison, a 4 divisions bien etalees, courtement arrondies, obovales. Odeur fine et agreable sans etre trop forte." — Grosde- mange in Rev. Hort. 1893, 286. — De Duren in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. xxi. 157 (1895). — L. Henry in Jardin, vni. 175 (1894), "Fleur came pale ou vieux rose. Coloris delicat, tout a fait rare et remarquable; pas toujours constant. Inflorescences moyennes, variete des plus curieuses et des plus belles." Carriere states that this was produced by the Baltet firm of Troyes, France. Carriere and Andr6 (Rev. Hort. 1884, 243) state that in the Baltet nursery they saw upon a plant of this form flowers which were of three different colors, "rose vif, violet rose" and "gris blanc tres legerement came." Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1917; no. 7627 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size; corolla- lobes rounded at apex, cucullate; anthers conspicuous; tone pale; color in bud Hellebore Red to Rhodonite Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Pale Persian Lilac to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) on Ivory Yellow (xxx.). Clusters open, large. This form has flowers which nearly approach a "flesh color"; the plant in the Arnold Arboretum is never a profuse bloomer but is one of the loveliest of the single Lilacs. Lucienne Bruchet E. Turbat, Litt. ined. October 31, 1924. In a letter of which Mr. J. C. Wister kindly sent me a copy, Mr. Turbat states that this form is "Blanc simple, enorme," and that it originated with Bruchet, a nurseryman of St. Rambery-sur-Loire, France; he adds that Bruchet tells him it was lost during the war. Lucienne Guillaud Nollent according to Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Suppl. to Gen. Cat. [1908], 2, "Beaux thyrses pyramidaux blanc," with double flowers. In a letter of August 31, 1925, the curator of the Jardin Botanique de l'Etat of Brussels, Belgium, informed me that Nollent was the name for the late firm Aug. Gouchault of Orleans, France. See Andre Laurent. Mr. R. Chenault, writing me on October 12, 1925, in reply to a letter addressed to his father-in-law, Mr. A. Gouchault, states that he does not know the origin of this form. Possibly identical with the form Mme. Henri Guillaud. Macrostachya Froebel, Cat. no. 116, 16 (1893), " Coloris tout nouveau. Les panicules volumineuses de 20 cm. de longueur au moins, sont du plus beau rose clair et de grand effet." — Dauthenay in Rev. Hort. 1899, 59, "Ses inflorescences sont tres-volumineuses; ses fleurs tres-odorantes, sont larges d'environs 27 millimetres, carne a l'etat de bouton SYRINGA VULGARIS 329 peu avance, d'un rose lilace clair au moment de l'epanouissement, tournant au blanc tres-legerement lilace a la declinaison. Les divisions du limbe de la corolle sont amples et profondes; les etamines sont d'un jaune verdatre. Quant a, l'arbuste lui-meme, il est remarquable par sa grande vigueur, sa rapide croissance, ses feuilles tres-amples et tres- allongees, presque hastees, et d'un beau vert." — St. Paul in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 7, 63 (1898), as Syringa macrostachya. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1900-1901, 67, as macrostachia. — L. Henry in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 733 (1901). — Beissner Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 414 (1903). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxm. fig. (p. 155) (1916). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 89 (1920). — Wister in House and Garden, March, 1926, 172. Dauthenay quotes the following information which he obtained from Mr. Ludovic Lefievre of Nantes, in regard to this form. It was observed about 1874 by Renaud, ex- vice-president of the Societe nantaise d'Horticulture, in a garden near Nantes. On his recommendation Adolphe Lefievre propagated and put it on the market as Syringa vulgaris macrostachya carnea. This name was given the plant on the advice of Mr. Paul Marny, ex-director of the Jardin des Plantes at Nantes. Dauthenay also quotes Mr. Renaud who writes that he saw it first in 1874 in the garden of Mr. Genuit at Saint-Luce. The owner had procured it years before from his father-in-law who lived at Mortagne but did not know whence it came although he thought it had been bought on a visit to Paris. From the foregoing it seemed likely to Dauthenay that this form originated in Paris and was for sale there under some other name about 1844. Because of the similarity in names it seems possible to me that the Lilac, Macrothyrsus, which appears in Oudin's catalogue for 1841, may be the original form referred to by Dauthenay. J. C. Wister (House and Garden, 1. c.) states that the form Macrostachya existed before i860, but I have been unable to verify this, and believe that the name, as used here, begins, as Dauthenay states, after 1874. Wister also (Nat. Hort. Mag. vi. n, 1927), although he does not give his authority, cites as a possible synonym for Macrostachya, Amoena. Since, according to Dauthenay, the name Macrostachya was only given the plant after 1874, and since Amoena was evidently in trade in 1845, *t does not appear possible that the two names should be synonymous. Nash (Jour. N. Y. Bot. Gard. xx. 234, 1919) has called this the Large-clustered-Lilac; Longcluster has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (486, 1923). Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from grafts taken February 13, 1897, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1895; no. 3813-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers conspicuous; tone pale; color in bud Purplish Vinaceous to Light Purplish Vinaceous (xxxix.) to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvii.) to Pale Laelia Pink without, white tinged slightly with Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) within. Clusters long, narrow- pyramidal, almost conical, open. This is an unusual color among forms of the Common Lilac, nearly approaching a flesh color. The plant in the Arnold Arboretum flowers somewhat late. It is a profuse bloomer and one of the most satisfactory of all garden forms of S. vulgaris. 330 THE LILAC Macrothyrsus Oudin, Cat. 1841, 22, name only, and as Lilas commun a grand thyrse; Cat. 1849-1850, 6, name only. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880), name only, and as Lilas commun a grands thyrses. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists a S. vulgaris k. macrothyrsus hort. which he notes is cultivated at Riga according to Wagner's catalogue and at Reval according to Dietrich. Possibly the original of the form Macrostachya. See Macrostachya. Mme. Abel Chatenay Lemoine, Cat. no. 122, x. (1892), "Thyrses moyens, compacts, fleurs dressees, tres pleines, du blanc de lait le plus pur, rapellant par leur forme les ra- meaux d'Hesperis matronalis a fleurs doubles blanches." — Nicolas in Jardin, ix. 80 (1895). — De Duren in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. xxi. 158 (1895). — Grignan in Rev. Hort. 1907, 15. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 380 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1892 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. De Duren quotes F. Desbois who in turn quotes Mr. V. Lemoine as saying that this was obtained by crossing Marie Legraye with pollen from a double form, — the same cross having produced Obelisque and Mme. Lemoine. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in October, 1918; no. 18,065 Arn. Arb.). Flowers semidouble or double, unsymmetrical, large; corolla-lobes pointed or rounded at apex, rarely cucullate; color in bud Light Viridine Yellow to Pale Viridine Yellow (v.) ; when expanded white. Clusters well-filled, medium size, broad-pyramidal, numerous. Small leaves are frequently present at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescence. Mme. Amelie Duprat Barbier, Cat. 1900-1901, 132, "Large spikes, flowers double, large, violet-rose color." — Grafl. Lippe'sche Baumschulen Dauban, 1909, 43, " Gross gefiillt, violett rosa." — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PL Names, 487 (1923), as Mme. A. Duprat. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1900). Flowers double, hose-in-hose, small; corolla-lobes pointed at apex, opening into a star- shaped flower; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) to Tour- maline Pink (xxxvm.) ; when expanded Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink with occasional margins of white without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.) to Purplish Lilac (xxxvn.)within. Clusters small, dense, short, pyramidal. I have seen only the English edition of Barbier's catalogue for 1 900-1 901. Mme. Antoine Buchner Lemoine, Cat. no. 173, vni. (1909), "Thyrses depassant souvent 30 centimetres de longueur, s'epanouissant successivement, montrant d'abord de gros boutons d'un rose carmine, entremeles de larges fleurs, assez regulieres, a lobes imbriques d'un rose tendre, nuance mauve, comme dans la variete Virginite; floraison tardive." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1909 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1910). Flowers double, with three corollas and additional lobes at throat, buds elongated, large, SYRINGA VULGARIS 331 corolla-lobes narrow, curling; tone pale; color in bud Deep Brownish Vinaceous to Pur- plish Vinaceous (xxxix.) to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) on white without, Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) on white within. Clusters open, long, narrow. The flowers of this form have a curious appearance because of their hose-in-hose character. Very showy and fine. Mme. Auguste Gouchault Turbat, Cat. 1923-1924, 76, "Long, elegant thyrsus of double white flowers, very late. Its flowers expand three weeks after the other sorts," with double flowers. Mr. A. Gouchault wrote me in November, 1924: "Syringa Mme. Auguste Gouchault. Seedling of the variety 'Mme. Lemoine,' raised in 1909; flowered for the first time in 1914 and proved to be a very valuable plant. The thyrses are very long and very light, the individual flowers being separated from each other and flowering two weeks after 'Mme. Lemoine.' Advertised by Messrs. Turbat & Co. in their catalogue for 1916- 1917 . . . still propagated and sold by Messrs. Turbat & Co." I have been unable to see the Turbat catalogue for 1916-1917. I have seen only the English edition of Turbat's catalogue for 1923-1924. Mme. Briot Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1877, 227, "Plante tres-vigoureuse pouvant s'elever a 3-5 metres de hauteur, mais fleurissant toute petite et pouvant par consequent etre maintenue a l'etat d'arbuste, tout en etant ornementale. Feuilles cordiformes, legere- ment echancrees a la base, reguli£rement acuminees au sommet. Thyrse enorme, attei- gnant jusqu'a 40 centimetres de longueur sur presque autant de largeur, ramifie, compact. Fleurs d'un tres-beau rouge excessivement fonce qui, quoique gai, est tres agreable a Tceil, de couleur uniforme dans toutes les parties. Corolle large, a. 4, parfois 5 divisions epaisses, etalees tres-fortes, ovales-arrondies, regulierement concaves. Odeur douce et legere bien qu'agreable, " as Lilas Madame Briot. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880), as Madame Briot. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — L. Henry in Jardin, vm. 175 (1894), "Fleurs grandes, rouge foncee pourpre; boutons rouge vineux. Thyrses volumineux. Magnifique variete, tardive," with single flowers, as Madame Briot. Carriere states that although only about to be put on the market in 1877 this was produced some years earlier by Briot, the head of the government nurseries at Trianon- Versailles; he notes that it is sometimes called Gros Rouge de Trianon. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in November, 1922; no. 11,745 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size; corolla-lobes broad, cucullate; tone intermediate; color in bud Neutral Red to Eupatorium Purple (xxxviii.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.) without, Lavender- Violet (xxv.) within. Clusters large, somewhat conical. Mme. Casimir Perier Lemoine, Cat. no. 128, x. (1894), "Panicules larges, hautes et compactes, fleurs pleines, imbriquees, a 3 ou 4 rangs de lobes, blanc creme; variete ex- cellente a. forcer et bien certainement la plus belle a fleurs doubles blanches." — H. R. W. in Gard. Chron. ser. 3, 115, fig. 35 (1900). — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 380 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1894 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. 332 THE LILAC Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June, 1901 or 1902, from plant received from Spath in November, 1900; no. 4342-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, with two corollas and additional lobes at throat, large, unsymmetrical ; outer corolla-lobes broad, inner corolla-lobes narrow, slightly pointed at apex, curling inward ; color in bud Chalcedony Yellow (xvii.); when expanded white. Clusters well-filled, large. A satisfactory double white which may be depended upon to bloom freely each year. Mme. Catherine Bruchet Nollent according to Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Suppl. Gen. Cat. [1908], 2, "Tres jolie variete a fleurs blanches, " with double flowers. — Turbat, Cat. 1910-1911, 60, "very large white flowers," double; 1923-1924, 75, as Catherine Bruchet. In a letter of August 31, 1925, the curator of the Jardin Botanique de l'Etat of Brussels, Belgium, informed me that Nollent was the name for the late firm Aug. Gouchault of Orleans, France. See Andre Laurent. Mr. R. Chenault writing me on October 12, 1925, in reply to a letter addressed to his father-in-law, Mr. A. Gouchault, stated that he did not know the origin of this form: "I asked Mr. Gouchault, Mr. Barbier, my father, who do not remember growing them." In a letter to Mr. J. C. Wister dated October 31, 1924, Mr. E. Turbat attributes this form to Bruchet, a nurseryman of St. Rambery-sur-Loire (Loire), France, and describes the plant as "Madame Bruchet, blanc a fleurs de paquer- ette" [the French for "Easter-Daisy"]. Mr. Chenault writes me that this firm is no longer known. This form is growing in the collection of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. The flowers are of medium size, somewhat round when expanded, and the clusters are long, narrow, and interrupted. Mme. de Miller Lemoine, Cat. no. 149, vin. (1901), "Plante se maintenant en touffes basses et couvertes de fleurs des la taille de 75 centimetres a 1 metre; les thyrses, de taille moyenne, de forme compacte, sont fournis de fleurs grandes, regulieres, imbriquees, d'un blanc d'albatre absolument pur, ainsi que les boutons." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.- Zeit. xxii. 382 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1901 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1907). Flowers double, large; color in bud Chrysolite Green to Sea-foam Green (xxxi.); when expanded white. Clusters narrow, open, symmetrically filled. The flowers have the appearance of double white violets. Mme. Dupont Kelsey, Circular, "Lilacs on their own Roots, " [cir. 1922], 2, name only. The information given here in regard to the origin of the form Andrew Dupont is applicable to this form also. See Andrew Dupont. Mme. Fallieres Nollent according to Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Suppl. Gen. Cat. [1908], 2, "Belles fleurs tres grandes, d'un beau rose pale, " with single flowers. — Turbat, Cat. 1910-1911, 60, "very large flowers, pale rose," with single flowers, as Syringa Ma- dame Fallieres. The information received from Mr, E. Chenault and Mr. Turbat in regard to the Lilac Mme. Catherine Bruchet is applicable to this form also. See Mme. Catherine Bruchet. See also Andre Laurent. SYRINGA VULGARIS 333 Mme. Felix Felix and Dykhuis, Trade letter, July 25, 1924, ". . .an improvement on the well known Marie Legraye. Pure white with far better panicles. Sure to be the best forcing Lilac"; Cat. [cir. 1925], 27, "Mad. Felix ist ein seit mehreren Jahren erprobter Treibflieder, entstanden aus Marie Legraye und einem Samling. Die rein- weissen Bliitenrispen sind sehr gross und stehen aufrecht auf dem Stengel. Die Pflanzen sind sehr reichbluhend und lassen sich leicht treiben. Die Triebe sind gerade. Diese Neuheit besitzt alle Vorteile von Marie Legraye und hat keine ihrer Nachteile," with single flowers. — Chenault, Cat. 1926-1927, 3, "Fine novelty with single flowers, very compact thyrses. Pure white flowers of a perfect form," as Madame Felix. Messrs. Felix and Dykhuis wrote me on June 6, 1925: "Mme. Felix originated in our nurseries, and is a cross between Marie Legraye and an unnamed seedling. It is far superior in bloom to Marie Legraye, and has great value as a forcing plant, both for pots and for cut flowers. The trusses are very full, pure white, and the smallest branch gives a perfect flower. It is very free. Silver Gilt Medal, Haarlem, 1925, and Certificate First Class, Boskoop, 1925." Mme. Florent Stepman Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Cat. [1908], 1, "Cette variete est certainement appelee a. supplanter toutes les varietes blanches a. fleurs simples. Les thyrses magnifiques sont d'une ampleur inconnue jusqu'ici dans les lilas. De forme pyramidal, ils se presentent excessivement bien; en serre ils atteignent plus de 40 centi- metres de longueur avec une largeur proportionelle. Les neurons grands, bien ouverts, pas trop serres, sont d'un blanc pur. Les etamines enfoncees fortement dans le tube de la corolle sont a peine visibles, ce qui fait paraitre la fleur absolument d'un blanc pur. Cette variete est de forte croissance et boutonne bien." — De Corte in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. xxxiv. 207 (1908). — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxiii. 350 (1908), as Mme. Fl. Stepman. Introduced in 1908 by the firm of Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Brussels, Belgium; according to their catalogue this was a seedling produced by crossing the forms Dr. Lindley and Marie Legraye. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1916; no. 7538 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, medium to large in size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes broad, pointed at apex, cucullate, saucer-shaped on first expanding, later opening at a right angle to corolla-tube; color in bud Light Viridine Yellow to Pale Viridine Yellow (v.); when expanded white. Clusters large, showy. Mme. F. Morel Morel in Rev. Hort. 1892, 108, t., "Les thyrses atteignent et depassent souvent 40 centimetres de longueur sur une largeur proportionelle; les fleurs ne mesurent pas moins de 20 a. 25 millimetres de diametre. J'ai constate bien des fois que l'extremite des petales deborde tout autour d'une piece de 20 sous appliquee sur la face d'une fleur etalee. (Une piece de 1 franc a 22^ millimetres de diametre) . . . Les grappes secon- dares placees a. la base des thyrses s'etalent largement et s'inflechissent avec grace, reunissant ainsi le double caractere d'ampleur et de legerete qui font les fleurs parfaites. Le coloris d'un beau rose, violace avec cette turgescence particuliere dont il est difficile au pinceau de rendre effet," as Lilas Madame F. Morel. See Plates cxxvi., cxxvn. 334 THE LILAC Morel states that among a collection of Lilacs which he had planted for a friend, he saw, about 1882, on a plant of Insignis rubra [= Rubra insignis] one especially fine flower cluster. He pollinized this with its own pollen and with that from other forms of the Common Lilac. This was chosen as the finest of the seedlings raised. Morel named it for his wife at the suggestion of the friend in whose garden it grew. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in November, 1920; no. 10,602 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, extra large; corolla-lobes broad, cucullate; corolla- tube in length about one half the width of the expanded corolla-lobes; anthers visible but deep-set; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xxiv.) to Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvni.) ; when expanded Argyle Purple with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac without, Lobelia Violet tinged with Argyle Purple (xxxvu.) and marked with white on corolla-lobes and at throat within. Clusters extra large, full, showy. The clusters of this form are astonish- ingly large and the amount of bloom on even a small plant is remarkable. Valuable for cut flowers. Mme. Henri Guillaud Nollent according to Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Suppl. Gen. Cat. [1908], 2, "Tres belles fleurs, coloris lilas pale," with double flowers. — Turbat, Cat. 1910-1911, 60, "very nice flowers, pale lilac," with double flowers, as Syringa Ma- dame Henri Guillaud. See Andre Laurent. In a letter of which Mr. J. C. Wister kindly sent me a copy, Mr. E. Turbat of the firm of E. Turbat & Co., successors to J. Gouchault and Turbat, attributes this form to Bruchet, St. Rambery-sur-Loire (Loire), France. Notes on plant in collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. (plant received from E. Turbat & Co., Orl6ans, France, about 1923). Flowers double, with three or more corollas; corolla-lobes pointed at apex; tone pale; color in bud Daphne Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxvni.); when expanded white tinged with Pale Laelia Pink without, white tinged with Tourmaline Pink (xxxvni.) within. Clusters extra long, narrow above, broad with spreading subdivisions at the base. Leaves are frequently present at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescence. This is a showy form. Mme. Jules Finger Lemoine, Cat. no. 107, vm. (1887), "Thyrses de 23 centimetres, tres compacts, produit deja sur des arbustes de 80 centimetres, fleurs grandes, renonculi- formes, tres odorantes, petales ronds a revers apparents, rose satine, boutons purpurins; plante extremement florifere." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 379 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1887 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 7, 1895, from plant received from Lemoine in 1889; no. 3464-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double with two corollas and additional lobes at throat, medium to large in size; corolla-lobes pointed at apex, only rarely cucullate, curling inward at first, later opening at a right angle to corolla- tube; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Daphne Red to Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxvni.); when expanded Purplish Lilac to Light Pinkish Lilac without, Light Lobelia Violet to Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.) within. Clusters compact, medium size. SYRINGA VULGARIS 335 Mme. Kneyer Van Hotitte, Cat. no. 255-G, 36 (1893), with double flowers, &sMad. Kneyer. I have only found this form mentioned in catalogues of the Van Houtte firm. Mme. Kreuter Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), "A fleurs rouge pourpre; variete tres remarquable," as Kreuteriana and as Lilas commun Madame Kreuter. — Transon, Cat. 1 882-1 883, 68, as Syringa Madame Kreuter. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), as Madame Kreutter. — Spath, Cat. no. 69, 115 (1887-1888), "purpur, stammt von Marly-Fl. ab." — Barbier, Cat. 1896-1897, 118, as Syringa Madame Kreuter. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1900-1901, 67, "Lilas fonce," with single flowers. — E. M. in Garden, (lxxvti.) 217 (1913), ". . .is furnished with large spikes of various red flowers," with single flowers. The name Mme. Kreuter, used by Baudriller, has, to avoid confusion, here been re- tained, rather than the Latinized name Kreuteriana which I have not found appearing elsewhere. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 4, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2969-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, symmetrical, small to medium in size; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers visible; tone dark to intermediate; color in bud Dark Corinthian Purple to Hellebore Red (xxxvui.) ; when expanded Argyle Purple with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac without, Bishop's Purple to Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.) within. Clusters compact, medium size. The flowers appear to be darker within than without. Mme. Lemoine Lemoine, Cat. no. 116, xiii. (1890), "Plante d'une croissance vigou- reuse et extremementflorifere; un arbuste de 1 m. 20 de haut, portant jusqu'a 15 thyrses 6panouis a. la fois. Ceux-ci reunis par 2, 3, ou 4 sont larges et bien developpes; les fleurs qui les composent atteignent des dimensions superieures a. celles des lilas blancs simples. Form6es de 12 a. 15 lobes larges, arrondis et imbriques, elles n'ont jamais moins de 2 centimetres et demi de diametre, et sont du plus beau blanc de neige avec les boutons creme. Malgre leur grosseur et le poids de leurs fleurs pleines, les bouquets serres et compacts, haut de 25 centimetres et bifurques, ne flechissent jamais; ils restent en fleurs bien plus longtemps que ceux des varietes simples, et ne laissent jamais voir les pedoncules floraux. On dirait une masse de petites tubereuses reunies a profusion en larges pyra- mides. Superieure a. tous les lilas blancs simples par la taille et la forme irreprochable de ses fleurs, tranchant sur tous les lilas double parus jusqu'a ce jour par la blancheur absolue de ses thyrses, cette nouveaute constitue le plus grand progres obtenu dans ce genre si populaire . . . ." — Jardin, rv. 267, fig. (1890). — Gartenflora, 1890, 647. — Nicholson in Gardeners' Mag. xxxv. 62, fig. (1892). — Andre in Rev. Hort. 1892, 13. — Muller-Praust in Gartenflora, 1894, 327. — De Duren in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. xxi. 157, t. xiv. (1895). — Nicolas in Jardin, ix. 79 (1895). — H. R. W. in Gard. Chron. ser. 3, xxvii. 115, fig. 35 (1900). — Gordon in Gardeners' Mag. xliv. fig. (p. 496) (1901). — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 321. — Grignan in Rev. Hort. 1907, 15. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 379 (1907). — Gard. Mag. vii., frontispiece (p. 216) (1908). — Reiter in Gartenwelt, xv. 512, fig. 2 (1911). — E. M. in Garden, lxxvti. 216, fig. (1913). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxiii. fig. (p. 155) (1916). — Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. t. cxi. (1917). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). 336 THE LILAC Introduced in 1890 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. De Duren quotes F. Desbois who in turn quotes Mr. V. Lemoine as saying that this was obtained by crossing Marie Legraye with pollen of a double form; from the same sowing came also Mme. Abel Chatenay and Obelisque. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Lemoine in November, 1895; no. 381 2-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, with 2 or sometimes 3 corollas and addi- tional lobes at throat, large, frequently hose-in-hose ; corolla-lobes broad or narrow, rounded or pointed at apex, curling inward or backward; color in bud Light Viridine Yellow to Pale Viridine Yellow (v.) ; when expanded white. Clusters narrow, somewhat compact, medium to large, numerous. Small leaves are frequently present at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescences. This is a most satisfactory double white form and a dependable bloomer. Mme. Leon Simon Lemoine, Cat. no. 137, x. (1897), "Thyrses rigides, fleurs enormes, bien regulieres, imbriquees, lilas rose tendre avec les boutons pourpre; c'est une des plus grandes fleurs du genre." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 321. — Reiter in Gartenwelt, xv. 512, fig. 2 (1911). — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. 381 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1897 by tne ^Tm °f V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., in November, 1906; no. 17,378 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, with two corollas and occasionally additional lobes at throat, symmetrical, large; corolla-lobes broad, rounded or pointed at apex; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Eupatorium Purple (xxxviii.) to Light Mauve to Pale Mauve (xxv.) marked with white at throat within. Clusters large, open, narrow, numerous. Mme. Moser Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1877, 227, "Arbrisseau a branches dressees. Bourgeons allonges, a. ecorce glabre, vert clair. Feuilles grandes, tres-sensiblement nervees, d'un vert pale sur les deux faces, comme subtronquees, mais non echancrees a la base, qui est souvent courtement attenuee, longuement acuminees au sommet, qui est aigu et comme cuspide. Thyrses tres-longs, a ramifications dressees, nombreuses; de la des inflorescences tres-volumineuses. Fleurs d'un blanc de lait, en grappes legeres, bien qu'assez rapprochees, a. 4 divisions etalees, larges, legerement attenuees au sommet, a. odeur assez forte, tres-agreable pourtant," as Lilas Madame Moser. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880). — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), as al baMada me M oser. — L. Henry in Jardin, vm. 175 (1894), "Fleurs blanc laiteux. Inflorescences fortes et bien fournies. Belle variete." — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896). — Simon- Louis, Cat. 1900-1901, 67, as Alba Madame Moser. Carriere states that this was produced by Briot, the head of the government nurseries at Trianon-Versailles, and about to be put on the market in 1877. He writes that it is sometimes called Alba grandiflora but as that name is apt to be applied to other forms the practice should be stopped. Van Geert (Cat. no. 169, 45, 1896) lists as two separate forms Mme. Moser and Alba grandiflora and they are here retained as dis- SYRINGA VULGARIS 337 tinct since apart from this statement of Carriere's I have not found the names used as synonyms. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 6, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2946-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, symmetrical, small to medium in size; corolla-lobes broader above the middle, cucullate on first expanding, pointed at apex; anthers conspicuous; color in bud Chalcedony Yellow (xvii.); when expanded white. Clusters open, large, of a delicate appearance, narrow- pyramidal, exceedingly fragrant. A photograph of this plant is in the collection of the Arnold Arboretum (no. 13,175). Mme. Plantier Froebel, Cat. no. 112, 22 [cir. 1890], name only; no. 124, 79 [cir. 1899], "Lebhaft rot." I have only found this mentioned in catalogues of the Froebel nurseries. Mme. R. Foyer Smits, Cat. 1923-1924, 26, "Violet," with single flowers. Messrs. Jac. Smits & Co. wrote me on December it, 1924: "We bought the named Lilac with some other novelties, as far as we can remember, from a French concern." Mme. Viger Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PL Names, 487 (1923), name only. — Wister in Landscape Arch. October, 1924, 38, name only. A plant bearing the name Mile. Viger was received at the Arnold Arboretum from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1907. For some reason not stated the name was changed to Mme. Viger. This plant is identical with the form Mile. Fernande Viger growing in the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., and the name Mme. Viger is un- doubtedly a misnomer. Mr. Rehder tells me that he based his list of Lilacs, used by Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in the compilation of the "Standardized Plant Names" list, in part upon the Arboretum catalogue. Mr. Wister states that some of his notes were taken in the Arboretum so it is possible that he obtained the name from this wrongly labelled plant. I have not found the form mentioned except in these two instances. Mme. Vilmorin Farr, Cat. "Better Plants," 1922-1923, 59, name only. Possibly a misnomer for the form Maurice de Vilmorin. Mile. Fernande Viger Fossey in Jardin, x. 210, fig. 101 (1896), "Arbuste vigoureux et tres florifere; thyrses tres forts, se presentant generalement par deux et quelquefois quatre a l'extremite de chaque branche, bifurques, a. ramifications fortement constituees, atteignant regulierement 20, 25 et meme 30 centimetres de longueur; fleurs tres odorantes, restant plusieurs jours mi-closes avant de s'epanouir, de couleur blanc mat, tirant legere- ment sur le creme, que les etamines et le pistil, qui ne sont pas apparents, ne viennent pas ternir. Floraison se prolongeant pendant un temps relativement tres long," as Lilas Mademoiselle Fernande Viger. Fossey states that this was a seedling grown by Lecointe at his nursery at Louve- ciennes, France, from a sowing made in 1882; Lecointe put it on the market in 1894. Fossey adds that it is good for forcing. The description is probably from Lecointe's catalogue but this is not stated to be the case. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1904). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers visible but not conspicuous; color in bud Chrysolite Green to Deep Sea-foam Green (xxxi.) ; when expanded white. Clusters open, pyramidal, with a broad base and narrow top, symmetrically filled, large. 338 THE LILAC Mile. Lepage Blossom in Landscape Arch. April, 1915, 141, "Bluish Lilac," with double flowers; October, 1923, 33. — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 487 (1923). A plant of this name was received at the Arnold Arboretum from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in 1906, but has disappeared. Mr. H. H. Blossom's notes were made in the Arnold Arboretum. Mr. Rehder tells me that he based his list of Lilacs, used by Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in the compilation of the "Standardized Plant Names" list, in part upon the Arboretum records. The Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., lists a Madame Lepage with double flowers; it was received from Lemoine in 1904. I have found no mention of either of these forms except in the references given. Mr. E. Lemoine wrote me on January 16, 1925 : "Iln'y a pas de variete Mme. Lepage ou Mile. Lepage. La personne a qui ce Lilas [Mons. Lepage] a ete dedie etait un parent, habitant Nancy; il n'y a aucun raison pour que le meme nom ait ete donne par un autre semeur." See Mons. Lepage. Mile. Melide Laurent Barbier, Cat., English edition, 1898-1899, 129, "Thyrses very long, flowers very large, dark rosy turning violet," as Madlle. Melide Laurent. — Froebel, Cat. no. 124, 79 [cir. 1899], "Rispe besonders gross und lang, Blumen einfach, extra gross, dunkelrosa in violett ubergehend." — Lemoine, Cat. no. 155, 31 (1903), as Melide Laurent. — Spath-Buch, 1920, 223, "Rispe sehr gross und lang; Blumen gross, rosalila," with single flowers, as Melide Laurent. — Turbat, Cat. 1923-1924, 84, "Bright rose." Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., in November, 1906; no. 5199 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, medium to large, sym- metrical; corolla-lobes broad, pointed at apex, cucullate on first expanding; tone inter- mediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) ; when expanded Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) without, Lilac to Mauvette (xxv.) with markings of Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.) near throat within. Clusters open, large. Magellan Lemoine, Cat. no. 188, 14 (1915), "Full imbricated flowers, purplish lilac." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1915 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1919). Flowers double, large; corolla-lobes broad; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Vina- ceous-Purple to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvin.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink (xxxvin.) marked with white without, Ageratum Violet (xxxvn.) marked occasionally with white within. Clusters conical, compact, symmetrically filled, showy. The mark- ings of white appear most frequently on the inner corollas and before the flowers have fully expanded the clusters have a somewhat variegated appearance. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 188. Major Ulrich, Internat. Worterb. Pflanzennamen, 230 (1872). — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 487 (1923). Wilhelm Ulrich mentions this form without description and cites as English name, Larger-red Lilac, as German name, der grosse Lilak, and as French names, le lilas a grandes SYRINGA VULGARIS 339 fleurs rouges, le lilas royal, le Was Charles X. See also Rubra grandiflora, Rouge Royal and Charles X. Seed bearing this name was received at the Arnold Arboretum from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, London, in January, 1875, but no Lilac of this name exists in the collection at this time. Mr. Rehder tells me that he based his list of Lilacs, used by Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in the compilation of the "Standardized Plant Names" list, in part upon Arboretum records. Mr. W. J. Bean wrote me on January 9, 1925, that he was unable to trace the record of the plant at Kew. The name Major was used as a corresponding name for Charles X. by Van Houtte (Cat. no. 125-D, 46, 1885-1886). See also the form of the hybrid S. chinensis, Major. Marceau Lemoine, Cat. no. 185, 6 (1913), "Panicules larges et volumineuses, fleurs 6normes, bien rondes, cocardeau violet fonce." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917)- Introduced in 1913 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1911; no. 7623 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, large, corolla-lobes broad, pointed at apex, slightly cucullate; anthers conspicuous; tone dark; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Daphne Red to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvm.) ; when expanded Eupatorium Purple with margins of Pale Laelia Pink or white without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.) turning to Saccardo's Violet or Ageratum Violet (xxxvn.), a solid color, within. Clusters some- what conical, well-filled. A handsome dark-flowered form. Marc Micheli Lemoine, Cat. no. 140, x. (1898), "Tres grands thyrses bifurques de fleurs enormes, pleines, serrees, globuleuses, assez regulieres, a larges lobes souvent re- flechis, couleur lilas azure tres tendre, revers presque blancs, grand effet. La belle forme des panicules, la grande dimension des fleurs et leur nuance fraiche et tendre en font une des plus belles varietes obtenues jusqu'a ce jour." — Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. xxv. 20 (1899). — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 321. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxh. 381 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). — Kache in Gartenschonheit, v. 82, fig. (1924). Introduced in 1898 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1916; no. 16,268 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, large, on first expanding hose-in- hose, but later less noticeably so ; tone intermediate to pale ; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac to Light Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when expanded, the outer corolla Vinaceous-Lilac, the inner corolla Pale Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) or white without, the outer corolla Eupatorium Purple (xxxviii.) the inner corolla Light Pinkish Lilac marked with Purplish Lilac (xxxvn.) and with white within. Clusters long, narrow, dense. Large leaves are frequently present at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescence. Marechal de Bassompierre Lemoine, Cat. no. 137, x. (1897), "Thyrses tres developpes et tres compacts, fleurs pleines, rose carmine tres fonce, boutons carmin." — Bellair in 340 THE LILAC Rev. Hort. 1906, 321. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 381 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1897 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 10, 1895, from plant received from Lemoine in April, 1900; no. 4612-2 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, large; tone intermediate; color in bud Neutral Red to Hellebore Red to Eupatorium Purple (xxxviii.); when expanded Argyle Purple tinged with Bishop's Purple (xxxvu.) within, Eupatorium Purple marked with Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without. Clusters pyramidal, full, extra large. They are frequently produced from several pairs of buds on the same branchlet. Marechal Foch Lemoine, Cat. no. 198, 20 (1924-1925), "This superb novelty was pronounced by that expert horticulturist, the late Felix Crousse, to be the handsomest of all single Lilacs. The high panicles, carried by long straight stems, are truly immense and very light; the individual flowers, perfectly shaped, are of a bright carmine rose with a pink eye when opening, contrasting with the mauve of the older flowers and the deep carmine of the buds; early. Will create a sensation among Lilac lovers." Introduced in 1924 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. (plant received from Lemoine in 1924). Flowers single, extra large, symmetrical; corolla-tube short; corolla-lobes broad, rounded or rarely slightly pointed at apex, sometimes cucullate, occasionally curling; anthers conspicuous; tone pale; color in bud Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Laelia Pink tinged with Pale Laelia Pink with- out, Eupatorium Purple (xxxviii.) to Argyle Purple (xxxvu.) marked with white near throat within. Clusters very open, broad at base with wide-spreading subdivisions. A showy form. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 198. Marechal Lannes Lemoine, Cat. no. 176, vn. (1910), "Thyrses volumineux, fleurs gigantesques, doubles ou quelquefois semi-doubles, violet lilace clair, boutons violet car- min." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). — Dunbar in Florists Exch. 830, fig- (1923)- Introduced in 1910 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in October, 1918; no. 7920 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, semi-double or sometimes single, extra large, unsymmetrical ; corolla-lobes cucullate on first expanding; corolla- tube appears slender for the large corolla-lobes; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac without, Saccardo's Violet to Lobelia Violet to Argyle Purple (xxxvu.) marked with white within. Clusters full, erect, large, broad at base. A showy form. Marengo Lemoine, Cat. no. 197, 20 (1923-1924), "Big trusses of enormous flowers, mauve lilac, white eye, very free, a superb novelty," with single flowers. SYRINGA VULGARIS 341 Introduced in 1923 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. (plant received from Lemoine in 1923). Flowers single, extra large, symmetrical; corolla-lobes broadest above the middle, rounded or slightly pointed at apex, slightly cucullate; corolla- tube slender; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Light Perilla Purple (xxxvii.); when expanded Purplish Lilac to Light Pinkish Lilac without, Hay's Lilac (xxxvn.) marked with white near throat within. Clusters medium size, somewhat conical, showy. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 197. Marie Finon Lemoine, Cat. no. 197, 20 (1923-1924), "Large branched panicles, round flowers of the purest alabaster white, one of the most floriferous sorts, " with single flowers. Introduced in 1923 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. (plant received from Lemoine in 1923). Flowers single, medium size, unsymmetrical ; corolla-lobes as a rule widest above the middle, sometimes broad, sometimes narrow, occasionally cucullate ; color in bud Deep Sea-foam Green to Sea-foam Green (xxxi.); when expanded white. Clusters broad-pyramidal, only rarely well-filled. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 197. Marie Guille E. Turbat, Litt. ined. October 31, 1924. In a letter of which Mr. J. C. Wister kindly sent me a copy, Mr. Turbat states that this form is "Tres beau, blanc simple," and that it originated with Bruchet, a nursery- man of St. Rambery-sur-Loire, France, who informed him that it was lost during the war. Marie Legraye E. Morren in Belg. Hort. xxix. 135, t. vm. (1879), "... L'arbuste est vigoureux. Les thyrses sont amples, tres fournis, bien droits. Les corolles sont grandes, d'un tissu tres epais et d'un blanc de neige, mais au centre de chaque fleur se trouve un point jaune d'un fort bel effet; il est introduit par les etamines qui arrivent a. peu pres au niveau de la gorge, " as Mademoiselle Marie Legraye. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880). — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), as alba Marie Legraye. — E. Morren and A. De Vos, Index Bibliog. Hort. Belg. 555 (1887), as S. vulgaris va.r.fi. alb. — Grosdemange in Rev. Hort. 1893, 286. — L. Henry in Jardin, vm. 175 (1894), "Fleurs blanc d'ivoire, grandes. Boutons creme. Inflorescences tres grandes, allongees et peu serrees. Le plus remarquable des Lilas blancs par la grandeur et la beaute de ses thyrses mais la floribondite est moindre que dans les varietes precedentes [Virginal (alba virgin- alis), Blanc a grandes fleurs (alba grandiflora) , Madame Moser];" in Rev. Hort. 1901, 95, figs. 31, 33. — De Duren in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. xxi. 157 (1895). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896). — Dunbar in Gard. Mag. 1. 233, fig. 324 (1905). — Barry, "The Lilac" (reprint from Horticulture, October 9, 1909), t. 1. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1900-1901, 67, as Alba Marie Legraye. — Garden, Lxxvni. 169, fig. (1914). — D. in Garden, lxxvtii. 413, t. (1914). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxiu. fig. (p. 155) (1916). — A. 0[sborn] in Garden, lxxxvii. 302, fig. (1923). — D. Hill Nursery Co., Cat. "Hill's Ever- greens," t. (opp. p. 72), fig. 2 (1924). 342 THE LILAC Since the name Marie Legraye is commonly used in referring to this form, to avoid confusion, it has here been retained rather than the name Mademoiselle Marie Legraye under which Edouard Morren first describes the plant. It appears as Syringa Marie Leguay in several Transon catalogues (1880-1881, 66, etc.). Morren states that this was a seedling raised by Mile. Marie Legraye, a florist of Liege, Belgium, and named by Morren in her honor. De Duren, on the other hand, states that it was produced by Coulombier of Vitry-sur-Seine. See also the form Reine des Pays-Bas. Much used for forcing and mentioned as especially good for this purpose by Voss. Figures of this form when subjected to forcing by ether are given by Maumene (Jardin, xv. 372, figs. 167, 168, 1901). See also Gartenwelt, xrv. 238 (191 1). Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 4, 1895, from plant received from Veitch in April, 1886; no. 2664-2 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, larges unsymmetrical ; corolla-lobes somewhat broad, cucullate, saucer-shaped; anthers visible; color in bud Light Viridine Yellow to Pale Viridine Yellow (v.); when expanded white. Clusters open, narrow-pyramidal, medium size. Martinet (Arbres, Arbust. 93, 1900) mentions, under "Nouveautes exposees aux concours temporaires, " as exhibited by Gouchault, a Lilas Marie Legraye a feuilles dorees. Turbat (Cat. 1923-1924, 84) lists, as a name only, a S. vulgaris Marie Legraye folii, aureis. The two are undoubtedly the same golden-leaved form. Mariette Vermorel Nollent according to Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Suppl. Gen. Cat. [1908], 2, "Tres grandes fleurs blanches," with double flowers. The information here given in regard to the origin of Lucienne Guillaud is applicable to this form also. Marlyensis bicolor Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), name only. The only reference to such a form. Possibly the same as the form Marlyensis pallida. Marlyensis flore pleno Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), name only. The only reference which has been found to a double-flowered form of Marlyensis; the Marly Lilac is in this monograph considered identical with S. vulgaris var. purpurea. Probably scarcely different from the forms Purpurea plena, Rubra plena, Violacea plena and Violacea purpurea plena. Marlyensis pallida Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864), "Die Blumen stehen in grossen Rispen und sind bedeutend heller, als die des vorigen [S. vulgaris Marlyensis Hort. = S. vulgaris var. purpurea] besonders im Verbluhen," and as S. a fleurs de Marly blanches as a synonym. — K. Koch, Dendr. 11. pt. 1. 266 (1872), "Jetzt hat man ferner eine Form, wo die helleren Blumen beim Verbluhen weiss werden, als S. Marliensis alba. Von ihr weicht die Form welche als virginalis bezeichnet wird, kaum ab." — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 560 (1875), "Diese Form wird in den Garten weniger haufig angetroffen, als die vorige [S. vulgaris Marlyensis = S. vulgaris var. purpurea]. Die Bliithenrispen sehr zart pfirsich- bliithfarben," and as Blassbluhender Marly-Flieder. — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 113 (1889), "Fleischfarbig rosa," as Marlayensis pallida. — Hartwig, HI. Geholzb. 380 (1892), "Blasser Marly-Fl." — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896), "fleisch- SYRINGA VULGARIS 343 farbig-rosenrot, grosse Strausse, prachtig." — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 206 (1899). See Plate cxxxn. Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey (Stand. PL Names, 487, 1923) list as synonyms Mar- liensis pallida with approved common name of Pale Marly, and Marlyensis florealba [sic] with approved common name of White Marly. I consider these forms to be the same. Kirchner gives as a synonym for his Marlyensis pallida, S. a fleurs de Marly blanches. Koch's reference is the only one which I have found where the name Marliensis alba is used and he mentions the flowers as white when expanded. The flowers of Marly- ensis pallida are pale in tone and when expanded are white, only slightly tinged with color. Nash (Jour. N. Y. Bot. Gard. xx. 233, 1919) mentions this form, as a name only, as Marliacea pallida. See Marlyensis bicolor. The plant known today as Marlyensis, Marly Lilac, etc., of which this is evidently considered to be a pale form, cannot be distinguished from S. vulgaris var. purpurea. See S. vulgaris var. purpurea and 5. chinensis. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Spath in November, 1900; no. 4363 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate, with raised margins and on first expanding with centers ridged; anthers conspicuous; tone pale; color in bud Brownish Vinaceous (xxxix.) to Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxvni.); when expanded Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) without, white marked with Mauvette (xxv.) within. Clusters narrow-pyramidal, well-filled, numerous. The individual flowers of this form are distinct in appearance and the plant blooms profusely, sometimes producing clusters from as many as three pairs of buds on the same branchlet. Massena Lemoine, Cat. no. 197, 20 (1923-1924), "Strong upright spikes, flowers over 1 inch broad, of the deepest purple red," with single flowers. Introduced in 1923 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in December, 1924; no. 16,217 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, extra large, sym- metrical; corolla-lobes broad, rounded, cucullate, with raised margins forming a pocket; anthers visible but not conspicuous; tone dark to intermediate; color in bud Perilla Purple to Light Perilla Purple (xxxvn.); when expanded Argyle Purple tinged with Light Perilla Purple (xxxvn.) without, Mathews' Purple (xxv.) or Bishop's Purple or Argyle Purple (xxxvn.), solid colors, within. Clusters broad at base, well-filled but not crowded. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 197. Mathieu de Dombasle Lemoine, Cat. no. 92, vh. (1882), "Thyrses bifurques attei- gnant pres de 30 centimetres de hauteur sur 20 a 25 de largeur, comparables pour les dimensions et l'ensemble a ceux des plus belles varietes simples; fleurs moyennes, tres pleines, formees de 2 ou 3 corolles emboitees, composees de 15 a. 20 pe tales d'un beau mauve rougeatre avec les boutons purpurins. C'est le plus beau lilas a fleurs doubles et c'est celui qui produit les thyrses les plus volumineux." — Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1883, 550. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — Carriere and Andre in Rev. Hort. 344 THE LILAC 1889, 411. — V. Lemoine in Garden and Forest, 11. 327 (1889). — E. Lemoine in Jardin, vi. 152 (1892). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896). — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 321. — Grignan in Rev. Hort. 1907, 14. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 378 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1882 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. For the history of this form see Azurea plena. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 5, 1895, from plant received from A. Waterer in April, 1887; no. 2293-2 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, small, sometimes hose-in-hose ; corolla-lobes occasionally slightly cucullate, pointed at apex, forming a star-shaped flower; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when expanded Purplish Lilac to Pale Lilac (xxxvu.) without, Verbena Violet marked with Pale Verbena Violet (xxxvi.) within. Clusters medium size, interrupted, open, narrow-pyramidal. Maurice Barres Lemoine, Cat. no. 191, 24 (1917), "One of the handsomest single lilacs, exceedingly floriferous and remarkable for the enormous size of its trusses of pale azure lilac flowers." Introduced in 191 7 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1919). Flowers single, extra large; corolla-lobes cucullate, narrow, curling inward; tone inter- mediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Eupatorium Purple with margins of Pale Laelia Pink without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxviii.) to Chinese Violet on Lilac or on Mauvette (xxv.) within. Clusters large, open, widely branched, showy. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 191. Maurice de Vilmorin Lemoine, Cat. no. 146, xii. (1900), "Plante tres naine et tr&s florifere, thyrses d'une dimension extraordinaire, teinte azuree bleuatre, ceil blanc." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 321. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 382 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1900 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., in November, 1906; no. 5197 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, extra large, hose-in- hose; outer corolla-lobes broad and rounded at apex, inner corolla-lobes narrow and pointed, slightly cucullate, opening into a star-shaped flower; tone pale; color in bud Rocellin Purple to Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Pale Lilac (xxxvu.) without, Deep Lavender tinged with Lavender (xxxvi.) or Purplish Lilac tinged with Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvu.) within. Clusters compact, large. Maximowicz Lemoine, Cat. no. 164, 29 (1906), "Thyrses allonges, fleurs enormes, semi-doubles, a larges lobes cuculles, violet heliotrope a. revers argentes." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1906 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1905; see the form Banquise for the explanation of this difference in dates. SYRINGA VULGARIS 345 Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1907). Flowers semidouble or sometimes single, extra large; corolla-lobes broad, pointed at apex, curling; tone intermediate; color in bud Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.) to Argyle Purple (xxxvii.) ; when expanded Purplish Lilac to Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvn.) with- out, Chinese Violet (xxv.) within. Clusters large, open, broad-pyramidal. The flowers appear to be paler without than within. Media Hort. according to Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864), "Hat die Blumen des gemeinen, blauen Flieders und Holz und Knospen hellfarbig, wie die weissbluhende Form." Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists a S. vulgaris i. media hort- which he notes is cultivated at Riga according to Wagner's catalogue. Michel Buchner Lemoine, Cat. no. 101, viii. (1885), " Plante basse, portant au sommet de tous les rameaux des thyrses qui forment des pyramides rigides de 25 centimetres, chargees de fleurs; celles-ci, d'une parfaite regularite, sont larges d'un centimetre et demi, formees de 3 corolles emboitees dont les divisions arrondies s'imbriquent regulierement ; lilas pale un peu rose, surtout sur les fleurs a moitie epanouies et sur les boutons; plante magnifique et d'une grande superiorite." — Carriere and Andre in Rev. Hort. 1889, 411; 1891, 101. — Andre in Rev. Hort. 1892, 12, t. — Wittmack in Gartenflora, xliii. 617, t. 1409 (1894). — Grignan in Rev. Hort. 1907, 14. — M oiler's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 378 (1907). — Reiter in Gartenwelt, xv. 512, fig. 2 (191 1). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). — D. Hill Nursery Co., Cat. "Hill's Evergreens," t. (opp. p. 72), fig. 3 (1924), as Michael Buchner. Introduced in 1885 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. For the history of this form see Azurea plena. Carriere and Andre note its value for forcing. Andre's illustration shows a forced plant the color of which he notes is paler than when the plant is grown in the open. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 6, 1895, fr°m plant received from Lemoine in 1889; no. 3468-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, medium to large; corolla-lobes broad, rounded at apex, slightly cucullate; tone intermediate to pale ; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xxrv.) ; when expanded Purplish Lilac to Light Pinkish Lilac without, Lobelia Violet to Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvii.) marked with white within. Clusters long, open, narrow. Milton Lemoine, Cat. no. 176, 31 (1910), "Grands thyrses, fleurs rondes, lobes cu- culles, violet fonce a revers blanchatres." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917)- Introduced in 1910 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1901 . See the form Banquise for the explanation of this difference in dates. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1918; no. 7923 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone dark; color in bud Dark Maroon-Purple (xxvi.) to Bishop's Purple (xxxvii.); when expanded Argyle Purple (xxxvii.) without, Mathews' Purple to Man- ganese Violet (xxv.) within. Clusters open, medium size. The flowers appear to be paler without than within. 346 THE LILAC Mireille Lemoine, Cat. no. 158, 31 (1904), "Plante fleurissant tres basse, thyrses moyens, fleurs pleines, ondulees, forme de jacinthe, blanc de neige." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 324. — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1904 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Presumably the form Merveille mentioned by Nash (Jour. N. Y. Bot. Gard. xx. 235, 1924) as a name only, is a misnomer for this form. Mr. Boyton wrote me on October 25, 1924: "Merveille has always been used by the Garden on one of the Lemoine varie- ties, although we have since had Mireille in our collection." I know of no form Merveille originating with Lemoine or elsewhere. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1907). Flowers double, occasionally hose-in-hose, extra large; corolla-lobes narrow, noticeably curled ; color in bud Light Viridine Yellow to Pale Viridine Yellow (v.) ; when expanded white. Clusters open, broad-pyramidal, showy. The curled or twisted corolla-lobes are a distinguishing character of this form. Miss Ellen Willmott Lemoine, Cat. no. 155, vin. (1903), "Thyrses volumineux, legers, fleurs parfaites de forme, plates, imbriquees, a lobes arrondis, blanc de neige." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 324, as Ellen Willmott. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 383 (1907). — Garden, lxxvi. 308, fig. (1912), lxxx. 281, fig. (1916); lxxxi. 224, fig. (1917). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxm. fig. (p. 155) (1916). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233, fig. (1917). — Marshall, Cat. "The Lilac," [cir. 1924], fig. (p. 8). Introduced in 1903 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Ellen Willmott has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (486, 1923). Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1905). Flowers double, frequently with three corollas, conspicuously hose-in-hose, large; corolla- lobes broad, sometimes curling inward; color in bud Deep Sea-foam Green to Sea-foam Green (xxxi.); when expanded white. Clusters open, long, pyramidal. Mrs. Edward Harding Lemoine, Cat. no. 196, 19 (1922), "This variety was awarded in 1 92 1 a special prize founded by Mrs. Edward Harding for the best red double Lilac. Big panicles of large full flowers of the brightest carmine." Introduced in 1922 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. (plant received from Lemoine in 1922). Flowers double, large, unsymmetrical, corolla-lobes much curled, long, narrow; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Schoenf eld's Purple (xxvi.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple tinged with Tourmaline Pink without, Eupatorium Purple streaked near throat with Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) within. Clusters long, at base wide-spreading, showy. This form fades rapidly paler. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 196. Mrs. W. E. Marshall Marshall, Cat. "The Lilac," [cir. 1924], 4, fig. (p. 1), "A re- markable variety with long thyrses of very deep purplish-crimson flowers. One of the finest of the dark varieties," with single flowers. SYRINGA VULGARIS 347 Introduced about 1924 by W. E. Marshall, 166 West 23d Street, New York, N. Y.; in letters of November 17 and 31, 1925, Mr. Marshall informed me that this form origi- nated with Mr. T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., and was produced by crossing the two Lemoine forms Negro and L'Oncle Tom. Notes on plant in collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. Flowers single, medium size; corolla-lobes narrow, cucullate, with raised margins, curled, pointed at apex ; anthers visible when flower first expands ; tone dark ; color in bud Dark Vinaceous- Purple to Vinaceous-Purple (xxxviii.); when expanded Argyle Purple without, Bishop's Purple (xxxvii.) within, a solid color. The flowers appear to be paler without than within. Clusters well-filled, narrow-pyramidal. This form does not fade so rapidly as some of the other dark Lilacs. Monge Lemoine, Cat. no. 185, 40 (1913), "Volumineux thyrses obtus, boutons et fleurs pourpre caroubier, plante tres fiorifere." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917)- Introduced in 1913 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1914). Flowers single, extra large; corolla-lobes narrow, sometimes curling; tone dark; color in bud Dull Indian Purple (xxrv.) to Dahlia Carmine (xxvi.); when expanded Magenta with markings of Pale Rose-Purple without, Dull Magenta Purple to Magenta (xxvi.) within. Clusters open, symmetrically filled, pyramidal. A very fine single, dark- flowered Lilac and an excellent bloomer. Mons. J. De Messemaeker Stepman according to Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Suppl. Gen. Cat. [1908], 1, "Superbe variete qui a ete particulierement admiree aux Floralies Gantoises, 1908. Issue du croisement des varietes Souvenir de Louis Spath et du Docteur Lindley, elle tient de la premiere par sa croissance vigoureuse et son coloris; de la seconde par son feuillage large et epais. Les thyrses sont tres grands et la dimension des fleurons depasse celle de toutes les varietes connues et sont d'une magnifique couleur rouge vineux," as M. J. De Messemaeker, with single flowers. — De Corte in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. xxxiv. 207, t. (1908). — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxni. 350 (1908), as /. De Messemaker. Attributed by the catalogue of the firm of Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Brussels, Belgium, to Stepman, a member of that firm, and introduced in 1908; as stated in the description this was the result of a cross between the forms Andenken an Ludwig Spath and Dr. Lindley. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker in 1914). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes broad, cucullate, overlapping, and forming a saucer-shaped flower; tone dark; color in bud Dark Maroon Purple to Dahlia Carmine (xxvi.) ; when expanded Bishop's Purple with margins of Argyle Purple (xxxvii.) without, Auricula Purple (xxvi.) within. Clusters long, narrow, symmetrically filled but not crowded. The flowers appear to be paler without than within. Mons. Leon Mathieu Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Cat. [1908], 2, "C'est une variete d'une merite transcendant et la plus belle qui existe dans les coloris fonces. Elle tranche sur toutes les autres, meme a longue distance. La plante, tout en etant vigoureuse, reste 348 THE LILAC trapue. Les thyrses rigides de grande dimensions sont coniques. Les fleurons en coupe sont enormes, bien degages, d'un bleu violac6 a l'interieure, a revers pourpre fonce, couleur rappelant la variete 'Souvenir de Louis Spath.' C'est une des rares varieties a fleurs foncees, qui boutonnent bien en jeunes plantes," as M. Leon Mathieu, with single flowers. — De Corte in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. xxxrv. 207 (1908). — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxin. 350 (1908). Introduced in 1908 by the firm of Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Brussels, Belgium; according to their catalogue it was produced by crossing the forms Dr. Lindley and Marie Legraye. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker in 1914). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes cucullate, forming a saucer- shaped flower; tone dark; color in bud Magenta (xxvi.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.) without, Magenta (xxvi.) within. Clusters long, narrow, somewhat conical. The color of the flowers shows practically no variation throughout; it bears a close resemblance to the form Andenken an Ludwig Spath. Mons. Lepage Lemoine, Cat. no. 113, 9 (1889), "Fleurs tres grandes, lobes ronds en alveoles, lilas bleu, revers blanchatres, tranchant sur la couleur fondamental, " as M. Lepage, with single flowers. — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1889 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1890. See the form Ban- quise for the explanation of this difference in dates. Morel (Cat. 1906-1907, 89) lists a form of this name in which the flowers are double. His description reads: "Fl[eurs] panachees de bleu violace, et de blanc lilace, d'un effet d61icieux." Mr. E. Lemoine wrote me on January 16, 1925: "M. Lepage a fleurs doubles apud Morel est evidemment faux." See also the form Mile. Lepage. Mons. Maxime Cornu Lemoine, Cat. no. 104, vn. (1886), " Arbuste vigoureux portant des thyrses de 25 centimetres presque tous bifurques, compacts et de tres bonne tenue; fleurs formees de plusieurs corolles etagees et emboitees les unes dans les autres en man- chettes superposees, a. la facon de Mimulus ou de Primula doubles; couleur lilas rose, boutons rouges contrastant bien avec la fleur epanouie; variete facile a forcer," as M. Maxime Cornu. — V. Lemoine in Garden and Forest, 11. 328 (1889). — Carriere and Andre in Rev. Hort. 1889, 411, as Maxime Cornu. — Grosdemange in Rev. Hort. 1902, 178, fig. 75, as duplex Maxime Cornu. — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 322, as Maxime Cornu. — Grignan in Rev. Hort. 1907, 14, as Maxime Cornu. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.- Zeit. xxii. 379 (1907). Introduced in 1886 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. For the history of this form see Azurea plena. Maxime Cornu has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (487, 1923). Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 7, 1895, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1889; no. 3461-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, medium size, unsymmetrical, sometimes hose-in-hose; corolla-lobes pointed; tone SYRINGA VULGARIS 349 intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Vinaceous-Lilac to Light Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) without, Mauvette (xxv.) to white within. Clusters open, medium size. Mons. van Aerschot Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 487 (1923), name only, as M. van Aerschot. — Turbat, Cat. 1923-1924, 75, "Long thyrses of flowers, clear mauve extra," as Van Aerschott, with single flowers. Appears in other catalogues also as Van Aerschoft. The spelling of this name varies considerably and I am uncertain which form is correct. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1916; no. 7543 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, large, symmetrical; corolla- lobes cucullate, expanding at a right angle to corolla-tube; anthers conspicuous; tone pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink on Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) with- out, Pale Mauve (xxv.) tinged with much white within. Clusters medium to large in size. The flowers appear to be darker without than within. Montaigne Lemoine, Cat. no. 167, 31 (1907), "Thyrses bien formes, fieurs moyennes, rondes, presque globuleuses, rose tendre, nuance voisine de celle de Virginite." — Have- meyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1907 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1906. See Banquise for the explanation of this difference in dates. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1908). Flowers double, noticeably hose-in-hose, large; corolla-lobes pointed at apex, sometimes curling; tone pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) ; when expanded Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) to white without, Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.) to white within. Clusters open, long, narrow. Mont Blanc Lemoine, Cat. no. 189, 22 (1915), "Large, well-branched panicles, enor- mous flowers with round lobes, pure white. We consider this novelty as the most beauti- ful of all the single white Lilacs." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). — Mar- shall, Cat. "The Lilac," [cir. 1924], fig. (p. 5). Introduced in 191 5 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Chenault in 1916; no. 7475 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, extra large, symmetrical; corolla-lobes broad, cucullate, opening into a saucer-shaped flower; anthers visible; color in bud Deep Sea-foam Green to Sea-foam Green (xxxi.); when expanded white. Clusters long, heavy, when flowers are expanded almost conical, well-filled. A beautiful and showy single white-flowered form. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine 's catalogue no. 189. Montgolfier Lemoine, Cat. no. 161, vin. (1905), "Thyrses longs et volumineux, fieurs tres grandes, a. larges lobes arrondis, rouge purpurin violace, revers blancs tres appa- rents. . . ." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1905 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. 350 THE LILAC Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in October, 1918; no. 7924 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine (xxvi.); when expanded Mathews' Purple marked conspicuously with Mauvette (xxv.) on margins of lobes without. Clusters long, narrow, open, extra large. Monument Carnot Lemoine, Cat. no. 131, x. (1895), "Thyrses gros, fieurs en forme de jacinthes, lilas bleuatre; c'est la variete Alphonse Lavallee a fleur enorme." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 380 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1895 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1900). Flowers double, large; corolla-lobes pointed at apex; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Light Perilla Purple to Purplish Lilac (xxxvii.) ; when expanded, the outer corolla Purplish Lilac without, Light Lobelia Violet within, the inner corolla Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvii.) without, Pale Verbena Violet (xxxvi.) within. Clusters medium size. Moritz Eichler Hort. according to Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 561 (1875), "Blumen bis 2^ Centim. in Durchmesser, von zartem, hellem Blau, in der Mitte mit einem weisslichen Stern, in grossen, dichten Straussen." — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880). — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 380 (1892). Only found in the above references. See Additions. Murillo Lemoine, Cat. no. 149, 29 (1901), "Thyrses moyens, obtus, fieurs grandes, pleines, tout-a-fait globuleuses, lilas porcelaine; floraison tardive." Introduced in 1901 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1902). Flowers double, medium size, with three corollas, hose-in-hose ; buds elongated ; corolla-lobes of expanded flower curl inward and so produce the globular effect noted by Lemoine; tone pale; color in bud Vinaceous-Drab (xlv.) to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when ex- panded Vinaceous-Lilac marked with Pale Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) on margins of corolla- lobes without, Purplish Lilac (xxxvii.) with a white eye within; clusters compact, somewhat narrow, small. The specimen from which this description was taken was a poor one and I may have underestimated the normal size both of the individual flower and of the cluster. Nana Miller, Diet. English Names Plants, 77, 1884, and as Dwarf Lilac, name only. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), name only. — Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 1, 84 (1888), "Distinct, large and compact spikes of dark reddish purple fragrant flowers," and as Dwarf Lilac. — Parsons and Sons Co., Cat. 1890, 94. — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 487 (1923). See S. persica nana pinnata, a synonym of S. persica var. laciniata. Naudin Lemoine, Cat. no. 185, 40 (1913), "Volumineux thyrses serres et compacts, fieurs tres pleines, chiffonees, lilas purpurin fonce, plante tres florifere." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). SYRINGA VULGARIS 351 Introduced in 1913 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in October, 1918; no. 7925 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, large, unsym- metrical; corolla-lobes narrow, pointed, only rarely rounded at apex, curling; tone inter- mediate; color in bud Dull Indian Purple to Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when expanded Purplish Lilac to Light Pinkish Lilac without, Ageratum Violet (xxxvn.) to Light Lavender- Violet (xxv.) with markings of white near throat within. Clusters narrow, long, well-filled, showy, numerous. From a distance the clusters have a somewhat mottled appearance. Mr. E. Lemoine informs me that this was named for the French botanist Charles Naudin. Negro Lemoine, Cat. no. 143, 24 (1899), "Grands thyrses de fleurs rondes, enormes, couleur pourpre violace tres fonce." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1899 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., in November, 1906; no. 17,379 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, extra large, unsym- metrical; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers visible but deep-set; tone dark; color in bud Dark Maroon-Purple to Dahlia Carmine (xxvi.) to Light Perilla Purple (xxxvii.) ; when expanded Dull Magenta Purple within, same with margins of Pale Rose-Purple (xxvi.) without. Clusters full, conical, extra large. Miss Isabella Preston, producer of the S. Prestoniae hybrids, wrote me in November, 1925 : " I have several seedlings of S. vulgaris Negro X Lamartine which is one of Lemoine's 5. Giraldii hybrids. These crosses were made in 1922 and have not yet bloomed." When in Ottawa in June, 1927, the seedlings were out of bloom but Miss Preston tells me that great color variation was found among them. Lamartine is here classified as a garden form of the hybrid S. hyacinthiflora. Nigra Hort. according to Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864), name only, and as Gemeiner, schwarzlicher Flieder. — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 113 (1889), "... mit dunkler Belaubung und sehr dunklen Bliiten," with single flowers. — Muskauer Baumschulen, Haupt-Katalog, 1910, 37. Possibly the same as the form Nigricans. Nigricans Hort. Flottbeck according to K. Koch, Dendr. n. pt. 1. 266 (1872), ". . . eine interressante Form mit sehr dunkelen Blattern und Bluthen, " as Syringa nigricans. — A. Waterer, Cat. 1872-1873, 36. — Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 561 (1875), "Die Blatter sowohl wie die Bluthen von auffallend dunkler Farbung, " and as Dunkler Flieder. — De Vos in Sieboldia, 1. 293 (1875); n. 198 (1876); in Nederl. Fl. Pom. 201 (1876). — Ottolander in Sieboldia, n. 198 (1876). — Lauche, Deutsch. Dendr. 170 (1880), "mit dunkleren Blattern und Bluthen," as 5. vulgaris e. S. nigri- cans Hort. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880), and as Lilas commun noiratre. — Transon, Cat. 1880-1881, 66, as Syringa nigricans. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — Spath, Cat. no. 73, 121 (1888-1889). — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 113 (1889), "... mit dunkler Belaubung und sehr dunklen Bliiten," with single flowers. — 352 THE LILAC Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 380 (1892), " schwarzlicher Fl." — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1900-1901, 68, "violet pale," with single flowers; 1910-1911, 54, "Violet pale. Feuillage pourpre," with single flowers. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists a S. vulgaris o. nigricans hort., which he notes is cultivated at Riga according to Buhse. With the exception of the Simon-Louis references this form is, whenever described, said to have dark flowers; the foliage is also said to be dark. The Simon-Louis descrip- tion is presumably incorrect. [K. Koch] (Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xn. 43, 1869) writes: "In den Flottbecker Baumschulen bei Altona wird eine besonders schone Form als Syringa nigricans unterschieden, wo nicht allein die Bliithen eine dunkele violette Farbe besitzen, auch die sonst griinen Blatter haben ein weit dunkeleres Ansehen." And again (1872): " Endlich wird in den Flottbecker Baumschulen eine interessante Form mit sehr dunkelen Blattern und Bliithen als Syringa nigricans kultivirt; in Angers sah ich sie als Syringa Philemon." Hartwig and Rumpler mention as a synonym Philemon Cochet. Although both of these Lilacs, Nigricans and Philemon Cochet [= Philemon], are often men- tioned, these are the only instances where I have found them classified as the same. This classification is incorrect. De Vos (Sieboldia, 1. c.) writes that Koch is con- fused when he says that at Booth's nursery [at Flottbeck], Hamburg, a form exists under the name S. nigricans which he saw later at Angers as S. Philemon. De Vos believes that this plant at Angers was not the true Philemon but a darker colored form and states that he himself raised the form nigricans which is entirely different, the flowers growing in small compact clusters and the leaves before their complete development and the flower clusters before the flowers open being very dark colored so that it bears right- fully the name nigricans. De Vos is therefore, according to his own statement, the producer of this form. The form Nigricans is not the same in the Arnold Arboretum and Rochester collections. On neither plant is the foliage noticeably darker than in any of the colored forms of the Common Lilac. The Rochester plant has darker flowers than the Arboretum plant. I am uncertain which, if either, is true to name. This form is possibly identical with that called Nigra although Dippel lists them as distinct. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Transon in 1892). Flowers single, small; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone dark; color in bud Perilla Purple to Light Perilla Purple (xxxvu.) ; when expanded Purplish Lilac (xxxvn.) without, Chinese Violet (xxv.) within. The flowers appear to be slightly paler without than within. Clusters open, irregularly filled. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 5, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2930-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers visible but not conspicuous; tone intermediate; color in bud Neutral Red to Hellebore Red to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvni.); when expanded Laelia Pink with margins of Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) without, Verbena Violet (xxxvi.) within. Clusters compact, medium size. Noisettiana alba Parsons, Cat. 1889, 49, name only. — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. Suppl. 696 (1900), name only, as Noisettiana. — Nash in Jour. N. Y. Bot. Gard. xx. 234 SYRINGA VULGARIS 353 (1919), name only. — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 487 (1923), name only, as Noisettiana, as a synonym. Louis Noisette (Man. Compl. Jard. in. 410, 1825-1826) lists two forms of the Common Lilac, — alba and alba pleno. It seems probable that the above references apply to one or other of these. The Noisettiana of Nicholson may be referred to the single white. Mr. K. R. Boynton of the N. Y. Botanical Garden informed me in a letter of October 25, 1924, that the plant in their collection called Noisettiana alba is a "fine single white variety with a yellow eye; not unlike several other white sorts however." L. Henry (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 738, 1901) refers in a footnote to Noisette's Manual, edition of 1835, which I have not seen, and notes that the "variete blanche double de Noisette" which the author mentions has doubtless disappeared from cultivation. Henry makes no mention of the single form. Neither Parsons nor Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey state whether their form is single or double. While the name of their distributor, Noisette, was probably at one time used to dis- tinguish the white forms which he put on the market, it seems doubtful to me whether these were sufficiently distinct to warrant their separation, then or now, from other early single or double forms of the white Lilac. Nash gives this the common name of White Noisette Lilac; Noisette has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (487, 1923). Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Ellwanger and Barry in 1892; listed as Noisettiana alba). Flowers single, medium size; color in bud Chrysolite Green to Deep Sea-foam Green to Sea-foam Green (xxxi.); when expanded white. Clusters pyramidal, open, symmetrically filled, medium size. This form appears in no way distinctive from the "Common White Lilac." See 5. vulgaris var. alba, and the form Alba plena. Obelisque Lemoine, Cat. no. 128, 15 (1894), "Plante tr&s florifere et ce forcant bien. Thyrses volumineux, fleurs grandes, doubles, a 2 corolles, blanc tres pur." — De Duren in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. xxi. 158 (1895). — Dunbar in Gard. Mag. 1. 233 (1905). — Have- meyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1894 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. De Duren quotes F. Desbois who in turn quotes Mr. V. Lemoine as saying that this was obtained by crossing Marie Legraye with pollen of a double form. From the same sowing came also the forms Mme. Abel Chatenay and Mme. Lemoine. Dunbar states that the name of this plant is derived from its fastigiate habit. Obelisk has been adopted as approved common name by " Standardized Plant Names" (487, 1923). Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1900). Flowers small, semi-double or double, unsymmetrical; color in bud Chrysolite Green to Deep Sea-foam Green (xxxi.) ; when expanded white. Clusters open, branched widely at base. Olivier de Serres Lemoine, Cat. no. 173, vin. (1909), "Thyrses enormes, portes sur de fortes tiges, fleurs tres grandes, regulieres, lilas azure tendre, variete tres florifere." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). — Kache in Gartenschonheit, v. 82, fig. (1924). 354 THE LILAC Introduced in 1909 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in October, 1918; no. 7926 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, extra large, un- symmetrical; outer corolla-lobes broad, rounded at apex and slightly cucullate, inner corolla-lobes narrow, rounded or pointed at apex, frequently curling; tone pale; color in bud Tourmaline Pink (xxxvni.) to Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac (xxxvu.); when expanded Lobelia Violet to Hay's Lilac marked with Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) or white. Clusters broad at base, long, open, showy. Othello Lemoine, Cat. no. 146, 24 (1900), "Thyrses grands, fleurs rouge purpurin, passant au lilas ardoise." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1900 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1899. See the form Banquise for the explanation of this difference in dates. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1905). Flowers single, large, symmetrical; corolla-lobes broad at base, overlapping, somewhat ruffled near throat, pointed at apex; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Light Perilla Purple (xxxvu.) to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.) ; when expanded Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.) to Purplish Lilac marked with Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvii.) or white at throat within. Clusters large, open, pyramidal. Pallida Noisette, Man. Gen. PI. in. 410 (1826), as var. 4 a. fleurs pales, pallida. Baumann, a nurseryman of Bollwiller, Haute-Alsace, mentions (Cat. no. 159, 38, 1879) without description or specific name a Syringa pallida. He gives as synonym Syr[inga] triumphans. This plant may either be identical with that cited by Noisette or with the form of S. Josikaea, Pallida, which was noted by Jager in 1865. Palluau A. Leroy, Cat. 1853, 57> name only, as palluau; Cat. 1856, 84, name only. Only found in the above references and possibly a misnomer. Pasteur Lemoine, Cat. no. 155, vin. (1903), "Thyrses eriges, pyramidaux, tres al- longes, fleurs simples, les plus grandes qui existent, rouge vineux passant au rouge de mure." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 383 (1907). Introduced in 1903 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. (plant received from Lemoine in 1903). Flowers single, extra large, symmetrical; corolla-lobes broad, cucullate, with raised margins; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine (xxvi.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple with margins of Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) without, Dull Dark Purple (xxvi.) within, a solid color. Clusters extra long, open, narrow. A showy form. Patrick Henry Dunbar, Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers semi-double, ls/i« of an inch across, silvery lavender tinged azure, clusters dense." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y.; in a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 300 Dunbar) of Vestale, named by him in 1923. SYRINGA VULGARIS 355 Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers semidouble or occasion- ally double, unsymmetrical, large; corolla-lobes pointed or rounded at apex; tone inter- mediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple with margins of Pale Laelia Pink without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.) or Light Mauve (xxv.) marked with white within. Clusters narrow-pyramidal, open, unevenly filled. Paul Deschanel Lemoine, Cat. no. 198, 20 (1924-1925), "Immense panicles of very broad flowers, rosy mauve with carmine buds, exceedingly free . . . ," with double flowers. Introduced in 1924 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 198. Paul Hariot Lemoine, Cat. no. 152, viii. (1902), "Thyrses moyens, serres et compacts, fleurs pleines, globuleuses, rouge violace de mure, revers argentes, boutons pourpre." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 383 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917)- Introduced in 1902 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., in November, 1906; no. 5200 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, unsymmetrical, large, corolla-lobes pointed or rounded at apex, broad; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Magenta (xxvi.); when expanded Light Perilla Purple marked with Purplish Lilac without, Bishop's Purple (xxxvn.) within. Clusters long, narrow, well-filled. The pale reverses of the outer corolla-lobes give a variegated appearance to the clusters. The rhachis, pedicel and calyx, as well as the young foliage and branchlets, are tinged Dark Indian Red (xxvii.). Paul Thirion Lemoine, Cat. no. 189, 22 (1915), "Upright panicles of an obtuse and nearly hemispherical shape; large regular flowers with round and imbricated lobes, claret-rose with carmine buds. A superb late flowering sort." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1915 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum „(plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1917; no. 6867 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, large, unsymmetrical, sometimes hose-in-hose but not noticeably so when fully expanded; corolla-lobes broad, rounded or pointed at apex, sometimes curling; corolla- tube short, stout; tone intermediate; color in bud Neutral Red to Vinaceous-Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvm.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink shading to Pale Laelia Pink without, the outer corolla-lobes Eupatorium Purple, the inner lobes same streaked with Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) or Purplish Lilac streaked with Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvn.) within. Clusters broad at base, large, well-filled, showy. The flowers resemble large double violets. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 189. 356 THE LILAC Perle von Stuttgart Kanzleiter in Gartenwelt, xiii. 129, t. fig. 1 (1909), "Perle von Stuttgart ist eine willkommene Bereicherung der gefullten Sorten. Die perlartig karmin- rosa gefarbten Knospen gehen im Aufbluhen in immer lieblicheres Lilarosa mit weissen Reflexen iiber. Die Rispen sind trotz der dichten Besetzung mit Blumen nicht steif, sondern vereinigen sich zu riesigen Bliitenstanden, welche sich elegant iiber das Blattwerk erheben." — Pfitzer, Hauptkatalog, 1910. Mr. Paul Pfitzer wrote me on November 7, 1925, that this form was produced from a crossing made by his grandfather, Mr. Wilhelm Pfitzer, in his private garden at Stuttgart. It was chosen when in flower from among other seedlings, then transplanted and care- fully observed for years. Mr. Pfitzer was aided in its choice by several well-known specialists. Mr. Paul Pfitzer tells me that it first appeared in the firm's Hauptkatalog for 1 910 which I have not seen. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1918; no. 7928 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, hose-in-hose, un- symmetrical, large, tone intermediate; color in bud Neutral Red to Vinaceous-Purple to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvui.) ; when expanded, the outer corolla Eupatorium Purple or Laelia Pink (xxxvui.), a solid color, the inner corolla Pale Vinaceous-Lilac tinged with Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.). Clusters long, well-filled, narrow- or broad-pyramidal, large. Large leaves are frequently present at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescence. The corolla-lobes, which remain somewhat curled toward the center, form a globular flower and the inner corollas, which are much paler than the outer, protrude noticeably and give a variegated appearance to the clusters. Perle von Teltow V. Teschendorf? in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxvin. 440 (1913). — Felix and Dykhuis, Cat. [cir. 1925], 26, "zart lila, " with single flowers. The following letter from Mr. Friedrich Grunewald, a nurseryman of Zossen, Branden- burg, Germany, which was kindly forwarded me on February 21, 1925, by Mr. Victor Teschendorf!, Dresden, Germany, relates to the origin of this form. It is given in transla- tion: ". . . concerning the Lilac variety Helene Grunewald (synonym Perle von Teltow), the following may be of use: the variety was discovered here in 1901 among some seed- lings, and was placed in the collection as no. 01 Helene Grunewald. Having found after several years that this variety was especially adapted for forcing, I propagated it in quantity, and exhibited flowering potted plants for the first time at a visit of the 'Verein zur Forderung des Gartensbaues in den Kgl. preuss. Staaten' in the spring of 1908. I showed it a second time to the Berlin section of the 'Verbandes der Handelsgartner' early in 1909. Since I assumed at that time that I would gain more if I alone put this variety in the Berlin flower market, I therefore did not put it in trade. But each year several plants were given to different Lilac growers of Berlin as no. 01 and in this way the superintendent of Herr Kabelitz in Seehof acquired several plants. Herr Kabelitz, soon after taking over the business, recognised the value of this variety, and called atten- tion to it under 'Findling, ein neuer Treibflieder ' in the Handelsblatt, no. 19, 1912, and announced that he wished to put it in the market in the fall of 1913. Herr Kabelitz was then given an award of merit by the Verband on April 13, 1913, and the firm of Otto Ruhe, Charlottenburg, took over its distribution in the fall of 1913. I learned of the whole matter only rather late, but let it stand, because I had many plants on hand and those wishing large quantities had to come to me. The most valuable qualities of the SYRINGA VULGARIS 357 variety are as follows: (i) Large, loose, beautiful, pyramidal flower clusters up to 30 cm. long; (2) Large, beautifully formed single flowers; (3) Strong vigorous growth, immune to disease; (4) A good color to the flower; even in the earliest forcing the color is a splendid lilac." Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Kallen and Lunne- man in 1914). Flowers single, large, symmetrical; tone dark to intermediate; color in bud Dull Magenta Purple (xxvi.) to Bishop's Purple (xxxvu.) ; when expanded Eupa- torium Purple with margins of Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, Bishop's Purple (xxxvu.) within, a solid color. Clusters large, widely branched, symmetrically filled. Philemon Lescuyer in Hort. Francais, 1855, 248, "C'est, dit M. Cochet de Suisnes (Seine-et-Marne), une variete du Lilas de Marly, a. fleurs plus larges et plus foncees que celles des varietes anciennes. — Nous la croyons bien voisine du Lilas a grande fleur de M. Briot, directeur des pepinieres imperiales de Trianon; mais nos souvenirs peuvent nous tromper, " as Lilas Philemon. — Dauvesse, Cat. no. 20, 24 (1855), as Lilas Philemon; no. 24, 42 (1859), as Syringa Philemonii and as Philemon Lilac. — A. Leroy, Cat. 1865, 100, "Pourp., avril," as Syringa Philemon and as Lilas Philemon. — K. Koch, Dendr. n. pt. 1. 266 (1872), as Syringa Philemon. — Ellwanger in Horticulturist, 1875, 98. — De Vos in Nederl. Fl. Pom. 202 (1876) ; in Sieboldia, 11. 198 (1876). — Ottolander in Sieboldia, n. 187 (1876), "groeit minder sterk, bloeit nog wel zoo mild als de varieteit bicolor; licht rose, zeer fraai." — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880), "Thyrses enormes et compacts; fleurs grandes, d'un pourpre vif, nuance de lilas." — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885) . — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 1 13 (1889) , " mit dunkler Belaubung und sehr dunk- len Bliiten." — Grosdemange in Rev. Hort. 1893, 2&6, "Elle se distingue des autres vari- et6s par son riche coloris ardoise fonce; par la grandeur de ses fleurs dont la corolle mesure jusqu'a 2 centimetres de largeur; par ses inflorescences souvent reunies par deux atteign- ant facilement de 25 a. 30 centimetres de longueur," as Philemon Cochet. — Garden and Forest, vi. 290 (1893). — L. Henry in Jardin, vm. 175 (1894), as " Philemon Cochet ou simplement Philemon." — De Duren in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. xxi. 157 (1895), as Phile- mon Cochet. Without a name, except in the index, this form is mentioned in "L'HorticuIteur Francais" (1855, 188) by Herincq, who states that it appears to resemble the Lilas a grandes fleurs rouges de'kTrianon obtained by Mons. Briot [= Rouge de Trianon]. Grosde- mange gives Pierre Cochet's description of this Lilac and quotes him as saying that it was a natural seedling which he raised about 1840 and named for the elder of his two sons, Philemon and Scipion Cochet; it was put on the market about 1846 under the name Philemon but did not attract much attention until it took a "prime de ier classe" at the Exposition universelle in 1855. Lescuyer, as well as Herincq, notes that it is close to the Lilas a. grande fleur of Briot who was head of the nurseries at Trianon, Versailles. In his description quoted above Herincq tells us that Cochet states that it was a variety of the Marly Lilac, considered here to be identical with S. vulgaris var. purpurea. K. Koch writes: "Endlich wird in den Flottbecker Baumschulen eine interessante Form mit sehr dunkelen Blattern und Bluthen als Syringa nigricans kultivirt ; in Angers sah ich sie als Syringa Philemon." Hartwig and Riimpler (Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 561, 1875) give as a synonym of S. vulgaris var. nigricans Hort. the variety Philemon 358 THE LILAC Cochet. These are the only references which so connect the two forms. The two plants are not the same. See the form Nigricans. De Vos (Sieboldia, 1. c.) writes that Ottolander says the flowers of Philemon are like those of Bicolor and suggests that perhaps Ottolander received a wrong plant under that name, for the color of the flowers of Philemon differs from that of all varieties known to him and the plant has the best right to bear the name blue Syringa. Ottolander (Sieboldia, n. 187, 1876) had stated that the flowers of Philemon were a light rose color. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists a form Philemont under his S. vulgaris q. hybrida od[er] Amb[roise] Verschaffelt. This is undoubtedly a misnomer. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1900). Flowers single, medium size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers conspicuous; tone dark to intermediate; color in bud Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvni.) ; when expanded, corolla-tube Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.), corolla-lobes Argyle Purple with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvu.) without, Chinese Violet (xxv.) within. Clusters medium to large in size, narrow, well-filled, compact. The pale margins of the corolla-lobes give a somewhat variegated appearance to the clusters. Pierre Joigneaux Lemoine, Cat. no. 122, x. (1892), "Plante florifere, thyrses longs, droits, fleurs moyennes, purpurines, boutons girofle, tranchant sur la couleur des fleurs." — Nicolas in Jardin, ix. 80 (1895). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1892 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 20, 1900, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1895; no. 3815-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers semidouble to double, medium size, unsymmetrical; corolla-lobes narrow, pointed or rounded at apex; tone intermediate; color in bud Neutral Red to Vinaceous-Purple to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink tinged with Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) without, Chinese Violet to Lilac (xxv.) within. Clusters com- pact, medium size. Pink Beauty of Frankfort Felix and Dykhuis, Trade letter, July 25, 1924, "single, lilac"; Cat. [cir. 1925], 26, "lila," with single flowers, as Pink Beauty of Frankford. In a letter of September 1st, 1925, the firm of Felix and Dykhuis, Boskoop, Holland, wrote me as follows: "Pink Beauty of Frankfurt was originated we think by Friedr. Sinai, Obereschersheimer Landstrasse, Frankfurt a. M., Germany, under the name Schoner von Frankfurt." I have been unable to get any information from this source. The address was given me as Eschenheimerlandstrasse by Mr. Paul Pfitzer. See the form Herman Eilers. Planchon, Lemoine, Cat. no. 170, 30 (1908), "Thyrses compacts et obtus, fleurs enormes, pleines, violet mauve, a revers argentes." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917)- Introduced in 1908 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1907. See the form Banquise for the explanation of this difference in dates. SYRINGA VULGARIS 359 Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1916; no. 7537 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, large; corolla-lobes broad, rounded or pointed at apex; tone intermediate; color in bud Corinthian Purple to Deep Hellebore Red (xxxviii.) to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) ; when expanded, the outer corollas Purplish Lilac with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac, the inner corollas Light Pinkish Lilac without, Light Lobelia Violet tinged with Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxviii.) within. Clusters large, broad at base, rather open but symmetrical, showy. The flowers have the appear- ance of pale double violets. The pale reverses of the inner corolla-lobes, curling toward the center, are noticeable in the expanded flower. Plena Oudin, Cat. 1841, 22, name only, and as Lilas commun a fleurs doubles; no. 77, 8 [cir. 1857], name only, as flore pleno. — Prince, Cat. 1844-1845, 70, name only, as S. flore pleno. — Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 9 (1855-1856), "Similar to the common but has a double row of petals," as pleno; Cat. no. 2, 72 (1875), as flore pleno. — Dauvesse, Cat. no. 24, 42 (1859), as Syringa Flore pleno. — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864), as flore pleno Hort. — Van Houtte, Cat. no. 117, 12 (1867), as flore pleno. — A. Waterer, Cat. 1872-1873, 36, as flore- pleno. — Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 561 (1875), "Mit doppelter Blumenkrone, von Farbung des gewohnlichen blauen Flieders," as flore pleno Hort. — Lauche, Deutsch. Dendr. 170 (1880), as flore pleno Hort. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), as flore pleno. — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 113 (1889). — Parsons, Cat. 1889, 49, as flore pleno. — J. G. J[ack] in Garden and Forest, in. 322 (1890), as flore pleno. — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896), as flore pleno. — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 756 (1927). This form is listed by Loddiges (Cat. 1836, 67) as a name only, as S. vulgaris fl. pleno. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists a S. vulgaris fl. plenohort., which he notes is cultivated at Riga, Russia, according to Buhse. Hartwig and Rumpler note that the form which they mention as S. vulgaris azurea Hort. [= Azurea plena] is scarcely different from this form which they call S. vulgaris flore pleno Hort. It seems probable indeed that there was only a slight difference, if any, between the two forms, but the two have been kept distinct, as, with the descriptions available, at this date their identity must always remain a matter of uncertainty. The two have been retained as distinct by such writers as Kirchner, Hartwig and Rumpler, Dippel, Voss, etc. Probably scarcely different also from the form Duplex. The Lilas commun a. fleurs doubles of Seneclauze (Cat. 1846-1847, 11) is probably the same. So also, according to its name, is the S. coerulea plena of Detriche (Cat. 1893- 1894, 16). There is a form listed as S. vulgaris flore pleno growing in the collection of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., which was received from Ellwanger and Barry in 1892. It has much the appearance of the Lilac Azurea plena which grows there also. See Azurea plena. President Carnot Lemoine, Cat. no. 116, xrv. (1890), "Thyrses longs de plus de 25 centimetres, coniques, fleurs erigees tres bien faites, a deux ou trois corolles emboitees, lobes reguliers, presque ronds, jolie teinte lilas pale, marquee de blanc au centre, floraison tardive. Cet arbuste, dont tous les rameaux se couvrent de boutons est absolument 360 THE LILAC charge de fleurs. C'est le plus florifere des lilas doubles." — De Duren in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. xxi. 157 (1895). — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 379 (1907). — Have- meyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1890 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Undoubtedly the Lilac mentioned as Souvenir de President Carnot (Jour. Hort. Home Farmer, ser. 3, l. 425, fig., 1905) is the same. The description, which corresponds with that of President Carnot, reads: "The blossoms are pale with a white center. It is a very free flowerer, and comes in rather late," with double flowers. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Lemoine in 1895; no. 3804 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, large, unsymmetrical ; corolla-lobes broad or narrow, pointed or rounded at apex, occasionally cucullate; tone pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when expanded Light Vinaceous-Lilac with margins of Pale Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) without, Pale Lavender- Violet (xxv.) marked with much white within. Clusters long, narrow, interrupted. President Chauvet E. Turbat, Litt. ined. October 31, 1924, "double violet." In a letter of which Mr. J. C. Wister kindly sent me a copy, Mr. Turbat states that this form originated with Bruchet of St. Rambery-sur-Loire (Loire), France; Mr. Bruchet informed him that it was lost during the war. President Fallieres Lemoine, Cat. no. 179, 5 (191 1), "Plante d'une excessive flori- bondite; tres grandes thyrses, fleurs bien degagees, corolle enorme, en rosace, lilas rose tendre, boutons rose mauve, floraison tardive." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). — Wister in Horticulture, n. s. v. no. 20, 403, fig. (1927). Introduced in 191 1 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1918; no. 7929 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, large; corolla-lobes broad, rounded at apex or abruptly pointed, curling; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Dull Indian Purple (xliv.) tinged with Light Cinnamon-Drab (xlvi.); when ex- panded the outer corolla Light Vinaceous-Lilac tinged with Pale Vinaceous-Lilac, the inner corolla Pale Vinaceous-Lilac without, Deep Dull Lavender (xliv.) marked with considerable white within. Clusters open, large, subdivisions spreading, showy. In the Supplement to the General Catalogue issued by the firm of Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker ([1908], 2) appeared a form President Fallieres which the firm attributed to Nollent. They describe it as double-flowered with "Belles fleurs, beau coloris lie de vin." In a letter of August 31, 1925, the Curator of the Jardin Botanique de l'Etat, at Brussels, Belgium, informed me that Nollent was the name for the late firm Aug. Gou- chault of Orleans, France. Mr. R. Chenault wrote me on October 12, 1925, in reply to a letter addressed to his father-in-law, Mr. A. Gouchault, that the form was "sent out by Lemoine in 191 1." But in a letter dated October 31, 1924, of which Mr. J. C. Wister kindly sent me a copy, Mr. E. Turbat of the firm of E. Turbat & Co., successors to J. Gouchault and Turbat, stated: "You will remark that [there] exist 2 President Fallieres, one from Lemoine and one from Bruchet. Unfortunately he [Bruchet, St. Rambery-sur- SYRINGA VULGARIS 361 Loire (Loire), France] says that he has lost all these sorts during the war and is unable to supply any." Mr. Turbat described the flowers as "violet vineux double." See Andre Laurent. This form has priority over President Fallieres Lemoine. From the above state- ments, however, it seems doubtful whether the plant is still grown while Lemoine's form is much cultivated. Should both be found to exist to avoid confusion the name of Lemoine's form should be changed. President Grevy Lemoine, Cat. no. 104, vn. (1886), "Thyrses magnifiques, d'une ampleur inconnue dans les lilas a fleurs simples, atteignant 30 centimetres de longueur avec une largeur proportion elle ; fleur individuelle de deux centimetres et demi, a deux ou trois rangs de petales arrondis, ceux-ci d'un bleu tirant sur le cobalt avec le centre plus brillant et les bords un peu roses; les revers apparents des petales font ressortir la belle couleur bleue du centre; les boutons enormes, globuleux, sont d'un violet vineux. C'est une variete d'un merite exceptionel et la plus belle qui existe; elle tranche sur toutes les autres, meme a une longue distance." — V. Lemoine in Garden and Forest, n. 328 (1889). — Carriere and Andre in Rev. Hort. 1889, 411. — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumen- gartn. 652 (1896). — Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. 1900, 88, fig. — R. H. W. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, xxvn. 115, fig. 35 (1900). — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 321. — Grignan in Rev. Hort. 1907, 14. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 379 (1907). — Have- meyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). — Kache in Gartenschonheit, v. 81, t. (1924). — D. Hill Nursery Co., Cat. "Hill's Evergreens," t. (opp. p. 72), fig. 1 (1924). — Wister in House and Garden, 1926, 172, fig. (p. 72). — House and Garden's Second Book of Gardens, 161, fig. (1927). Introduced in 1886 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. For the history of this form see Azurea plena. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 5, 1895, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1889; no. 3460-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers semi- double or double, large, unsymmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate, rounded or dull pointed at apex; tone pale; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvni.); when expanded Mauvette (xxv.) tinged with Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) without, Light Lavender- Violet tinged with Mauvette (xxv.) or white within. Clusters open, large, pyramidal. The flowers appear darker within than without and the clusters are somewhat variegated in appearance owing to the pale margins of the corolla-lobes. See Aucubaefolia, a form of President Grevy with variegated foliage. President Harding Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 831, "Produces many clusters of single purple red to reddish lilac blossoms"; Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers single, % of an inch across, buds deep crimson, reddish lilac when fully open, clusters 7 to 8 inches long, dense. Branching habit low and compact." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. ; in a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 235 Dunbar) of Aline Moc- queris, named by him in 1922. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers single, medium size; tone dark; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xxrv.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink with margins of Pale Laelia Pink 362 THE LILAC (xxxvni.) without, Bishop's Purple to Ageratum Violet marked with Bishop's Purple (xxxvu.) within. Clusters short, pyramidal, medium size. President John Adams Dunbar, Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers semi-double, white, cluster compact. Dwarf habit." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y.; in a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 321 Dunbar) of Thunberg, named by him in 1923. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers double, with 3 corollas and additional lobes at throat, large; corolla-lobes somewhat pointed at apex, sometimes curling; color in bud Deep Sea-foam Green (xxxi.) to white; when expanded white. Clusters narrow-pyramidal, well-filled, medium size. President Lambeau Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Cat. [1908], 2, "Cette variete vigoureuse forme un arbuste de forte taille. Les thyrses sont elances, tres epaules, de couleur bleu lavande clair, d'un superbe effet; bou tonne bien chacque annee." — De Corte in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. xxxrv. 207 (1908). — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxin. 351 (1908). Introduced in 1908 by the firm of Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Brussels, Belgium; according to their catalogue this was a seedling produced by crossing the forms Dr. Lindley and Marie Legraye. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker in 1 9 1 4) . Flowers single, medium size, symmetrical ; corolla-lobes cucullate ; anthers conspicuous; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Purplish Vinaceous (xxxix.) to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvni.); when expanded Purplish Lilac on Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvii.) without, Rose-Purple (xxvi.) within. Clusters open, widely branched. President Lincoln Dunbar according to Horticulture, xxvi. 35 (191 7), name only; xxvii. 534 (1918), "single, blue in color"; xxvii. 625, frontispiece (1918), ". . .It has large compound clusters, flowers single, large, seven-eighths of an inch in diameter. Deep wedgewood blue. Seed parent Virginalis. This is the deepest shade of blue known among lilacs in cultivation." — Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 831, "Blossoms early, bearing many large clusters of Wedgewood blue, single flowers. In our opinion perhaps the bluest of single flowering Lilacs in cultivation"; Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers single, % to y% of an inch across, purplish lilac in bud, Wedge- wood blue when fully open; clusters 3 to 4 compound. Branches ascending and habit somewhat compact, very vigorous. Early." — Duffy in Garden and Home Builder, May, 1927, fig. (p. 258), 308. Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. ; in a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 202 Dunbar) of Virginalis [= Alba virginalis] named by him in 191 6. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., in April, 1919; no. 10,175 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate, pointed at apex; anthers clearly visible; tone intermediate; color in bud Light Vinaceous-Purple (xliv.) ; when expanded Lavender (xxxvi.) tinged with Light Vinaceous-Purple (xliv.) without, Light Dull Bluish Violet (xxxvi.) within, a SYRINGA VULGARIS 363 solid color. Clusters open, long, narrow-pyramidal, medium to large in size. The color is unusual among Lilacs. President Loubet Lemoine, Cat. no. 149, viii. (1901), "Panicules larges, hautes et compactes, enormes fleurs a lobes larges, cocardeau purpurin, boutons rouge carmin; c'est un des lilas les plus fonces." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 322. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 382 (1907). — Grignan in Rev. Hort. 1907, 15, t., fig. 4. — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1901 by the firm of V. Lemoine et nls, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., in November, 1906; no. 5202 Am. Arb.). Flowers double or semi- double, large, unsymmetrical ; corolla-lobes broad or narrow, rounded or pointed at apex, sometimes cucullate; tone dark to intermediate; color in bud Corinthian Purple to Daphne Red (xxxvni.); when expanded Daphne Red to Eupatorium Purple shaded with Pale Laelia Pink within, Daphne Red to Tourmaline Pink shaded with Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) without. Clusters open, numerous. President Massart Duvivier in Jour. Hort. Pratique Belg. ser. 2, v. 265, t. xx. (1861), as Lilas President Massart. — Lemaire in Illustr. Hort. x. t. 352 (1863), as Lilas President Massart (S. vulgaris). — Francke in Gartenflora, xii. 170 (1863). — Hartwigand Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 561 (1875). — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880). — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 1885, 78. — E. Morren and A. De Vos, Index Bibliog. Hort. Belg. 556 (1887). — L. Henry in Jardin, vin. 175 (1894); in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 733, footnote (1901). Duvivier tells us that this plant was named by a special commission of the Societe royale des conferences horticoles of Liege in honor of "l'honorable president de la So- ciete. . . ." He describes it thus: "Le Lilas President Massart possede des thyrses compactes, globuleux et comme comprimes de haut en bas, de maniere a, se presenter plutot sous la forme d'une panicule divariquee et aplatie. Ses fleurs, grandes et regulieres ont les divisions de la corolle arrondies a leur extremite et fortement recourbees sur leurs bords, de facon a. former une navicule ou cuiller parfaitement caracteristique. Le coloris est d'une rouge pourpre fonce, excepte a la face superieure du limbe ou il devient de plus en plus lilace du cote de la gorge. Ces qualites, jointes a. la vigueur, a. la rusticite de la plante, en font une variete precieuse et qui occupera . . . une place distinguee a. cote des Lilas rouges de Trianon, de Marly et Royal, auxquels elle se rattache par quelques caracteres." Duvivier states that it received a gold medal from the society which named it but was not in trade at the date of his article, 1861. It was produced by Brahy-Ekenholm, an amateur grower of Herstal, near Liege, Belgium. Lemaire tells us that it was to be put on the market in the spring of 1865. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 7, 1895, from plant grown from grafts received from P. W. Van der Veur, Boskoop, Holland, in March, 1884; no. 2080-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, large to medium in size; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone dark to intermediate; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Magenta (xxvi.) 364 THE LILAC to Light Perilla Purple (xxxvii.) ; when expanded Eupatorium Purple with margins of Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) without, Magenta (xxvi.) with markings of Saccardo's Violet (xxxvn.) and white near throat within. Clusters conical, broad, large. President Monroe Dunbar, Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers semi-double, porce- lain lavender, long clusters." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. ; in a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 340 Dunbar) of Thunberg, named by him in 1923. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers double, with frequently 4 corollas, hose-in-hose, medium size, tone pale; color in bud Deep Brownish Vinaceous to Purplish Vinaceous (xxxix.) with corolla-tube Argyle Purple (xxxvn.); when ex- panded Purplish Lilac on Light Pinkish Lilac without, Lobelia Violet tinged with Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.) within. Clusters long, narrow, symmetrically filled. If this plant is true to name the flowers are more than semi-double, as described by Dunbar. President Poincare Lemoine, Cat. no. 185, 6 (1913), "Thyrses enormes et compacts, eriges, fleurs tres grandes, pleines, serres, a larges lobes ondules et chiffonnes, mauve he de vin, avec les boutons purpurins." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 191 3 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1917; no. 7628 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, large; corolla-lobes rounded at apex or often pointed; tone intermediate; color in bud Perilla Purple (xxxvn.) to Deep Hellebore Red to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.) ; when expanded Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvm.) without, Lobelia Violet to Hay's Lilac (xxxvn.) within. Clusters large, dense, almost conical when large flowers are fully expanded, showy. The flower clusters are frequently produced from as many as three pairs of buds on the same branchlet. The dark flower buds contrast noticeably with the much paler expanded flowers. President Roosevelt Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 831, fig. (p. 799), " Bears claret red to purple red single flowers in numerous thyrses, and is a most attractive variety; it produces a charming effect when the buds are opening"; Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers single, % to J^ of an inch across, deep purple red in bud, bright pur- plish red when fully open, somewhat cup shaped, clusters 9 inches long. Branching habit open and vigorous." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. ; in a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 229 Dunbar) of Aline Moc- queris, named by him in 1919. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers single, medium size; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone dark; color in bud Perilla Purple (xxxvn.); when expanded Magenta (xxvi.) with occasional margins of Tourmaline Pink (xxxvm.) without, Dull Magenta Purple (xxvi.) within. Clusters long, narrow, open, subdivisions ascending. President Viger Lemoine, Cat. no. 146, xn. (1900), "Enormes thyrses bifurques, fleurs tres grandes, imbriquees, lilas bleuatre teinte mauve." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. SYRINGA VULGARIS 365 1906, 322. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 382 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1900 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1902). Flowers double or semi-double, with stout globular buds, large; tone intermediate; color in bud Perilla Purple to Argyle Purple (xxxvu.); when expanded Argyle Purple to Light Pinkish Lilac without, Saccardo's Violet to Lobelia Violet (xxxvii.) marked with considerable white within. Clusters long, narrow, open. Pride of Rochester Parsons, Cat. 1892, 9, name only. Possibly a production of the Ellwanger and Barry firm of Rochester, N. Y. Only found mentioned in above reference. Prince de Beauvau Lemoine, Cat. no. 137, x. (1897), "Enormes bouquets compacts, fieurs regulieres, ardoise violace, boutons rouge pourpre, teinte nouvelle, variete propre au forcage." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 322. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 381 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1897 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 24, 1900, from plant received from Lemoine in April, 1900; no. 4624-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, medium size, unsymmetrical ; corolla-lobes broad, rounded or pointed at apex; tone inter- mediate; color in bud Dahlia Carmine (xxvi.) to Deep Hellebore Red to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Laelia Pink tinged with Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, Lilac (xxv.) to Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) marked with white within. Clusters large, open, symmetrically filled. >> Princei Prince, Cat. 1844-1845, 70, "Very large and splendid thyrses of violet flowers and as Lilac Prince's splendid violet; Cat. 1847, 36, as Prinzei. Only found mentioned in the above references. Prince imperial L. Berniau according to Larche in Hort. Francais, 1861, 143, " Arbuste vigoureux, rameaux gros et courts; feuilles tres-larges, thyrse floral long de 25 centi- metres et plus, du plus beau rouge lilace, a reflets metalliques, " as Lilas Prince imperial (L. Berniau). — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880). — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1886-1887, 58; 1900-1901, 68, "lilas rougeatre," with single flowers. — L. Henry in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 733, footnote (1901). Larche states that this was obtained by Moris. Dubois from a crossing of the Lilacs Triomphe d'Orleans and "le Liberte." By the latter Larche may mean either the double- flowered Azurea plena or the single-flowered Libertii. His description was evidently taken from the catalogue of L. Berniau fils, Orleans, France, which I have not seen. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June, 1900, from plant received from Simon-Louis in May, 1888; no. 45-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size, unsymmetrical; corolla-lobes ordinarily cucullate; tone intermediate; color in bud Perilla Purple (xxxvu.) to Vemonia Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink with margins of Pale 366 THE LILAC Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, Chinese Violet mingled with Lilac (xxv.) within. Clusters compact or open, medium size. Prince Marie Muskauer Baumschulen, Haupt-Katalog, 1910, 37, as Prince Marie aus Sichrow. The catalogue notes that this "ist nicht die vorige Sorte" [Prince Camille de Rohan]. The name Prince Camille de Rohan is undoubtedly a misnomer for Princesse Camille de Rohan. It is not entirely clear whether the phrase "aus Sichrow" is a part of the name of this form or whether it means that the form was received from Sichrow. Mr. Rehder con- siders it merely explanatory of the source of the plant and has a recollection, which it has not been possible to verify, that the estate of the Rohan family was situated at Sichrow. Possibly a misnomer for the form Princesse Marie. Prince Notger Oudin, Cat. 1841, 22, as Notgeriana and as Lilas commun prince Notger, name only. — Prevost in Ann. Fl. Pomone, ser. 2, rv. 253 (1846), as Prince Notger; in Jour. Hort. Pratique Belg., v. 96 (1848), as Prince Notger. — Seneclauze, Cat. 1847- 1848, 11, as Lilas, Syringa, prince Notger. — A. Leroy, Cat. 1852, 58, as prince Nutger and as Lilas commun prince Nutger. — Dauvesse, Cat. no. 20, 24 (1855), as Lilas Prince Notger. — Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 9 (1855-1856), "delicate bluish purple, early," as Syringa Prince Nottgen. — L. Leroy, Cat. 1858-1859, 94, as prince Nutger. — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864), "Blumen gross, hell-lila. Abschnitte der Corolla' eingeschlagen," as Prinz Nottgeri Hort. (Nottgeriana Hort.). — Van Houtte, Cat. no. 117, 12 (1867), as Notgeriana; no. 165-LL, 18 (1875-1876), as. Notgeriensis. — Regel, Russ. Dendr. 207 (1870), as Prince Nottger. — K. Koch, Dendr. n. pt. 1. 266 (1872), "eine Form mit hell-violleten Bluthen. . . ," as Notgeri. — Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 560 (1875), "Bluthen hell-violett, der obere Rand der Kronenabschnitte eingeschlagen, " as Notgeriana Hort., and as Prinzen-Flieder. — Baumann, Cat. no. 159, 3 (1879). — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880), "A thyrses laches, fleurs lilace pale," as Notgeriana and as Lilas commun prince Notger. — Croux, Cat. 1886-1887, 89, as Prince Nutger. — Spath, Cat. no. 69, 115 (1887-1888), "Hell violett." — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 380 (1892), as Prinz Notger. To avoid confusion I have retained the name commonly used for this form, Prince Notger, rather than the Latinized Notgeriana. Prevost, in an article entitled "Observations sur le merite reel de deux varietes nou- velles de Lilas" writes of two forms, Colmariensis and Prince Notger. The latter he states was put on the market about 1840, the former slightly later. He does not know the producer of either plant. His opinion of these two Lilacs is quoted at length under Colmariensis, but he evidently did not consider that either of them was worth naming, and moreover he believed them to be identical. It is of course possible that Prevost's plants were not true to name. He writes: "Le Lilas Prince Notger est en tout semblable au Lilas de Colmar, a l'exception des quelques differences quasi microscopiques suivantes: Ses thyrses sont encore plus petits, moins multiflores; les divisions de sa corolle sont ordinairement plus ouvertes, d'un bleu porcelaine plus prononce et parfois plus pale." See also the form Colmariensis. SYRINGA VULGARIS 367 [K. Koch] (Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xn. 43, 1869) writes: "wa.hr- end eine mit hellvioletten Bliithen den Namen Syringa Notgeri fiihrt." Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists Prince Notger as a name only under his S. vulgaris q. hybrida horfy, od[er] Amb[roise] Verschaffelt. This is an old and much cultivated form but its origin is not known. The descriptions are meager, and it is impossible at this date to identify with the form as first grown any plant now in cultivation. The plants in the Rochester and Arnold Arboretum collections are not the same in appearance and I am uncertain which, if either, is true to name. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 5, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 3001-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, medium to small in size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate, pointed at apex, opening into a star-shaped flower; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) ; when expanded Mauvette without, Light Mauve with mark- ings of Light Lavender- Violet (xxv.) and with a white eye within. Clusters open, medium size, somewhat feathery in appearance. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Ellwanger and Barry in 1892; listed as Prince Nottinger). Flowers single, medium size, symmetrical, corolla-lobes cucullate, rounded at apex ; anthers conspicuous ; tone pale ; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvm.) ; when expanded Tourmaline Pink with margins of Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) without, Lilac to Mauvette (xxv.) within. Clusters pyramidal, open, at base widely branched, medium size. Prince of Wales Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 89 (1886), "Panicles medium to large, flowers purplish-lilac, the petals slightly curling near the edge, giving the flowers the appearance of being striped. New and fine"; Cat. no. 2, 82 (1888). In their catalogue of 1888 Ellwanger and Barry of Rochester, N. Y., state that this was produced by James Dougall of Windsor, Canada. In their earlier catalogue for 1886 they note that this, as well as their other forms, Albert the Good and Princess Alex- andra, have never before been offered for sale. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 11, 1895, from plant received from Ellwanger and Barry in April, 1887 ; no. 2658-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, large; anthers conspicuous; tone intermediate; color in bud Neutral Red to Deep Hellebore Red to Hellebore Red (xxxvm.) ; when expanded Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.) without, Lilac (xxv.) within. Clusters open, medium size. Princess Alexandra Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 89 (1886), "A variety with pure white flowers, panicles medium to large. Very fine," as Princess Alexandria; Cat. no. 2, 82 (1888), as Princess Alexandria; Cat. 1896, 98; Cat. 1900, 87, fig. (p. 86); Cat. 1908, 58, t. — Barry in Horticulture, x. 499, fig. (1909) — Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 831. In their catalogue of 1888 Ellwanger and Barry of Rochester, N. Y., state that this was produced by James Dougall of Windsor, Canada. In their catalogue of 1886 they note that this, and the forms Albert the Good and Prince of Wales, have never before been offered for sale. It is not till ten years after it was first listed by Ellwanger and Barry as Princess Alexandria that I have found it appearing in their catalogues under a different and presumably correct spelling, — as Princess Alexandra. It appears in the latter form exclusively at the present day. 368 THE LILAC Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in November, 1909; no. 17,381 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, large, symmetrical; corolla-lobes narrow, cucullate, pointed or rounded at apex, curling; anthers visible; color in bud Light Viridine Yellow to Pale Viridine Yellow (v.) ; when expanded white. Clusters large, broad at base, well-filled but not crowded, numerous. A fine single white-flowered Lilac. Princesse Camille de Rohan E. Morren in Belg. Hort. vi. 97, t. xvin. fig. 2 (1856), "... toute trace ou nuance de bleu a disparu et il n'est reste qu'un rose de chair le plus pur. Chaque fleur, a tube regulier et a limbe parfaitement dessine en forme de souscoupe, fort, epais, et charnu au point de ressembler a la cire, presente cette teinte tendre a sa face superieure, tandis que la face inferieure, le dessous de chaque fleur ou les boutons sont d'une coloration beaucoup plus vive. . . . Chaque thyrse est grand, epais, arrondi tres-regulierement fourni de fleurs nombreuses et pressees sans se deformer. Plusieurs thyrses secondaires surgissent a la base de l'infiorescence principale et il en resulte un gros bouquet forme sur une seule branche." — Regel in Gartenflora, v. 385 (1856). — L. Leroy, Cat. 1872, 84, as Syringa princesse Camille de Rohan. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880). — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), as Prince Camille de Rohan. — E. Morren and A. De Vos, Index Bibliog. Hort. Belg. 556 (1887). — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 113 (1889), as Camille de Rohan. — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 380 (1892), as Camille de Rohan Hort. — Olmstead, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 485 (1923), as Camille de Rohan. Morren states that this was produced by Brahy-Ekenholm, an amateur horticulturist. Regel states that Makoy put it on the market. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists, as a name only, under his S. vulgaris q. hybrida hort., od[er] Amb[roise] Verschaffelt a Prince de Rohan; this is presumably a misnomer for Princesse Camille de Rohan. He also lists, as a name only, a Camille de Romain, obviously a misnomer. The form Due de Rohan is probably the same. [K. Koch] (Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xu. 43, 1869) writes: "Eine Form mit fast rosenrothen Bliithen hat Maquoy [sic] als Due de Rohan in den Handel gebracht." Again (1872): "Die abart mit rosa-farbigen Blumen welche Makoy in Luttich in den Handel brachte hat den Beinamen: Due de Rohan erhalter." Hartwig and Rumpler (Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 560 (1875) also mention this form and give it the common name of Rohan-Flieder; they describe it as "Mit kleineren Rispen rosafarbiger Bliithen." Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 10, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2934-2 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes rounded at apex, cucullate, forming a saucer- shaped flower at first, later opening at a right angle to corolla-tube; anthers conspicuous; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Neutral Red to Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvni.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink with margins of Pale Laelia Pink without, Pale Laelia Pink tinged with Tourmaline Pink (xxxvni.) within. Clusters conical, compact, medium size, numerous. Princesse Clementine Mathieu according to Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Suppl. Gen. Cat. [1908], 2, ". . . Les thyrses bien developpes et les fleurs bien pleines, sont SYRINGA VULGARIS 369 d'un beau blanc et d'une grandeur extraordinaire. C'est le plus beau des lilas blancs a fleurs doubles. Arbuste vigoureux et florifere." — A. O. in Garden, lxxxvii. fig. (p. 302) (1923) as Princess Clementine. In their catalogue Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker state that this was produced by cross- ing the forms Mme. Lemoine and Marie Legraye. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1916; no. 7541 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, large, unsymmetrical; corolla-lobes broad or narrow, rounded or pointed at apex; color in bud Light Viridine Yellow to Pale Viridine Yellow to Sulphur Yellow (v.) to Marguerite Yellow (xxx.); when expanded white. Clusters open, large. Large leaves are sometimes present at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescence. Princesse Marianne Van Houtte, Cat. no. 165-LL, 18 (1875-1876), name only. — Bau- driller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), name only. — Dieck, Haupt-Verzeichn. Zoschen, Nachtr. 1. 28 (1887), name only, as Princess Marianne. Possibly the same as the form Princesse Marie. Princesse Marie Oudin, Cat. 1846-1847, 11, as Lilas princesse Marie, name only; 17, as Syringa (Lilas) princesse Marie, name only. — Seneclauze, Cat. 1846-1847, n, as Lilas, Syringa, commun Princesse Marie, name only. — Dauvesse, Cat. no. 20, 24 (1855), as Lilas Princesse Marie, name only. — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495 (1864), "Blumen hellfleischfarbig-rosa, im Verbluhen mehr lila, klein, gedrungen und gut gebaut," as Prinzess Marie Hort. — Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 42 (1867-1868), "Pale bluish lilac," as Princess Marie. — L. Leroy, Cat. 1872, 84, as Syringa princesse Marie. — De Vos in Sieboldia, 1. 293 (1875). — Transon, Cat. 1875-1876, 49, as Syringa Princesse Marie. — Ottolander in Sieboldia, 11. 187 (1876). — Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1877, 360, "Plante vigoureuse, elancee, a beau feuillage d'un vert pale. Thyrses allonges, dresses, compacts a ramifications tres rapprochees. Boutons rose grisatre. Fleurs assez grandes, rose legerement lilace, exterieurement rose came presque blanc lilace a l'interieure. Odeur agreable sui generis, mais tres forte. Cette variete est a floraison tardive; ses fleurs s'epanouissent dans la deuxieme quinzaine de mai et se succedent jusqu'en juin." — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880), ''Thyrses pyramidaux; d'un beau rose tendre, teinte de lilas tres-pale." — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885). — Spath, Cat. no. 69, 115 (1887-1888). — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 380 (1892), as Prinzessin Marie. — Baltet, Cat. 1900-1901, 28, as Lilas Princesse Marie, "lilas clair, tres large fleur." — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1900-1901, 68, "Blanc lilace," with single flowers. Carriere states that this was produced by the elder Bertin, a horticulturist of Ver- sailles, France, in 1859. A Lilac of this name appears considerably earlier, though with- out description, as the catalogue references show. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 12, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2970-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers conspicuous; tone pale; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Purplish Lilac with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac without, Hay's Lilac (xxxvn.) within. Clusters compact, medium size. An attractive, simple form of a pleasing color. 370 THE LILAC Princesse Murat Parsons, Cat. 1889, 50, name only. A plant bearing this name is growing in the collection of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., and their records describe it as "single, white"; it was received from Parsons in 1892. Professor E. Stoekhardt Van Houtte, Cat. no. 121, 41 (1867-1868), name only. — A. Leroy, Cat. 1868, 100, as Syringa Stacckaert, name only. — Dauvesse, Cat. no. 36, 47 (1872), as Lilas professor E. Stoeckhardt, name only. — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 560 (1875), "Bluthen gross, Kronen abschnitte nach oben eingeschlagen, zart-blass-lila, in langen, dichten Strauchern [sic]," as Professor Stoeckhardt Hort., and as Stockhardt-Flieder. — De Vos in Nederl. Fl. Pom. 202 (1876), "Lilabloemen aan groote, lange bloemstrossen," as Professor Stoekhardt. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880), as professor Stoekhard, and as Lilas commun professeur Stoekhard. — Transon, Cat. 1880-1881, 66, as Syringa Professeur Stockhart. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, as Professor Stoekhardt. — Parsons, Cat. 1889, 50, as Prof. E. Stockhart. — Amer. Florist, xii. 1075 (1897), "A fine single white with a yellowish tinge . . . ," as Dr. Stoekhardt. — Simon Louis, Cat. 1900-1901, 68, "lilas pale," with single flowers, as Professor Stoeck- hard. — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 487 (1923), as Professor E. Stoekhardt. See Additions. Hartwig and Riimpler note: "von Moritz Eichler in Chemnitz erzogen." There was considerable difference in the spelling of the name and I am uncertain which form is correct. Except by " The American Florist" the form is nowhere mentioned as white; this is probably an error. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Ellwanger and Barry in 1892; listed as Prof. Stoekhard). Flowers single, medium size; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous- Lilac (xliv.) ; when expanded Purplish Lilac with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac without, Hay's Lilac (xxxvii.) marked with white within. Clusters open, pyramidal, long. Professor Sargent Spath, Cat. no. 76, 3 (1889-1890), "Schone leichte, kraftige Dolden mit glanzend kirschrothen Bliithenrispen, die mit den aufgebluht dunkelvioletten Bluthen mit weissem Stern und eigenthumlich weissen Spitzen, farbenprachtig kontrastiren. Geruch stark, mehr dem Mandel-, als Fliederduft gleichkommend." Introduced in 1889 by the firm of L. Spath, Berlin, Germany; according to informa- tion supplied by the firm in January, 1924, it was a chance seedling. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 5, 1895, from plant received from Spath in December, 1889; no. 3483-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, symmetrical, large; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers visible but deep-set; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Magenta (xxvi.) ; when expanded Bishop's Purple with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvii.) to Eupatorium Purple with margins of Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) without, Mathews' Purple to Chinese Violet marked with considerable Lilac (xxv.) within. Clusters conical, long, full. The pale outer margins of the corolla-lobes give a variegated appearance to the clusters. Pulverulenta tricolor Baudr[iller] according to Spath, Cat. no. 76, 123 (1889-1890), name only. I have found no reference to this form elsewhere. SYRINGA VULGARIS 371 Purpurea grandiflora Oudin, Cat. 1841, 22, name only, and as Lilas commun pourpre a grandes fleurs. — William R. Prince, Cat. 1844-1845, 70, name only, as S. grandiflora purpurea. Possibly this was another name for Charles X. but in only two instances have I found them definitely given as corresponding names, — by Van Houtte (Cat. no. 255-G, 36, 1893) and by De Jaubert (Invent. Cult. Trianon, 25, 1876). In the latter it appears as S. vulgaris var. grandiflora purpurea (Lilas de Marly, Lilas Charles X.). See 5. vulgaris var. purpurea with which I believe the Marly Lilac to be identical. Purpurea plena Oudin, Cat. 1846-1847, 11, name only, as Lilas a fleurs pourpre double; 17, name only, as Syringa (lilas) vulgaris purpurea plena. — C. Morren in Belg. Hort. iv. 68 (1854), name only, sls flore purpureo duplici. — William R. Prince, Cat. 1856-1857, 44, name only. Morren notes the production in 1843, three centuries after the introduction of the Common Lilac into Belgium, of the first double-flowered form which he calls "Lilas d'azur a fleur double." He is writing of the form here called Azurea plena and mentions that since its appearance catalogues have listed another double form called Syringa vulgaris, flore purpureo duplici; of this he gives no description. Listed by Oudin (Cat. 1845-1846) as Lilas a fleurs pourpre double, without de. scrip tion. Probably scarcely different from the forms Marlyensis plena, Rubra plena, Violacea plena and Violacea purpurea plena. Purpurea rubra Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), name only. Probably identical with S. vulgaris var. purpurea. Pyramidal Lemoine, Cat. no. 104, vni. (1886), "Lors de sa premiere floraison, l'arbuste formait une touffe de 70 centimetres de hauteur portant douze rameaux termines, chacun par un thyrse pyramidal, bifurque tres dense, de 25 centimetres. Larges fleurs pleines, quelquefois monstrueuses, composees de trois corolles emboitees, a petales d'une belle couleur ciel rose, revers plus pale, boutons carmines." — Transon, Cat. 1887-1888, 78, as Syringa pyramidalis. — V. Lemoine in Garden and Forest, 11. 328 (1889). — Carriere and Andre in Rev. Hort. 1889, 411. — Muskauer Baumschulen, Haupt-Katalog, 1910, 37, as pyramidalis Lemoine. — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 322. — Grignan in Rev. Hort. 1907, 14. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxh. 379 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). — Spath-Buch, 1920, 227, as pyramidalis. Introduced in 1886 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their produc- tions. For the history of this form see Azurea plena. Not to be confused with the form Pyramidalis alba, a much older plant. See Pyrami- dalis alba. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June, 1900, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1889; no. 3458-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, hose-in-hose, medium size; corolla-lobes pointed or rounded at apex; tone pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxvm.); when expanded Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) without, Light Mauve to Lilac to Mauvette (xxv.) within. Clusters open, broad at base, large, numer- ous. The clusters are somewhat feathery in appearance. 372 THE LILAC Pyramidalis alba Oudin, Cat. 1 845-1 846, 6, as Lilas pyramidalis alba, name only; 1846-1847, 11, name only, as Lilas pyramidal a fleurs blanches, name only. — Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 169 (1877), as alba pyramidalis, name only. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880) , " A fleurs blanc pur et a. rameaux eriges, " and as Lilas commun blanc pyramidal. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1886-1887, 58, as Alba pyramidalis. — Van Geert, Cat. no. 169, 44 (1896), as alba pyramidata. — Render in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xrv. 206 (1899), as alba pyramidalis; in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. VI. 3298 (1917), as Alba pyra- midalis. The garden form of S. vulgaris mentioned without description as pyramidalis by Beissner, Schelle and Zabel (Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413, 1903) and by Lingelsheim (Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 89, 1920) probably may be referred to this. The single- flowered white form Pyramidalis alba should, however, not be confused with Lemoine's double-flowered colored form Pyramidal; this latter plant is found sometimes appearing as Pyramidalis. The adoption by "Standardized Plant Names" (487, 1923) of Pyramidal as approved common name for Pyramidalis may lead to confusion between these two forms. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Ellwanger and Barry in 1892 and listed as Pyramidalis). Flowers single, medium size; corolla-lobes cucullate; color in bud Chrysolite Green to Deep Sea-foam Green to Sea-foam Green (xxxi.) ; when expanded between Sea-foam Green (xxxi.) and white. Clusters at base widely branched, unevenly filled. Quadricolor Behnsch according to Spath, Cat. no. 76, 123 (1889-1890), "Blatter vierfarbig bunt." A plant of this name was received by the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., from Spath in 1892, but is no longer in existence. Their catalogue describes the flowers as "single, light lilac." Rabelais Lemoine, Cat. no. 134, 15 (1896), "Plante tres naine, fleurs couvrant le sujet, semi-doubles, blanches." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1896 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1900). Flowers double, medium size; corolla-lobes narrow, rounded at apex, opening into a star-shaped flower; color in bud Chrysolite Green to Deep Sea-foam Green to Sea-foam Green (xxxi.) ; when expanded white. Clusters broad-pyramidal, open. Reaumur Lemoine, Cat. no. 158, vni. (1904), "Volumineux thyrses aussi larges que hauts, comprenant quelquefois jusqu'a 5 ramifications; fleurs enormes, unicolores, carmin cocardeau fonce a tons satines, plante tres florifere." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 383 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1904 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Lemoine in November, 1905; no. 5116 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, extra large; corolla-lobes broad, rounded at apex, cucullate on first expanding; anthers visible; tone dark to intermediate; color in bud Neutral Red to Daphne Red to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvin.); when expanded SYRINGA VULGARIS 373 Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.) tinged with Saccardo's Violet (xxxvii.) within. Clusters long, well-filled, large. Regia Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), name only. Possibly a reference to Charles X. but Dieck lists both forms. Reine des Pays-Bas Belg. Hort. xxrv. 176 (1874), "les thyrses sont amples et fournis; les fieurs grandes et fermes sont du blanc le plus pur et au centre du tube les etamines se laissent apercevoir comme un point dore." — Horticulturist, 1874, 264. "La Belgique Horticole," of which Edouard Morren was editor, states that this was said to be a seedling, raised by Mademoiselle Legraye, a florist of the rue de Hocheport, Liege, Belgium, and that the plant was named and given a first prize by the Jury at the International Exposition at Maestricht. From the date, the description, and the origin of this form it seems probable to me that this was an earlier name for Marie Legraye but it has not been possible to verify this. The name Reine des Pays-Bas is translated by "The Horticulturist" into the English form Queen of the Netherlands. See Marie Legraye. Reine Elisabeth Stepman according to Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Suppl. Gen. Cat. [1908], 1, "Variete tres distincte par la forme gracieuse de sa fleur. D'un blanc nacre transparent; les lobes sont ondules et donnent un aspect delicat et seduisant. Tres florifere et de bonne vegetation." Attributed by the catalogue of the firm of Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Brussels, Belgium, to Stepman, a member of that firm, and introduced in 1908. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker in 1914). Flowers single, extra large; corolla-lobes cucullate; corolla-tube slender, long; color in bud Chrysolite Green to Deep Sea-foam Green to Sea-foam Green (xxxi.) ; when expanded white. Clusters large, well-filled, pyramidal. Reine Marguerite Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 487 (1923), name only. A plant of this name is growing in the Arnold Arboretum; it was received from Messrs. James Veitch and Sons in February, 1897. Mr. Rehder tells me that he based his list of Lilacs, used by Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in the compilation of the "Standardized Plant Names" list, in part upon the Arboretum records. I have found no mention of such a form elsewhere. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (no. 4090 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, medium size; corolla-lobes narrow, pointed at apex; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Helle- bore Red to Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvm.) ; when expanded Eupa- torium Purple tinged with Laelia Pink without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.) to Hay's Lilac (xxxvii.) tinged with Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.) within. Clusters small, broad at base, sharply pointed at apex, compact. The dark buds contrast noticeably with the paler, expanded flowers. Rene Jarry-Desloges Lemoine, Cat. no. 161, vm. (1905), "Thyrses verticaux et rigides, bien developpes, fieurs enormes, bien degagees, regulieres, a larges lobes ronds, imbriques, lilas azure a reflets mauve et rose, boutons purpurins." — Grignan in Rev. Hort. 1907, 15, t. fig. 3. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 383 (1907). 374 THE LILAC Introduced in 1905 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1913 ; no. 17,382 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double or semi-double, large; outer corolla- lobes pointed, broad, slightly cucullate on first expanding; anthers conspicuous in many flowers; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous- Lilac to Light Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) ; when expanded Lilac to Light Mauve (xxv.) to Verbena Violet (xxxvi.) on white. Clusters large, open. The color effect of the clusters is somewhat mottled. Renoncule Lemoine, Cat. no. 89, vi. (1881), "Thyrses droits, allonges, ayant 10 centimetres de base sur 20 de hauteur; ramifications nombreuses; fleurs tres pleines, rapprochees les unes des autres, forme de celles de Thalictrum anemonoides fl. pleno; couleur mauve azure; forte odeur." — Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1883, 550; 1885, 310, as Ranunculi flora. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), as ranunculi flora. — V. Le- moine in Garden and Forest, 11. 327 (1889). — Carriere and Andre in Rev. Hort. 1889, 411. — E. Lemoine in Jardin, vi. 152 (1892). — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 378 (1907). — Grignan in Rev. Hort. 1907, 14. — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917), as Revoncule. — Moon, Cat. 1922, 61, "(S[ingle]). An uncommon variety with double pale blue flowers. (R[idgway]) 'Light Chicory Blue'," as Syringa ranunculata flore plena. Introduced in 1881 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. Appears, as a name only, as Renonculiflora plena in the catalogue of A. Leroy (1887, 26). Nicholson (111. Diet. Gard. 111. 537, 1887) lists as distinct forms Renoncule, "Flowers azure-mauve; strongly perfumed; double, very full," and Ranunculiflora, "Flowers dark red, becoming lilac, double." It seems probable to me that these are confused. Carriere uses both as corresponding names and I believe them to be the same. For the history of this form see Azurea plena. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 12, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2971-2 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, medium size, unsymmetrical; corolla-lobes pointed at apex; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) ; when expanded Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) without, Light Lavender- Violet to Lilac marked with Mauvette (xxv.) within. Clusters compact, narrow, medium size. Rochambeau Lemoine, Cat. no. 193, 22 (1919), "Long pyramidal panicles, erect; flowers of a dark purple color with paler reverses, " with single flowers. Introduced in 1919 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1919). Flowers single, medium size; corolla-lobes broad, cucullate, saucer- shaped; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Indian Lake (xxvi.) to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple with pronounced margins of Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) without, Perilla Purple turning to Bishop's Purple with SYRINGA VULGARIS 375 markings of Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvii.) at juncture of corolla-lobes within. Clusters long, narrow. The pale margins give a variegated appearance to the clusters. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 193. Roi Albert Stepman according to Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Suppl. Gen. Cat. [1908], 1, "Variete tardive de grande merite pour la fleur coupee . . . de bonne vegeta- tion, a beau et grand feuillage. Thyrses superbes, fermes et d'un port elegant. Les fleurs a lobes arrondis sont d'une forme parfaite, a. boutons purpurins nuancees de mauve a l'epanouissement." Attributed by the catalogue of the firm of Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker, Brussels, Belgium, to Stepman, a member of that firm, and introduced in 1908. They state that it was a seedling of the form Dr. Lindley. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker in 1914). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone dark; color in bud Neutral Red to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvin.) ; when expanded Magenta (xxvi.) with margins of Eupatorium Purple (xxxvin.) without, Auricula Purple, a solid color, turning to Dull Magenta Purple (xxvi.) within. Clusters long, narrow-pyramidal, open. The flowers appear to be paler without than within. Ronsard Lemoine, Cat. no. 182, 39 (1912), "Fleurs bien degagees, rondes, cucullees, fond lilas bleuatre nuance cobalt, large centre blanc en Stoile, floraison hative." — Have- meyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 191 2 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 191 1 . See the form Banquise for the explanation of this difference in dates. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in October, 1918; no. 7932 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers conspicuous; tone pale; color in bud Helle- bore Red to Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) ; when expanded Bluish Lavender to Deep Lavender (xxxvi.) marked with much white at throat and on corolla-lobes within, Purplish Lilac marked with Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvii.) on margins of corolla-lobes without. Clusters broad at base, long, open, large, symmetrically filled. This plant blooms early each year, and at about the same time as the forms of the hybrid S. hyacinthifiora, to some of which it bears a close resemblance. Rosea Hort. according to Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903), name only. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 89 (1920), name only. Unknown to me. Rosea carnea A. Leroy, Cat. 1851, 47, and as Rose coloured Lilac, name only; Cat. 1852, 58, and as Lilas commun rose came, "rose carafe], mai," name only. — L. Leroy, Cat. 1858-1859, 94, name only. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880), and as Lilas commun rose came, name only. Rosea grandifiora A. Leroy, Cat. 1851, 47, and as Rose large flowering Lilac, name only; 1852, 58, and as Lilas commun a grande fleur rose, name only; 1865, 100, "rose came, mai," name only. — L. Leroy, Cat. 1858-1859, 94, name only. — Transon, Cat. 1875-1876, 49, name only. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880), and as Lilas commun 376 THE LILAC rose a grandes fleurs, name only. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), as grandiflora rosea. — Van Houtte, Cat. no. 225-L, 43 (1887), name only. — Dunbar in Gard. Mag. 1. 233 (1905), "rosy lilac, early flowering," with double flowers. This is an old form but its origin is not known. Dunbar notes that the flowers are double. It seems probable to me that the plant as first introduced had single flowers for at that date a double-flowered Lilac was a rarity and the occurrence of double flowers was generally noted. In the Rochester collection the plant called Rosea grandiflora has double flowers and the plant called Rose a grande fleur has single flowers. Neither of these is identical with the Rosea grandiflora growing in the Arnold Arboretum. I am uncertain which, if any of the three, is true to name. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1907; no. 5328 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, medium to small in size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate, opening into a star-shaped flower; anthers conspicu- ous; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Argyle Purple (xxxvu.); when expanded Argyle Purple to Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvii.) without, Light Dull Bluish Violet (xxxvi.) marked with white within. Clusters open, narrow- pyramidal, medium size, numerous. The clusters are frequently produced from several pairs of buds on the same branchlet. This has the appearance of an old form. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Transon in 1892). Flowers double, conspicuously hose-in-hose, with elongated flower buds, medium size; tone pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvii.) marked with considerable white within. Clusters pyramidal, open. This has the appearance of an old double-flowered form. Notes on plant in same collection (received from Fl. Stepman-De Messemaeker in 1914; listed as Rose a grande fleur). Flowers single, medium size; corolla-lobes round, broad, slightly cucullate on first expanding; tone pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vina- ceous (xliv.) to Eupatorium Purple (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Eupatorium Purple to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, white marked with Purplish Lilac (xxxvii.) on margins of corolla-lobes within. Clusters full, conical. The flowers appear to be darker without than within. Rouen Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 487 (1923), name only. A plant of S. vulgaris bearing this name which was grown from cuttings taken June 12, 1895, from a plant received from Ellwanger and Barry in April, 1887, is in the Arnold Arboretum (no. 977-1 Arn. Arb.). Mr. Rehder tells me that he based his list of Lilacs, used by Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in the compilation of the "Standardized Plant Names" list, in part upon the Arboretum records. It seems probable to me that a plant of the hybrid S. chinensis, grafted upon stock of the Common Lilac, was sent by Ellwanger and Barry, and that the scion was lost and the present plant grew from what was the original stock. S. chinensis was commonly called the Rouen Lilac and it was frequently grafted on Common Lilac. The plant in the Arboretum is in no way remark- able and I have found no mention elsewhere of such a form of S. vulgaris. Rouge de Trianon Briot according to Herincq in Hort. Francais, 1858, 66, "... une admirable variete nouvelle, qui, jusqu'a ce jour n'a servi d'ornement qu'aux jardins de SYRINGA VULGARIS 377 nos rois, " as Lilas Rouge de Trianon. — Bailly in Rev. Hort. 1859, 538, "C'est en effet un arbre plus fort dans toutes ses parties [than S. vulgaris]; ses rameaux sont plus gros, plus vigoureux, sa feuille plus large, plus arrondie, moins longuement acuminee au sommet. Les fleurs disposees en thyrses allonges et bien fournis, sont, avant leur 6panouissement, d'un rouge pourpre extremement intense, passant au violet vif apres l'anthese. Ces belles et riches grappes naissent ordinairement au nombre de deux ou trois a l'extremite des rameaux; elles sont dressees et se degagent bien du feuillage qui, dans cette variet£, semble relativement plus petit que dans le Lilas vulgaire. Ajoutons que la floraison du Lilas rouge de Trianon est plus tardive de huit jours au moins que celle de toutes les autres especes et varietes et dure encore alors que celles-ci ont passe fleur, " as Lilas rouge de Trianon and as Lilas a fleur rouge (Syringa vulgaris flore rubro) . — Bon Jard. 1861, 1493, as flore rubro Hort., and as Lilas rouge de Trianon. — Kirch- ner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 496 (1864), as rubra Trianoniana, and as Rother Flieder von Trianon, Syn.: S. rouge de Trianon. — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 560 (1875), as rubra Trianoniana Hort., and as Trianon-Flieder, Lilas rouge de Trianon. — Spath, Cat. no. 69, 115 (1887-1888), as rubra Trianoniana. — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 380 (1892), as Trianoniana. — L. Henry in Jardin, vin. 175 (1894), as De Trianon or Rouge de Trianon, "Fleurs grandes, rouge pourpre a revers carmine; boutons rouge vif. Thyrses compacts. Tres belle variete." — Amer. Florist, xn. 1075, fig. (p. 1077) (1897), as raflrt* Trianoniana. — Muskauer Baumschulen, Haupt-Katalog, 1 9 10, 37, as rubra Trianoniana Hort., and as rother Flieder von Trianon. — Andre in Rev. Hort. 1902, 172, as Trianon, and as Rouge de Trianon, Rubra grandiflora, Rubra insignis, Rouge ponctue, as synonyms. — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. VI. 3298 (191 7), as Trianoniana. Herincq notes that this was named by Mons. Briot. Bailly states that Briot was head of the nurseries at Trianon, Versailles and obtained this form in 1842 from seed of the "gros Lilas de Trianon (S. vulgaris grandiflora)." Grandiflora has been used by Bosse (Vollst. Handb. Blumengartn. in. 461, 1842) as a corresponding name for the Lilas de Marly [= S. vulgaris var. purpurea]; while Baumann (Cat. 1846, 15; no. 159, 38, 1879) uses it as synonymous with the name Charles X. Ottolander (Sieboldia, 11. 187, 1876) cites both Charles dix and rouge de Trianon as corresponding names for his variety rubra major. [K. Koch] (Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xn. 43, 1869) writes: "Noch dunkler sind endlich die Bliithen bei einer zweiten dort gezogenen Form, welche im Garten von Trianon bei Versailles aus Samen hervorgegangen ist und deshalb auch den Namen Flieder von Trianon erhalten hat." Dauvesse (Cat. no. 20, 24, 1855) gives Rouge de Trianon as another name for Charles X. Andre considers it to be the same as the forms Rubra grandiflora and Rubra insignis of nursery catalogues. Whether this is the case is uncertain; but these, as well as the forms Charles X., Rouge royal, and others were undoubtedly very similar and all closely allied to S. vulgaris var. purpurea. This form was much used for forcing; Lochot (Rev. Hort. 1904, 252) mentions the use of ether for this purpose. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 12, 1895, from plant received from Spath in 1888; no. 3008-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size, 378 THE LILAC symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers visible but not conspicuous; tone dark to intermediate; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink with margins of Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) without, Bishop's Purple (xxxvii.) or Petunia Violet (xxv.) within, a solid color. Clusters compact, conical, medium size. The flowers appear to be darker within than without. This has the appearance of an old form. Rouge royal Oudin, Cat. 1839-1840, 1, as Lilas rouge royal, name only; 1841, 22, as macrothyrsus rubra and as Lilas commun rouge royal, name only. — Seneclauze, Cat. 1846-1847, 11, as Lilas, Syringa, commun rouge royaL name only. The name would seem to indicate that this was the same as Charles X. but Oudin lists the two as distinct forms. A Syringa royalis or Royal Lilac is listed by A. Leroy (Cat. Suppl. 1850, 9) as a name only. Carriere (Rev. Hort. 1877, 203) mentions Lilas royal as a corresponding name for Charles X. Dupuis and Herincq (Horticulture, Veg. d'Orn., texte, p. 295, in Reveil and others, Regne Vegetale, 1864-187 1) describe the flowers of the Lilas royal or Charles X. as "plus nombreuses et plus colorees" [than the type]. Wilhelm Ulrich (Internat. Worterb. Pflanzenn. 230, 1872) gives as corresponding names for his S. vulgaris major, of which he gives no description, the English name, Larger-red Lilac, the German name, der grosse Lilak and the French names, le lilas a grandes fleurs rouges, le lilas royal, and le lilas Charles X. An unsigned article, entitled "Lilas royale" which appeared in the Annales of the "Societe d'Horticulture de Paris" (xrv. 357, 1834) described this plant at some length: "On possede depuis quelques annees une variete de Lilas commun plus belle que le Lilas de Marly: les uns l'appellent Lilas royal, les autres Lilas du roi. L'arbrisseau parait plus fort, plus vigoureux dans son bois, dans la largeur de ses feuilles; mais ce qui le distingue plus particulierement et le rend superieur au Lilas de Marly, ce sont ses grappes plus volumineuses, plus denses et garnies d'un plus grand nombre de fleurs plus colorees. Les etamines sont plus grosses que dans le Lilas commun, le style est plus court et les stigmates sont plus verts. On le multiple par la greffe en attendant qu'il soitassez nombreux pour en faire des meres et l'obtenir de couchage ou de drageons. On le voit au Jardin du roi et chez les principaux pepinieristes." "Le Bon Jardinier" (1836, 597) writes of a Lilas royal, "Sous variete [of the Lilas de Marly] dont les fleurs sont plus nombreuses, plus colorees, et forment un thyrse plus compacte. Encore peu repandue." At this date "Le Bon Jardinier" classifies the Lilas de Marly as a variety of the Common Lilac although it had earlier considered it to be a hybrid. Loudon (Arb. Brit. 11. 1212, 1838) writes: "5. r[othomagensis] 2. Lilas Royal Bon Jard. has the flowers more compact than the Belgic Lilas de Marly." Loudon considers the Lilas de Marly to be a hybrid of S. rothomagensis [ = S. chinensis], and S. vulgaris. See S. vulgaris var. purpurea and S. chinensis. This form is evidently close to Charles X. although it is doubtful whether in all cases it was considered to be the same. See S. vulgaris var. purpurea and the forms of the Common Lilac, Charles X. and Regia. Rubella plena Lemoine, Cat. no. 87, 3 (1881), "Thyrses etroits, allonges, presentant souvent 3 ramifications en evantail, fleurs moyennes, tres pleines, rouge violace clair, SYRINGA VULGARIS 379 boutons pourpre. Les thyrses se tiennent eriges et la plante est florifere." — Mohr in Rev. Hort. Beige Etr. vn. 84 (1882). — Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1883, 550; 1885, 310, as rubella. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 79 (1885). — V. Lemoine in Garden and Forest, H. 327 (1889). — Carriere and Andre in Rev. Hort. 1889, 411. — E. Lemoine in Jardin, vi. 152 (1892), as S. rubella. — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 321. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 378 (1907). — Grignan in Rev. Hort. 1907, 14. — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1881 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. For the history of this form see Azurea plena. Double Rubella has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (486, 1923). Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Ellwanger and Barry in 1892). Flowers double, hose-in-hose, small, corolla-lobes pointed at apex, sometimes curling, opening into a star-shaped flower; tone intermediate; color in bud Neutral Red to Vernonia Purple (xxxvin.); when expanded, the outer corolla-lobes Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.), the inner lobes almost white without, Mauve to Light Lavender- Violet (xxv.) within. Clusters broad-pyramidal, open, symmetrical. With the exception of the curious color of the buds, the flowers of this plant bear a marked resemblance to those of the form Azurea plena as it grows in the Rochester collection. Rubra coerulea A. Leroy, Cat. 1851, 47, and as Blue flowering Lilac, name only. — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 414 (1903), name only, as rubro- coerulea. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 89 (1920), name only, as rubro-coerulea. Rubra foliis variegatis A. Leroy, Cat. 1851, 47, name only, and as Red flowering, variegated leaved Lilac. This form has not been found mentioned elsewhere. A doubtful plant. Rubra grandiflora Oudin, Cat. 1846-1847, 17, as Syringa (lilas) rubra grandiflora, name only. — Transon, Cat. 1880-1881, 67, as Syringa rubra grandiflora, name only. — Van Geert, Cat. no. 169, 45 (1896), name only. Dauvesse (Cat. no. 20, 24, 1855) lists as a name only a Lilas rouge a. grande fleur which is presumably the same. Wilhelm Ulrich (Internat. Worterb. Pflanzennamen, 230, 1872) gives as corresponding names for his S. vulgaris major, of which he gives no description, the English name, Larger-red Lilac, the German name, der grosse Lilak and the French names, le lilas a grandes fleurs rouges, le lilas royal, and le lilas Charles X. See the form Rouge de Trianon for which this has been mentioned as a corresponding name; see also Charles X. Rubra insignis A. Leroy, Cat. 1852, 58, and as Lilas commun rouge ponctue gde. fl., name only; 1865, 85, "Dark red flower; it is certainly the finest of all lilac trees," and as Lilac common large red flowering. — Dauvesse, Cat. no. 21, 19 (1856), as Lilas insignis rubra; no. 24, 42 (1859). — L. Leroy, Cat. 1858-1859, 94. — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 496 (1864), "Steht der 5. v. Marlyensis sehr nahe, die Blumen sind aber von noch lebhafterer Farbe. Eine prachtige, sehr zu empfehlende Form," and as Ausgezeichneter, rother Flieder. — Regel, Russ. Dendr. 207 (1870). — A. Waterer, Cat. 1872-1873, 36, as insignis rubra. — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 380 THE LILAC 560 (1875), " Bluthenstrausse von lebhafterem Roth, wie beim Versaille-Flieder, vielleicht die schonste aller Formen," and as Ausgezeichneter Flieder, and as, in French, Lilas rouge remarquable. — Transon, Cat. 1875-1876, 50 — Ottolander in Sieboldia, 11. 187 (1876). — Baumann, Cat. no. 159, 38 (1879), as insignis rubra. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880), "Espece a fleurs rouge fonce; magnifique," and as Lilas commun rouge ponc- tue, grandes fleurs. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 79 (1885). — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1886- 1887, 58. — Spath, Cat. no. 69, 115 (1887-1888), "Purpur." — Van Geert, Cat. no. 169, 45 (1896), as insignis rubra. — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xrv. 206 (1899); in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3298 (1917), "Purplish red flowers," with single flowers. L. Henry (Jardin, vni. 174, 1894) objects to the confusion caused by the use in nursery catalogues of Latin titles without specific name; among names so used he mentions insignis rubra. Andre (Rev. Hort. 1902, 172) mentions Rubra insignis as one of the synonyms used in catalogues for the form of the Common Lilac which he calls Trianon [= Rouge de Tri- anon]. It is possible that the two are the same although this is the only instance where I have found them mentioned as corresponding names. They were undoubtedly much alike, to judge by such descriptions as are available, and close also to such forms as Charles X., Rouge royal, Purpurea grandiflora, and Rubra purpurea, as well as to S. vulgaris var. purpurea, a variety which cannot be separated from the old Marly Lilac. The descriptions of Rubra insignis are no help to a satisfactory identification of the form and I am uncertain whether any plant now in cultivation can be positively identified as true to the name. Red Guide has been adopted as approved common name by " Standardized Plant Names" (487, 1923). Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Spath in 1902). Flowers single, symmetrical, medium size, slightly saucer-shaped; anthers conspicuous; tone dark to intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Daphne Red (xxxvin.); when expanded Daphne Red with occasional margins of Pale Persian Lilac without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.) to Liseran Purple marked with Pale Rose- Purple (xxvi.) within. Clusters medium size. The flowers appear to be darker with- out than within. Rubra plena A. Leroy, Cat. 1868, 100, name only, as Syringa rubra plena, and as Lilas fleur double. — Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 561 (1875), as flore rubro pleno, name only. — Baumann, Cat. no. 159, 38 (1879), name only. — Miller, Diet. English Names Plants, 76 (1884), and as Common double red Lilac. — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 113 (1889), "purpurfarben," as fl. rubra plena. — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 380 (1892), "gefiillter purpurfarbener Fl." — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumen- gartn. 652 (1896), "gefullt, purpurrot." — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xrv. 206 (1899), as fl. rubro pleno. — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz- Ben. 414 (1903). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 89 (1920). Mentioned, as a name only, by Kirchner (Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 495, 1864) under the descriptive title flore rubro pleno Hort., with common name of Rother, gefiillter Flieder. Probably scarcely different from the forms Marlyensis plena, Purpurea plena. Violacea plena and Violacea purpurea plena. SYRINGA VULGARIS 381 Rubra purpurea Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880), name only, and as Lilas commun rouge pourpre. This form has not been found mentioned elsewhere. Probably scarcely different from S. vulgaris var. purpurea. Sanguinea Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 43 (1867-1868), "Flowers deep red shaded with violet, truss very large, distinct and fine," with single flowers. — Ellwanger in Horticulturist, 1875, 98. — V. Lemoine in Garden and Forest, 11. 326 (1889). — Car- riere and Andre in Rev. Hort. 1889, 410. Ellwanger and Barry, Rochester, N. Y., state that this is one of the firm's seedlings which was to be put on the market in the autumn of 1868. See the form Azurea plena. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists under his 5. vulgaris q. hybrida hort., od[er] Amb[roise] Verschaffelt, as a name only, a sanguinea pulchra. Possibly this is identical with the Ellwanger and Barry plant although it seems doubtful whether it would have been cultivated in Russia. Saturnale Lemoine, Cat. no. 190, 25 (1916), "This is perhaps the most floriferous of all Lilacs; the plants even when young and small are literally covered with enormous panicles of regular bluish mauve flowers." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1916 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1918; no. 7933 Am. Arb.). Flowers single although frequently producing additional lobes in the regular corolla, extra large ; corolla-lobes broadest above the middle, slightly pointed at apex; anthers conspicuous; tone pale; color in bud Russet-Vinaceous (xxxix.) to Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxvm.); when ex- panded Pale Lilac tinged with Hay's Lilac (xxxvu.) without, Bluish Lavender (xxxvi.) streaked with white within. Clusters broad at base, extra large, well-filled but not crowded, showy. A handsome, pale, single-flowered Lilac. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 190. Schermerhornii Parsons, Cat. 1889, 50, name only. — Dunbar in Gard. Mag. 1. 233 (1905), "Flesh-pink shading to violet," with single flowers. — Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 488 (1923), as Schermerhorn. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings received from the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., in June, 1910; no. 6630 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, small; corolla-lobes pointed at apex, cucullate on first expanding; tone pale; color in bud Light Russet-Vinaceous to Light Purplish Vinaceous (xxxix.); when expanded Pale Purplish Vinaceous (xxxix.) to white. Clusters small, short, pyramidal, well-filled, dainty. Schneelavine Transon Cat. 1875-1876, 50, as Syringa Schneelavine, name only. — Ottolander in Sieboldia, 11. 187 (1876), as Schneelawine, "deze blijft klein, bloeit buiten- gewoon vroeg en veel; kleine gedrongen tros, kleine bloem, zeer licht rose, bijna wit, met een lila weer-schijn. Het heesterje groeit bolvormig en is als het bloeit overdekt met bloemen; hoogst waarschijnlijk zijn de bloemen, als ze kunstmatig in de kas ver- vroegd worden, zuiver wit, vandaar dan 00k de naam." — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 382 THE LILAC (1880). — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 78 (1885), as alba Schmeelavine [sic]. — Van Houtte, Cat. no. 215-D, 46 (1885-1886), &s Schneelawine. — Spath, Cat. no. 73, 122 (1888- 1889), "helllila, dichter Strauss," as Schneelawine. — Froebel, Cat. no. 112, 23 [cir. 1890], "helllila, fast weiss, dichte Dolde," as Schneelawine. — Hartwig, HI. Geholzb. 380 (1892), as Schneelawine. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1900-1901, 68, "carne, " with single flowers. — Muskauer Baumschulen, Haupt-Katalog, 1910, 37, as Schneelawine. Schneelawine is the German word for avalanche. It is probable therefore that this form was of German origin although the first reference found occurs in a French cata- logue where the spelling was gallicized. Mr. Kort, President of the Societe Anonyme Horticole de Calmpthout, successors to Van Geert, wrote me on November 3, 1923, that this Lilac is "Blanc came, a petite fleur, " with single flowers. See Additions. Probably the Lilac listed as Schmelorin by Parsons (Cat. 1873, x3)> as a name only, is a misnomer for Schneelavine ; I have not found such a form mentioned elsewhere. Scipion Cochet Dauvesse, Cat. no. 36, 46 (1872), as Lilas Scipion Cochet, name only. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 143 (1880), name only. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 79 (1885). — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1886-1887, 58, name only; 1900-1901, 68, "Lilas fonce bleuatre," with single flowers. — Grosdemange in Jardin, viii. 119 (1894), ". . .a coloris pourpre extremement fonce," with single flowers. — Van Geert, Cat. no. 169, 45 (1896). — Barbier, Cat. 1912-1913, 66, "purplish bishop violet." Probably the production of Pierre Cochet, a nurseryman of Suisnes, France. The form Philemon, sometimes called Philemon Cochet, was named for his elder son; this was evidently named for the younger. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Ellwanger and Barry in 1892). Flowers single, medium size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone dark to intermediate; 'color in bud Neutral Red to Vernonia Purple (xxxvm.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple with margins of Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) without, Bishop's Purple (xxxvii.) within. Clusters symmetrical, long, narrow because of the ascending subdivisions of the inflorescence. Semiplena Bosse, Vollst. Handb. Blumengartn. 111. 461 (1842), "mit halbgefiillten weissen Bl." as^. semipleno. — A. Leroy, Cat. 1851, 47, as Alba semipleno, and as White semidouble flowering Lilac; 1852, 58, as semi pleno, and as Lilas commun a fir. bl. semi- double. Here probably belongs the 5. vulgaris semi pleno listed by L. Leroy (Cat. 1858-1859, 94) as a name only, and by Jager (Ziergehblze, 530, 1865) as fl. semipleno, "mit halbge- fiillter Blth."; in neither of these references, however, is the color of the flowers mentioned. Evidently a semi-double, white-flowered form. Senateur Volland Lemoine, Cat. no. 107, viii. (1887), "Plante naine, tres brillante, couleur toute nouvelle, boutons rouge fuchsia, fleurs epanouies rose rouge." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 379 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1887 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 5, 1895, ^rom plant received from Lemoine in November, 1889; no. 3455-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers SYRINGA VULGARIS 383 double, medium size; corolla-lobes curling; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Helle- bore Red to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.) to Lilac (xxv.) streaked with white. Clusters compact, small. See also the form Colmariensis. Sibirica Loddiges, Cat. 1836, 67, name only. — Bosse, Vollst. Handb. Blumengartn. in. 461 (1842), " gedrungener, grossblattr." — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 496 (1864), " Grossblumig, dunkelblaulich, " and as ? Sibirischer Flieder. — Jager, Ziergeholze, 530 (1865), "gedrungen, grossblattrig, dunkelblau." — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 113 (1889), "dunkelblau." — Spath, Cat. no. 79, in (1890-1891), "rothlich bliihend." — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3298 (1917), "purplish lilac," with single flowers. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) cites a S. vulgaris b. sibirica hort.; he mentions the author, "aut.," as doubtful and the plant as rare. As noted under S. chinensis, Prince (Short Treatise Hort. 122, 1828) calls that hybrid the Siberian Lilac. Certain catalogues make the same classification. John Miller (Bristol Nursery, 1826, 14) and Sebire (1889-1890, 22) call 5. rhotomagensis [sic] [ = S. chinen- sis], the Siberian Lilac. Without specific name a Syringa Siberica or Siberian Lilac appears in the catalogues of Backhouse (1816, 46), William Prince (1823, 42) and Landreth (1824, 27). R. Schomburgk (Cat. PI. Gov. Bot. Gard. Adelaide, So. Australia, 1871) also lists a Syringa sibirica (?) . These plants may possibly be referred to the hybrid. There appears to be little doubt that the Lilac first known as Sibirica was the Rouen hybrid, S. chinensis. But although, as in the case of the Lilac media Dumont de Courset and the Lilac de Marli Dumont de Courset, this classification may have been the correct one it is certain that, as a result of confusion or otherwise, a form of the Common Lilac later bore the name Sibirica. Such a plant is growing in the Rochester collection at this time. [K. Koch] (Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xh. 43, 1869) writes: "Was dieselben Baumschulen [Flottbecker Baumschulen bei Altona] als Syringa sibirica in den Handel gebracht, scheint sich nur durch grossere Blatter zu unterscheiden." Koch's plant is undoubtedly a form of S. vulgaris. Loudon (Arb. Brit. 11. 1209, 1838) writes: "In the arboretum of Messrs. Loddiges . . . S. sibirica appears to be S. v. purpurea". But Loudon notes that he has seen it only in leaf. Possibly as in the case of the Marly Lilac this form cannot be separated from S. vulgaris var. purpurea, — the plant in the Rochester Parks in color might be so classified, — but since Loudon, who had not seen the flowers, alone makes that identification, it has here been retained as a distinct form. Loudon still retains S. sibirica Hort. as a synonym of S. chinensis (Arb. Brit. 11. 1212, 1838). S. amurensis has also been called S. Sibirica and S. Sibirica alba. See also S. chinensis, S. chinensis f . alba, S. vulgaris var. purpurea and 5. amurensis. Bosse mentions this form as appearing in Booth's catalogue which I have not seen. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Spath in 1892). Flowers single, symmetrical, medium size; tone intermediate; color in bud Eupatorium Purple (xxxviii.); when expanded Argyle Purple with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvii.) without, Chinese Violet (xxv.) marked with white at throat within. Clusters open, symmetrically filled, pyramidal, good size, exceedingly fragrant. 384 THE LILAC Siebold Lemoine, Cat. no. 164, viii. (1906), "Thyrses reguliers bien disposes, fleurs de bonne tattle, parfaites de forme, rondes imbriquees, a. lobes arrondis, blanc creme un peu came, boutons creme ambre, nuance nouvelle tranchant sur tout ce qu'on connait." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 383 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (l9ll)- Introduced in 1906 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1907). Flowers double, large, round; color in bud Deep Sea-foam Green to Chartreuse Yellow to Sea-foam Green (xxxi.) ; when expanded Ivory Yellow (xxx.) turning paler but never becoming a pure white. Clusters narrow, pyramidal, well-filled. This is the nearest approach to a yellowish or cream-colored form which exists. Souvenir de Henri Simon Turbat, Cat. 1912-1913, " (single) voluminous thyrsus, large flowers, slaty-blue, reddish violet, with silvery and white reflects at extremities," as Souvenir de Henry Simon; 1923-1924, 84, "slaty blue," with single flowers, as Souvenir de Henri Simon. In a letter of June 2, 1924, addressed to Professor C. S. Sargent, Mr. E. Turbat stated: "... the Lilac ' Souvenir de Henry Simon ' was originated by F. H. Simon, Nurseryman, Charbonnieres-les-Bains (Rhdne), France. This variety received the Gold Medal on April 4th, 1909, at a meeting of the Societe d'Horticulture Pratique du Rhone, and was sent out by Mr. Simon in Autumn, 1909." I have seen only the English edition of the Turbat catalogue where the name of this Lilac is anglicized. I have retained the French form of the name since it is probable that it so appeared in the original announcement. Notes on plant growing at Bobbink and Atkins, Rutherford, N. J. Flowers single, medium size; corolla-lobes cucullate, forming a saucer-shaped flower; tone intermediate; color in bud Perilla Purple (xxxvu.); when expanded Argyle Purple with margins of Light Pinkish Lilac without, Saccardo's Violet streaked with Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvu.) within. Clusters medium size, broad-pyramidal, open. Souvenir de L. Thibaut Lemoine, Cat. no. 125, ix. (1893), "Thyrses extremement grands, fleurs enormes, rondes, regulieres, tr£s doubles, rouge giroflee clair avec les revers blancs." — L. Henry in Jardin, vm. 176 (1894), as Souvenir de Louis Thibaut. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 380 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917), as Souvenir de Louis Thibaut. Introduced in 1893 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 25, 1900, from plant received from Lemoine in November, 1895; no. 3817-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, large, symmetrical; corolla-lobes broad or narrow, usually pointed at apex, cucul- late; tone intermediate; color in bud Dark Perilla Purple to Perilla Purple to Light Perilla Purple (xxxvii.) to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvin.) ; when expanded Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac tinged with Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvu.) without, Chinese Violet (xxv.) to Hay's Lilac (xxxvu.) within. Clusters long, narrow, pyramidal, large. SYRINGA VULGARIS 385 Souvenir de Simone E. Turbat, Cat. 1923-1924, 76, "Very big, pyramidal, double white." In a letter dated October 31, 1924 of which Mr. J. C. Wister kindly sent me a copy, Mr. E. Turbat stated that this was produced by Bruchet, St. Rambery-sur-Loire (Loire), France; Mr. Bruchet informed him that although during the war he lost most of the forms which he originated, this one still survives. Souvenir de Spa Martinet in Jardin, vn. 104 (1893), name only. Martinet states that this was exhibited by Boucher on April 13, 1893, at a meeting of the Society Nationale d'Horticulture de France. A town called Spa is situated 24 kilometers southwest of Liege, Belgium, and it is possible that this Lilac originated there. Or it may merely be a misnomer or printer's error for the form Andenken an Ludwig Spath, sometimes called in French, Souvenir de Spath. Speciosa Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2 [cir. 1857], 11, "Bright reddish flowers, robust habit, the finest of all the section vulgaris or large leaved," as Lilac, Syringa, Speciosa. — Parsons, Cat. 1889, 50, "Bright reddish flowers." It is possible that this form of S. vulgaris originated as the result of confusion with the Syringa speciosa Hort. mentioned by Spach (Hist. Nat. Veg. vm. 282, 1839) as a synonym of S. chinensis; such wrong classifications frequently arose as the result of omitting the specific name; moreover the not uncommon practice of grafting the hybrid S. chinensis upon stock of the Common Lilac may have resulted in the unwitting loss of the scion, with the result that the name became attached to the Common Lilac stock. Loudon (Gardener's Mag., n. s. vn. 394, 1841) identifies, as the S. rothomagensis of his "Arboretum et Fruticetum Britannicum," the plant labelled Syringa speciosa in the Jardin des Plantes, Paris. The catalogue of the French nurseryman Oudin (1845-1846, 13) mentions a Syringa speciosa, as a name only. Growing in the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., is a form of the Common Lilac named Speciosa, which was received from Parsons in 1892. A form of the same name grows also in the Arnold Arboretum (no. 17,383 Arn. Arb.); it was received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1915. Neither of these plants is reddish in color; curiously the Rochester forms Speciosa and Spectabilis appear to be identical and so are the Arnold Arboretum forms Speciosa and Spectabilis. The two forms, are however, not the same in the two collections. Speciosa is, I believe, a doubtful plant. Spectabilis Oudin, Cat. 1845-1846, 13, name only, as Syringa spectabilis. — Dauvesse, Cat. no. 20, 24 (1855), name only, as Lilas spectabilis grande fieur. — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 496 (1864), name only, as spectabilis Hort., and as Prach- tiger Flieder. — Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 1869, 38, "Flowers lilac with a bluish shade, very compact." — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 142 (1880), "Plus curieux par son mode de vegetation que par ses fleurs, " and as Lilas cornmun remarquable. — Dieck, Haupt-Verzeichn. Zoschen, Nachtr. 1. 28 (1887). — Parsons, Cat. 1889, 50, "Flowers lilac with a bluish shade. Very compact." — Nash in Jour. N. Y. Bot. Gard. xx. 234 (1919), as 5. Spectabilis Hort., and as Showy Lilac. 386 THE LILAC Also listed by R. Schomburgk (Cat. PI. Gov. Bot. Gard. Adelaide, So. Australia, 1871), as Syringa spectabilis hort. The plants of Spectabilis growing in the Arnold Arboretum and at Rochester are not the same; both descriptions are given since I am uncertain which is true to name. See the form Speciosa. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Parsons in 1892). Flowers single, medium size; tone pale; color in bud Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxvni.); when expanded Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvii.) with much white near throat within. Clusters wide spreading, open. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1915; no. 7330 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, small; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers visible; tone pale; color in bud Daphne Pink (xxxvni.); when expanded Light Lobelia Violet marked with white within, Purplish Lilac (xxxvii.) marked with white without. Clusters long, open, large. Leaves are frequently present at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescence. There is nothing distinctive about the habit of this plant although Baudriller refers to it as curious; nor are the clusters compact as noted by Ellwanger and Barry. Stadtgartner Rothpletz Froebel, Cat. no. 134, 2 (1905), "Die Blumenbouquets sind reicher, breiter, die einzelnen Blumen breit und rundlich geformt, die Farbe ein reiches, gesattigtes Purpurrot, eine Farbung, welche ich in diesem Tone unter meiner grossen Sammlung Flieder nicht zum zweiten Mai gefunden habe. Die Sorte bildet einen sehr schon geformten Busch mit grossem Blattwerk, bedeckt sich bald und reichlich mit Bliiten- knospen und treibt sich ganz wundervoll." — Barbier, Cat. 1906-1907, 127. — Catalogo Jeneral . . . del Criadero de Arboles de "Santa Ines" (Nos.) Chile, no. 5, ano xxiv. [= 191 2], 356, as Souvenir de Rothpletz. — Chenault, Cat. 1912-1913, 20, as Souvenir de Rothpletz. Introduced in 1905 by the firm of Otto Froebel, Zurich, Switzerland, and one of their productions. The present firm, Otto Froebels Erben, wrote me on February 21, 1924: "A history of the variety is unknown to me . . . Souvenir de Rothpletz, Gloire de Roth- pletz, Stadtgartner Rothpletz are synonyms"; they also wrote me on September 1, 1925, that this form has single flowers: "The double flowered variety you have seen must have been some other variety." The Froebel catalogue states also: "Dieser aus vielen Hunderten ausgewahlte Samling aus meinen Kulturen, den ich nunmehr — erst nach viel- jahriger Priifung — dem Handel ubergebe, erinnert viel an die schbne Varietat 'Andenken an L. Spath, ' hat aber dieser gegeniiber doch verschiedene Vorzuge und Unterschiede, welche ihn zu einer hervorragend schonen Neuheit machen." The plant was named in honor of the "Stadtgartner von Zurich." Notes on plant in collection of T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y. Flowers double, small, unsymmetrical; corolla-lobes pointed or rounded at apex, broad for their length; tone intermediate; color in bud Perilla Purple (xxxvii.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink on Pale Laelia Pink without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.) turning to Argyle Purple (xxxvn.) within. Clusters small, compact. This plant is listed as Souvenir de Rothpletz. SYRINGA VULGARIS 387 Susan B. Anthony Dunbar, Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers single, small, reddish lilac when fully open, clusters dense and compact, 3 to 4 compound." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y.; in a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 271 Dunbar) of unknown parentage, named by him in 1923. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers single, large, unsym- metrical; corolla-lobes cucullate on first expanding, pointed at apex, curling; tone dark; color in bud of corolla-lobes Vinaceous-Purple, of corolla-tube Eupatorium Purple (xxxviii.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple on Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) without, Mathews' Purple (xxv.) within. Clusters narrow, pyramidal, open, medium size, sym- metrical. The flowers appear to be paler without than within. Taglioni Lemoine, Cat. no. 161, 30 (1905), "Fleurs tres pleines, blanc porcelaine; thyrses compacts, bifurques." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (191 7). Introduced in 1905 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1904. See the form Banquise for the explanation of this difference in dates. Mr. E. Lemoine informs me that this was named for the ballet dancer, Maria Taglioni (1804-1884). Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Lemoine in November, 1905; no. 5128 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, often with three corollas and additional lobes at throat, hose-in-hose, large; corolla-lobes narrow, rounded at apex, curling inward, and forming a somewhat globular flower; color in bud Pale Viridine Yellow (v.); when expanded white. Clusters narrow-pyramidal, medium to large in size, symmetrically filled. Small leaves are frequently present at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescence. Tardiva Noisette, Man. Gen. PI. 111. 410 (1880), as var. 5 a fleurs tardive, tardiva. Dauvesse (Cat. no. 36, 46, 1872) lists as a name only a Lilas tardif and Baudriller (Cat. no. 43, 143, 1880) mentions without description a S. vulgaris var. serotina or Lilas commun tardive. Dieck (Haupt-Verzeichn. Zoschen, Nachtr. 1. 28, 1887) also lists a S. vulgaris f. serotina, as a name only. Tardiva and Serotina are presumably the same. I am uncertain which name should have precedence since both were published in the same year. Thomas A. Edison Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 831, "With single blossoms of a lilac color tinged with violet, is a very fine bloomer"; Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers single, Y% of an inch across, buds red, reddish lavender when fully open. Clusters 7 to 8 inches long." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. ; in a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 230 Dunbar) of Aline Moc- queris, named by him in 1922. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers single, large; corolla- lobes cucullate on first expanding; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Indian Lake (xxvi.); when expanded Magenta on Pale Rose-Purple without, Magenta (xxvi.), a solid color, within. Clusters broad at base, somewhat resembling in form and delicacy those of the hybrid S. chinensis. S88 THE LILAC Thomas Jefferson Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 831, "With single flowers, might be described as violet lavender. It blooms freely"; Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers single, % of an inch across, buds reddish purple violet, violet lavender when fully open, clusters dense." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y.; in a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 228 Dunbar) of unknown parentage, named by him in 1922. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers single, large; corolla- lobes cucullate; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Magenta (xxvi.); when expanded Magenta with margins of Pale Rose-Purple (xxvi.) without, Chinese Violet (xxv.) within. Clusters long, narrow, open. The pale margins of the corolla-lobes give a variegated appearance to the clusters. Thunberg Lemoine, Cat. no. 185, 40 (1913), "Panicules etroites et serres, fleurs compactes, pleines, lilas mauve fonce, tres florifere." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917)- Introduced in 1913 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Mr. E. Lemoine informs me that this was named for the Swedish botanist and traveler, Karl Peter Thunberg (1743-1828) the author of the "Flora Japonica." Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1918; no. 7934 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, often with three corollas, large; corolla-lobes pointed at apex, curling; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Tourmaline Pink on Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) ; when expanded Purplish Lilac on Light Pinkish Lilac without, the inner corollas Hay's Lilac marked with much Pale Lilac (xxxvn.), the outer corolla Pale Bluish Lavender tinged with Bluish Lavender (xxxvi.) within. Clusters long, narrow, erect, well-filled, with spreading subdivisions, extra large. A showy form; the dark buds contrast notice- ably with the paler expanded flowers. Tombouctou Lemoine, Cat. no. 176, 31 (1910), "Longs thyrses, fleurs tres grandes, rondes, cucullees, violet giroflee." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1 910 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Havemeyer gives the date of introduction as 1919. For the explanation of this difference in dates see the form Banquise. Timbuctoo has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (488, 1923). Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1916). Flowers single, extra large, corolla-lobes broad, overlapping, cucullate, forming a saucer- shaped flower, tone dark; color in bud Dark Maroon-Purple to Auricula Purple (xxvi.); when expanded Light Perilla Purple with margins of Argyle Purple (xxxvn.) without, Dull Magenta Purple (xxvi.), a solid color, within. Clusters long, open, frequently drooping because of their own weight. Tournefort Lemoine, Cat. no. 107, 13 (1887), "Arbuste nain et florifere; thyrses compacts, couvrant la plante de fleurs tres doubles, serrees, a larges lobes arrondis et SYRINGA VULGARIS 389 imbriques, lilas tendre, teinte bleuatre au centre." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (I91?)- Introduced in 1887 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. Mr. E. Lemoine informs me that this was named for the French botanist, Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (1656-1708). Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 5, 1895, fr°m plant received from Lemoine in November, 1889; no. 3463-1 Am. Arb.). Flowers double, large; corolla-lobes broad or narrow, rounded or pointed at apex; tone inter- mediate to pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xxrv.) to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvth.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) to white without, Light Lavender- Violet to Pale Lavender- Violet (xxv.) within. Clusters open, long, broad at base, showy. Toussaint-Louverture Lemoine, Cat. no. 140, 19 (1898), "Fleurs grandes, cramoisi, passant au violet sombre." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1898 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Lemoine in April, 1900; no. 4614 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, symmetrical, medium size; corolla-lobes cucullate, long and narrow ; anthers conspicuous; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Magenta to Liseran Purple (xxvi.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.) without, Mathews' Purple (xxv.) within. Clusters extremely long, narrow, interrupted. The flowers appear to be darker without than within. Small leaves are frequently present at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescence and the rhachis, pedicel, calyx, as well as the young shoots, are tinged a bronze color. Triomphe de Moulins Transon, Cat. 1880-1881, 67, as Syringa Triomphe de Moulins, name only. — Van Geert, Cat. no. 169, 45 (1896), name only. — Soc. Anonyme Hort. de Calmpthout, Cat. no. 4, 45 (1902-1903), name only. While it seems probable to me that this is identical with the form Gloire de Moulins yet the forms are listed as distinct in the catalogues of the Societe Anonyme Horticole de Calmpthout. Nor is the plant of this name growing in the Rochester collection the same as the form Gloire de Moulins growing in the Arnold Arboretum. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Transon in 1892). Flowers single, small; corolla-lobes rounded at apex, cucullate; tone intermediate; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Magenta (xxvi.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple with markings of Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) without, Mauve to Light Mauve (xxv.) within. Clusters open, widely branched. The flowers appear to be darker without than within. Triomphe d'Orleans Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1852, 363, as Lilas Triomphe d'Orleans. — A. Leroy, Cat. 1865, 100, "violace, avril," as Syringa triumphum Aureliae and as Lilas triomphe d'Orleans. — K. Koch, Dendr. 11. pt. I. 266 (1872), "Eine ausgezeichnete Form mit besonders grossen Rispen ist in Orleans entstanden und fuhrt den Beinamen Triomphe d'Orleans." — Dauvesse, Cat. no. 36, 46 (1872), as Lilas Triomphe d'Orleans. — Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 560 (1875), "Die blendend-weissen Bliithen in grossen prachtigen Strauchern. Ein zur Anpflanzung sehr zu empfehlender Flieder," 390 THE LILAC as 5. vulgaris aurelianensis Hort., and as Orleans-Flieder, in French Triomphe d'Orleans. — Transon, Cat. 1875-1876, 50, as Syringa Triomphe d'Orleans. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zdschen, 79 (1885). — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 380 (1892), and as Triumpf von Orleans. — Muskauer Baumschulen, Haupt-Katalog, 1910, 37, and as Sieg von Orleans. Carriere states that this was produced and named by Berniau, a nurseryman of Orleans, France. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 5, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2932-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, medium to large in size; corolla-lobes broadest above the middle, rounded or pointed at apex; anthers conspicuous; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvin.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink (xxxvih.) without, Pale Lilac with margins of Hay's Lilac (xxxvn.) within. Clusters long, open. A simple, pleasing form, and exceedingly fragrant. The anthers are ex- tremely prominent. Triunfo de Santa Ines Catalogo Jeneral ... del Criadero de Arboles de "Santa Ines" (Nos.) Chile, no. 5, afio xxiv. [= 191 2], 356, "Variedad obtenida en el Criadero. Notable por sus enormes racimos de flores, mui dobles y grandes, color lila puro claro y botones color rosado, came de primera clase. Extra." No mention of this form has been found elsewhere. Turenne Lemoine, Cat. no. 190, 25 (1916), "Large panicles of a purplish violet." Introduced in 1916 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1918; no. 7936 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, extra large; corolla- lobes broad, pointed at apex, sometimes curling; corolla- tube long, slender; anthers visible but deep-set; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Dull Magenta Purple to Magenta (xxvi.); when expanded Eupatorium Purple tinged with Tourmaline Pink (xxxvin.) without, Dull Magenta Purple (xxvi.) to Mathews' Purple (xxv.) within. Clusters long, narrow-pyramidal, or almost conical, symmetrically filled. Small leaves are frequently present at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescence. This is a fine single, dark-flowered form, but the plant in the Arboretum blooms sparingly. I have only seen the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 190. Ulrich Brunner Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 321, "La duplicature du Lilas est generale- ment representee par deux corolles emboitees l'une dans l'autre, ce qui fait huit petales par fleur au lieu de quatre. . . . Mais il y a des varietes chez lesquelles cette multiplica- tion, poussee plus loin, est representee par trois corolles, soit douze petales. Dans ce dernier cas, les petales interieurs restent presque toujours plus ou moins clos, formant une sorte de bouton floral au centre de la forme epanouie; Ulrich Brunner, Madame Lemoine, Maurice de Vilmorin presentent cette particularite." I have found no mention of such a form elsewhere. Valentiana Baumann, Cat. 1846, 15, name only. — Van Houtte, Cat. no. 117, 12 (1867), name only; no. 165-ix, 18 (1875-1876), as Valentina, name only. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 144 (1880), as Valentina and as Lilas commun Valentine. SYRINGA VULGARIS 391 Baudriller lists both this and a form Valleteana or Lilas commun de Vallet. The similarity in the names suggest that this may possibly be a misnomer. See the form Valetteana. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists a S. vulgaris m. valentiniana hort., which he notes is cultivated at Riga according to Wagner's catalogue. He also lists as a name only under his S. vulgaris q. hybrida hort., od[er] Amb[roise] Verschaffelt a form Valentine. Both are presumably corresponding names for Valentiana. Valetteana Oudin, Cat. 1845-1846, 6, as Lilas valetteana, name only; 1846-1847, n, as Syringa (lilas) Valeteana, and as Lilas de Valette, name only. — Seneclauze, Cat. 1846-1847, 11, as Lilas, Syringa, commun de Vallet, name only. — William R. Prince, Cat. 1847, 36, as Syringa Valletiana, and as Lilas Valletian, name only; 1856-1857, 44, as Syringa Valleteana and as Lilas Vallettiana, name only. — Dauvesse, Cat. no. 20, 24 (1855), as Lilas Valeteana, name only; no. 23, 31 (1858), as Lilas Valleteana, name only. — Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 9 (1855-1856), "has long spikes of flowers of various shades of lilac and red, " as Syringa valletteana. — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirch- ner, Arb. Muscav. 496 (1864), "Blumen blaulich, in kleinen, eifdrmigen Rispen. Sehr klein und gedrangtbluthig, " as Valeriana Hort. (? Valentina Hort.). — Transon, Cat. 1875-1876, 50, as Syringa Valleteana. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 144 (1880), as Valleteana and as Lilas commun de Vallet. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zdschen, 79 (1885), as Valeteana. — Van Houtte, Cat. no. 215-D, 46 (1885-1886), as Vallettiana. — Spath, Cat. no. 73, 122 (1888-1889), as Valettiana. — Simon-Louis, Cat. 1900-1901, 68, "rose lilace," with single flowers, as Vallettiana; 1910-1911, 55, "lilas bleuatre, bouton pourpre," with single flowers, as Vallettiana. An old and much cultivated form but of unknown origin. The spelling of the name was evidently very varied. Possibly the same as the form Valentiana. Kirchner in 1864 was evidently in doubt as to whether the two forms were the same. Vallette has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (488, 1923). From the meager descriptions available it is impossible to determine the original color some mentioning it as "lilac and red," others as "blaulich," "rose lilace," and as "lilas bleuatre, bouton pourpre." It was undoubtedly a form with single flowers, for around 1850 a Lilac with double flowers was a rarity and the fact was recorded. I am uncertain whether any plant now in cultivation is true to name. The origin of the plant growing in the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y., and listed as Vallettiana, is unknown. The specimen sent me for examination had double flowers and did not have the appearance of an old form. It seems improbable that it is true to name. Variegata Miller (Bristol Nursery), Cat. 1826, 14, and as Striped leaved Lilac, name only. — Noisette, Man. Gen. PI. 111. 410 (1826), as var. 3 a feuilles panachees, foliis variegatis. — Sweet, Hort. Brit. 272 (1827), name only. — Audibert, Cat. 1831- 1832, 51, and as Lilas commun panache, name only — Bosse, Vollst. Handb. Blumen- gartn. in. 461 (1842), as fl. variegatis. — William R. Prince, Cat. 1844-1845, 70, as foliis varieg., name only. — Jacques and Herincq, Man. Gen. Plantes, 111. 54 (1847- 1857), "Feuil. panachees," as L[ilac] vulgaris var. variegata. — A. Leroy, Cat. Suppl., 392 THE LILAC 1850, 9, as S. variegata; 1852, 58, as foliis variegatis, and as Lilas commun a feuilles panachees"; 1865, 100, "lilas, mai," and as Lilas commun f. panachee. — Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 9 (1855-1856), and as Lilac variegated leaved. — L. Leroy, Cat. 1858-1859, 94, as foliis variegatis. — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 496, note (1864), "Unter der Bezeichnung Syringa vulgaris foliis variegatis haben wir aus verschiedenen Quellen Pflanzen erhalten, doch haben sich dieselben bei uns bis jetzt stets griinblattrig gezeigt." — Jager, Ziergeholze, 530 (1865), as fol. varieg. — O. Kuntze, Taschen-flora Leipzig, 82 (1867), "B. gescheckt." — Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 169 (1877). — Mouillefert, Traite Arb. Arbris. 11. 998 (1892-1898), "Feuilles plus ou moins panachees." — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 413 (1903). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 89 (1920). Appears, as a name only, in Loddiges catalogues (1823, 35; 1826, 59; 1836, 67) under the descriptive title fol[iis] varieg[atis\. Dumont de Courset (Bot. Cult. ed. 2, n. 573, 181 1) mentions a Lilas commun a feuilles panachees. Writing of 5. v. 1 coerulea Clus. Hist. [ = S. vulgaris], The common blue Lilac, Loudon (Arb. Brit. n. 1209, 1838) states: "There is a subvariety, with the leaves imperfectly variegated." Seneclauze (Cat. 1846-1847, 11) lists, as a name only, a Lilas, Syringa, commun a feuilles panachees. Nicholson, (HI. Diet. Gard. in. 537, 1887) writes of S. vulgaris caerulea [ = S. vulgaris], "A subvariety has leaves imperfectly variegated." Philip Miller (Gard. Diet. ed. 8, 1768) writes: "There is a variety of two of these shrubs with blotched leaves, which some persons are fond of; but as these varie'gations are the effect of weakness, so whenever the shrubs become healthy their verdure returns again." In none of these references is the color of the variegation noted. The plants cited may undoubtedly be referred to some one of the numerous variegated-leaved forms of the Common Lilac such as Aurea, Aureo-variegata, Albo-variegata, Albo-marginata, and so on. "The Garden" (1889, 265) mentions that a Lilac with leaves as purple as those of the purple Beech was sent the author by Anthony Waterer, Knap Hill. I have found no mention of such a form elsewhere although the foliage of the species S. oblata and of certain of its varieties when unfolding in the spring is frequently a pronounced purple. Vergissmeinnicht Spath, Cat. no. 69, 4 (1887-1888), "Knospen dunkelviolettrosa, im Aufbluhen heller, bis zum Hellblau iibergehend; Bliithe von mittlerer Grosse. Der Strauch, ausserst bluthenreich, wird der Liebling aller Blumenfreunde werden . . . ." — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 652 (1896). Introduced in 1887 by the firm of L. Spath, Berlin, Germany, and one of their pro- ductions; according to information supplied me by that firm in January, 1924, this was a chance seedling. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June 7, 1895, from plant received from Spath in January, 1888; no. 2999-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, medium to small in size; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers conspicuous; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvm.) ; when ex- panded Light Vinaceous-Purple with margins of Vinaceous-Lavender (xxiv.) without, SYRINGA VULGARIS 393 Lobelia Violet with markings of Pale Lobelia Violet (xxxvn.) within. Clusters compact, medium size. Versaliensis Oudin, Cat. no. 77, 8 [cir. 1857], as Syringa Versaliensis, name only. — William R. Prince, Cat. 1856-1857, 44, as S. Versaillensis, Lilas Versailles, with double flowers. — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 496 (1864), "Sehr ahnlich der S. v. Marlyensis. Rispe etwas gedrangter. Blumen etwas rother," as Versaliensis Hort, and as Versailler Flieder. — Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. vin. 88 (1865), as de Versailles. — Regel, Russ. Dendr. 207 (1870), as versaillensis. — K. Koch, Dendr. n. pt. 1. 266 (1872). — Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumgartn. 560 (1875), "Die Bliithenstrausse haben ein deutlicher ausgesprochenes Roth, als bei dem Marly- Flieder, sind aber in Bau und Grosse denen dieser Form ahnlich, " and as Versaille-Flieder, in French Lilas d'Orangerie de Versailles. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 144 (1880), as Ver- saillensis and as Lilas commun de Versailles. — Dieck, Haupt-Verzeichn. Zoschen, Nachtr. 1. 28 (1887), as versaliensis. — Spath, Cat. no. 73, 122 (1888-1889), "Knospen dunkelroth," as Versaillensis. — Froebel, Cat. no. 112, 22, [cir. 1890], "hellroth," as Versaillensis fl. pleno. — Hartwig, HI. Geholzb. 380 (1892), as Versaillensis. — Dauthenay in Rev. Hort. 1898, 58. — Muskauer Baumschulen, Haupt-Katalog, 1910, 37. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 24, 1883) lists under his S. vulgaris q. hybrida hort., od[er] Amb[roise] Verschaffelt, as a name only, a sanguinea de Versailles (versaliensis) . Both William R. Prince and Froebel mention the flowers of this form as double. Kirchner, K. Koch (1872) and Hartwig and Rumpler note its resemblance to the Marly Lilac [ = S. vulgaris var. purpurea] which was a single form. Prince was an American nurseryman and it seems probable that the European growers were more familiar with the plant which undoubtedly originated with one of the gardeners at Trianon, Versailles, France. See the form Gloire de Versailles. [K. Koch] (Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xn. 43, 1869) writes: "Zu Ende des vorigen Jahrhundertes kultivirte man in Frankreich ferner eine Form, welche aus Samen des Marly-Flieders hervorgegangen sein soil und sich durch etwas rothere Bliithen auszeichnete, unter dem Namen des Flieders von Versailles (Syringa Ver- saliensis)." Evidently it was raised from the Marly Lilac [= S. vulgaris var. purpurea]. Versailles has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (486, 1923). Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Spath in 1892). Flowers single, medium size, symmetrical; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) ; when expanded Eupatorium Purple with margins of Pale Laelia Pink without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvru.), a solid color, or Lilac mixed with Mauvette (xxv.) within. Clusters pyramidal, well-filled but not crowded. The flowers have the simple appearance characteristic of the older forms. Verschaffeltii A. Leroy, Cat. 1865, 100, as Syringa Verschaffeltii and as Lilas de Ver- schaffelt, name only. — Transon, Cat. 1875-1876, 50, as Syringa Verschajfelti, name only. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 79 (1885). — Van Geert, Cat. no. 169, 45 (1896), name only. 394 THE LILAC Verschaffelt has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names." See also the form Ambroise Verschaffelt. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1916; no. 17,385 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, medium size, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate; anthers conspicuous; tone intermediate; color in bud Perilla Purple to Light Perilla Purple (xxxvn.) to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvm.) ; when expanded Pale Laelia Pink tinged with Tourmaline Pink without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvm.) to Hay's Lilac (xxxvn.) within. Clusters open, large. Versicolor Hort. according to Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 496 (1864), name only, and as Gemeiner, verschiedenfarbiger Flieder. — Muskauer Baum- schulen, Haupt-Katalog, 1910, 37. — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz- Ben. 413 (1903), name only. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 89 (1920), name only. Also listed by R. Schomburgk (Cat. PL Gov. Bot. Gard. Adelaide, So. Australia, 187 1 ), as Syringa versicolor hort. Vestale Lemoine, Cat. no. 176, vn. (1910), "Enormes thyrses eriges, fleurs de grande taille, d'une forme parfaite, lobes reflechis en forme de jacinthe, blanc pur. Cette variete est considered comme la plus belle sorte a fleurs simple blanches." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). See Plate cxxvni. Introduced in 1910 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April, 1916; no. 7540 Am. Arb.). Flowers single, large; corolla-lobes somewhat narrow, widening toward the apex, unsymmetrical, cucullate; corolla-tube long and slender; anthers visible but deep-set; color in bud Light Viridine Yellow to Pale Viridine Yellow to Sulphur Yellow (v.) ; when expanded white. Clusters large, well-filled, broad at base, pyramidal. Large leaves are frequently present at the base of the subdivisions of the inflorescence. The individual flowers closely resemble those of the form Mont Blanc. A handsome, single, white-flowered Lilac. Vesuve Lemoine, Cat. no. 190, 25 (1916), "Large regular flowers, claret purple, color approaching to red." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). — Wister in House and Garden, March, 1926, 172, as Vasuve. Introduced in 191 6 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Wister mentions this as a weak grower which he does not recommend. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in April, 1918; no. 7938 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, extra large, symmetrical; corolla-lobes cucullate, with raised margins forming a pocket; anthers scarcely visible; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Purple (xn.) to Vinaceous-Purple (xxxvm.); when ex- panded Vinaceous-Purple to Eupatorium Purple with margins of Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvn.) without, Dahlia Purple (xii.) to Dull Dark Purple to Dull Magenta Purple (xxvi.) within. Clusters open, long. The flowers appear to be one solid color. SYRINGA VULGARIS 395 I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 190. Victoria Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. vni. 88 (1865). — [K. Koch] in Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xn. 43 (1869). Mentioned among new forms of the Common Lilac in an article entitled "Ueber einige, besonders neue Pflanzen der Laurentius'schen Gartnerei zu Leipzig," and de- scribed as follows: "Victoria, welche letztere sich durch rosafarbene Blumen mit einem violetten Stern auszeichnet." [K. Koch] writes: "Endlich nennen wir die neueren Sorten Croix de Brahy und Victoria, wo die rosafarbenen Bluthen sich durch einen weissen Stern auszeichnen." This color description varies slightly from the earlier one. Victor Lemoine Lemoine, Cat. no. 164, vih. (1906), "Tres grands thyrses allonges, fleurs tout a. fait rondes, grandes, globuleuses, epanouies, regulierement imbriquees, en rosace, lilas mauve azure, passant a une nuance lilas tendre." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.- Zeit. xxii. 383 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1906 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1907). Flowers double, large; corolla-lobes pointed at apex; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Cinnamon-Drab (xlvi.) to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) to Purplish Lilac (xxxvn.); when expanded, the outer corollas Purplish Lilac, the inner corollas Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvn.) to white without, the outer corollas Chinese Violet, the inner corollas Lilac to Mauvette (xxv.) within. Clusters narrow-pyramidal, open, symmetrically filled, long. The flowers appear to be darker without then within. Ville de Limoges Olmsted, Coville.and Kelsey in Stand. PI. Names, 488 (1923), name only. Parsons (Cat. 1889, 50) lists, as a name only, a Ville dTmoges, which is probably a misnomer for this form. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Parsons in 1892). Flowers single, small; corolla-lobes cucullate; tone pale; color in bud Fawn Color (xl.) turning to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvin.) on corolla-tube and to Light Russet- Vinaceous (xxxix.) on corolla-lobes; when expanded Tourmaline Pink to Pale Laelia Pink without, Tourmaline Pink (xxxvin.) marked with white at throat, or white within. Clusters pyramidal, well-filled, medium size. This has the simple appearance characteristic of the older forms and is exceedingly fragrant. Ville de Troyes Baltet according to Bonard in Hort. Francais, 1868, 31". . . a fleurs d'un riche coloris violet purpurin, plus fonce que dans les autres Lilas, " as Lilas Ville de Troyes. — Gardener's Monthly, x. 61 (1868), ". . .A splendid new Lilac, now offered for the first time. The trusses are very large, and of the deepest purple, and produce a fine effect. Vigorous and very flowering, " as Lilac, Ville de Troyes (Baltet freres, Troyes, 1867). — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 144 (1880), "Tres florifere; thyrses volumineux; fleurs d'un riche violet purpurin." — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 79 (1885). — V. Lemoine in Garden and Forest, n. 326 (1889). — Carriere and Andre in Rev. Hort. 1889, 410. — E. Lemoine in Jardin, vi. 152 (1892). — L. Henry in Jardin, vm. 175 (1894), "Fleurs violet pourpre ardoise; boutons pourpres. Inflorescences grandes et peu serrees. Floraison 396 THE LILAC assez tardive, mais abondante." — Nicholson, HI. Diet. Gard. Suppl. 696 (1900). — Foussat in Jardin, xv. 281 (1900). According to "The Gardener's Monthly" this was offered for sale by the firm of Baltet Freres, of Troyes, France, in 1867; it was presumably one of their productions. According to Mr. V. Lemoine this was one of the pollen parents used to hybridize the form Azurea plena. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. (received from Lemoine in 1907). Flowers single, medium to large in size; lobes only sometimes cucullate; tone dark; color in bud Dark Maroon-Purple to Auricula Purple (xxvi.) ; when expanded Magenta with margins of Liseran Purple (xxvi.) without, Mauve (xxv.), a solid color, within. Clusters pyramidal, open, medium size. Violacea foliis variegatis Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 144 (1880), name only, and as Lilas commun violet a feuilles panachees. This form has not been found mentioned elsewhere. Evidently a variegated-leaved form of S. vulgaris var. purpurea of which S. vulgaris var. violacea is here considered to be a synonym. Violacea plena Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 496 (1864), and as Violetter, gefullter Flieder, name only. — Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 168 (1877), as violacea- flore pleno, name only. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 144 (1880), "Fleurs petites et doubles, lilas violace clair; plus curieux que joli," as violacea flore pleno, and as Lilas commun violet a fleurs doubles. — Dieck, Haupt-Verzeich. Zoschen, Nachtr. 1. 28 (1887), as violacea flore pleno. — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 113 (1889), "blaupurpur." — Mouillefert, Traite Arb. Arbis. 11. 998 (1892-1898), as S. vulgaris violacea sous-variete flore pleno. — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 562 (1896), "gefullt, blaulichpurpurn." — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 414 (1903). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 89 (1920). Appears earlier, as a name only, under the descriptive title S. vulgaris violacea flore pleno, as follows: A. Leroy, Cat. 1851, 47, and as Violet double flowering Lilac; 1852, 58, and as Lilas commun violet a fleur double. — L. Leroy, Cat. 1858-1859, 94. Probably scarcely different from the forms Marlyensis plena, Purpurea plena, Rubra plena and Violacea purpurea plena. S. vulgaris var. violacea is here considered to be a synonym of S. vulgaris var. purpurea. Violacea purpurea Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 1885, 79, name only. Probably identical with S. vulgaris var. purpurea. Violacea purpurea plena Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 144 (1880), name only, and as Lilas commun violet rouge pourpre. This form has not been found mentioned elsewhere. Probably scarcely different from the forms Marlyensis plena, Purpurea plena, Rubra plena and Violacea plena. Violetta Lemoine, Cat. no. 190, 24 (1916), ''Large semi-double cucullate flowers of the darkest violet." Introduced in 1916 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. SYRINGA VULGARIS 397 Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in October, 1918; no. 7939 Arn. Arb.). Flowers semi-double to double, unsymmetrical, extra large; corolla-lobes broad or narrow, rounded or slightly pointed at apex, cucullate; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Dull Magenta Purple (xxvi.); when expanded Argyle Purple on Light Pinkish Lilac (xxxvu.) without, Mathews' Purple to Manganese Violet marked with considerable Lilac (xxv.) within. Clusters long, narrow, pyramidal, open. This is a handsome, showy form and one of the few dark, double-flowered Lilacs. The flowers resemble large double violets. I have seen only the English edition of Lemoine's catalogue no. 190. Virginite Lemoine, Cat. no. no, x. (1888), "Fleurs grandes, doubles, petales longs, jolie teinte rose tres tendre, coloris de la rose Souvenir de la Malmaison; nuance toute nouvelle dans les lilas doubles." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 324. — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1888 by the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, and one of their pro- ductions. It is probable that the form Felicite described in " Notes" (Garden and Forest, vin. 230, 1895) as "Pale flesh color, semi-double," is a misnomer for this form; the notes were made in the Arnold Arboretum where Virginite was growing at one time. Notes on plant in garden of Miss Clara Hersey, Roxbury, Mass. Flowers double, medium size; corolla-lobes pointed at apex; tone pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinace- ous (xliv.) to Rhodonite Pink (xxxvni.) ; when expanded Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, same turning to Pale Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) to white within. Clusters open, interrupted, medium size. This is rather an unusual color among double-flowered Lilacs. Viviand-Morel Lemoine, Cat. no. 152, vin. (1902), "Tres grandes panicules, fleurs moyennes, rondes, globuleuses, a lobes imbriques et cuculles, lilas bleuatre clair, centre blanc, revers violaces." — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit, xxii. 383 (1907). — Have- meyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1902 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (plant received from T. A. Havemeyer, Glen Head, N. Y., in October, 1918; no. 17,386 Arn. Arb.). Flowers semi-double or double, small; corolla-lobes cucullate, rounded or pointed at apex; tone intermediate to pale; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.); when ex- panded, the outer corolla Argyle Purple tinged with Light Pinkish Lilac, the inner white tinged with Light Pinkish Lilac without, white tinged with Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvu.) within. Clusters medium to large in size, spreading at base, well-filled but not crowded. The flowers are small but the clusters are often showy. Volcan Lemoine, Cat. no. 143, 24 (1899), "Fleurs grandes, rubis sombre, le plus rouge des lilas." — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). Introduced in 1899 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June, 1900, from plant received from Lemoine in April, 1900; no. 4610-1 Arn. Arb.). Flowers single, extra large; corolla-lobes broadest above the middle, cucullate, pronouncedly hooked, 398 THE LILAC curling backward; corolla-tube slender; anthers conspicuous; tone dark; color in bud Dahlia Carmine to Indian Lake to Magenta (xxvi.); when expanded Dull Magenta Purple within, a solid color, Magenta with margins of Rose-Purple (xxvi.) without. Clusters long, open, delicate in appearance. Waldeck-Rousseau Lemoine, Cat. no. 158, vm. (1904), "Thyrses enormes, tres developpes dans tous les sens, mesurant 30 centimetres de longueur, et d'une grande legerete; fleurs bien degagees, regulieres, doubles ou pleines, lobes ronds et imbriques, lilas rose tendre a centre blanc, couleur charmant." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 321. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 383 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917)- Introduced in 1904 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (received from Lemoine in 1905). Flowers double, medium size, round; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous (xliv.) to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Tourmaline Pink on Pale Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) without, Light Mauve (xxv.) marked with much white near throat within. Clusters long, widely branched, open. The flowers appear to be darker without than within and stand out individually on the clusters. Washington Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 1867-1868, 43, "Flowers very dark purple with a bluish shade." — Ellwanger in Horticulturist, 1875, 98. It is not stated whether the flowers are single or double. Only the above references to this form have been found. William C. Barry Dunbar according to Horticulture, xxvi. 35 (1917), name only; xxvii. 534 (1918), "Single, pearly lavender," as W. C. Barry. — Dunbar in Florists Exch. September 22, 1923, 831, "Has numerous, upright, many shouldered clusters of single flowers, the color of which might be described as pearly lavender; it is decidedly charming"; Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers single, ^ to ^ of an inch across, buds reddish lilac, silvery lavender or pearly lavender when fully open, somewhat cup shaped, spikes 2 to 3 compound. Branching habit open and vigorous. Tall." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. ; in a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 227 Dunbar) of Marlyensis pallida, named by him in 191 7. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers single, large; corolla- lobes cucullate, wrinkled, forming a saucer-shaped flower; tone pale; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.) to Argyle Purple (xxxvu.); when ex- panded Purplish Lilac to Light Pinkish Lilac without, Hay's Lilac marked with Pale Lilac (xxxvu.) and with white near throat within. Clusters pyramidal, well-filled, long. The flowers bear a striking resemblance to those of the parent form Marlyensis pallida as it grows in the Arnold Arboretum. William Robinson Lemoine, Cat. no. 143, x. (1899), " Thyrses tres longs et tres amples, fleurs irr£gulieres, a lobes arrondis, couleur mauve violace a revers clairs." — Bellair in Rev. Hort. 1906, 321. — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxn. 382 (1907). — Havemeyer in Gard. Mag. xxv. 233 (1917). SYRINGA VULGARIS 399 Introduced in 1899 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Notes on plant in Arnold Arboretum (grown from cuttings taken June, 1905, from plant received from Lemoine in April, 1900; no. 4623-2 Arn. Arb.). Flowers double, large; corolla-lobes broad, pointed at apex, the outer expanding at a right angle to corolla-tube or twisting, the inner curling inward and forming a rosette in center of flower; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxvni.) ; when expanded Liseran Purple (xxvr.) marked with white without, Lilac marked with Mauvette (xxv.) within. Clusters open, irregular in form, large. William S. Riley Dunbar, Litt. ined. October 3, 1923, "Flowers single, Y% of an inch across, dark lilac in bud, light bluish lavender when fully open, clusters 9 inches long, dense." Produced by John Dunbar of the Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. ; in a letter the late Mr. Dunbar informed me that this was a seedling (no. 219 Dunbar) of President Massart, named by him in 1922. Named for a Commissioner of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Notes on plant in Dept. of Parks, Rochester, N. Y. Flowers single, large; tone intermediate; color in bud Deep Purplish Vinaceous to Vinaceous-Lilac (xliv.); when expanded Tourmaline Pink to Laelia Pink without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvni.), a solid color, within. Clusters large, open, widely branched. Plate CXXXIV A SYRINGA CHINENSIS f. SAUGEANA (Arnold Arboretum no. 12,081) Winter buds, enlarged. January, 1926. Plate CXXXV SYRINGA CHINENSIS f. SAUGEANA (Arnold Arboretum no. 12,081) Expanding buds, enlarged. April 30, 1926. Plate CXXXVI o s ^ ° CO ^ ^ o 22 S S 53 3 M o ° . 2 -a < a OJ 9 B o S < en o o ~c o >-. bfi .s a; o Plate CXXXVII SYRINGA CHINENSIS f. ALBA (Arnold Arboretum no. 4339-1) Flower clusters. June 2, 1924. Plate CXXXYIII ^~>. o IT. o o cT 2 u ' — i — i a ~~ c >■ cj r. — ■H — ed Plate CXXXIX < m < CO I— I CO W ON o c . 2, xn. 277, 1878) says that the Bunge specimen from the gardens of Peking which he has examined in Cosson's herbarium is "absolument semblable au faux Lilas de Perse," or 5. chinensis, as it is cultivated in Europe. Possibly that specimen represents S. pekinensis. On my behalf in June, 1927, Mr. C. K. Schneider visited Paris and sent drawings and the following notes in regard to this specimen: "There are two specimens. The right one ... is undoubtedly S. oblata. The left specimen looks much like S. chinensis, and there is a real S. chinensis on the same sheet. I believe that the two specimens do not belong together and the left may be a cultivated plant from Europe. Bunge had a lot of such things in his herbarium." He also wrote Mr. Rehder: "Bunge has moreover other cultivated forms from Europe in his herbarium, which does not seem to have been distributed very carefully. Even the Keeper of the Herb. Cosson said immediately that he would attach no value to the statement that the things came from China." As S. dubia, Debeaux (Florula Tien-Tsin, 29, 1879) mentions S. chinensis as "espece egalement repandue dans les pares et les jardins de l'Europe australe et dont l'origine n'est pas encore bien connue." Hemsley (Jour. Linn. Soc. xxvi. 83 (Ind. Fl. Sin. 11.), 1889) writes in regard to Debeaux's plant: "Debeaux. . . states that it is cultivated around Tientsin. There is confusion between this and S. oblata." S. chinensis seems to be cultivated in China at the present time for in the Arnold Arboretum is a specimen (no. H-196) collected by Joseph Hers in a garden in Chengchow, Honan, which appears to be this hybrid. It was gathered on April 24, 1921, and the collector notes that its Chinese name is "ting siang" and that it is "one of the Syringas cultivated in this province." From the dried specimen it is impossible to determine the color of the flowers but they appear to have been SYRINGA CHINENSIS 405 a pale lilac. The foliage is interesting, for, in addition to the partially lobed leaves commonly found on the cultivated plants of this hybrid, there are several which are so markedly three-partite as to resemble those of the Laburnum. The Abbe Caron in an article entitled "Rapport sur un tronc de Lilas" (Melanges Litt. Sci. 156, 1844) lays the blame for the misleading name of S. chinensis upon the English botanists: "Sur ces entrefaites, on en fit passer quelques plantes en Angleterre; et apparemment, pour donner plus de relief et de valeur a cet envoie, on le designa sous le nom de lilas de Chine; et les botanistes anglais, sans plus d'examen, ne manquerent pas de le decorer du nom de syringa Chinensis, lilas de la Chine. Les botanistes francais, etonnes de cette fausse denomination, eurent beau reclamer et prouver qu'il tirait son origine d'un semis de graines faites a Rouen, les Anglais, par jalousie ou par tout autre motif, perseverent a conserver au lilas de Rouen le nom de lilas de Chine, tant ils ont d'affection pour tout ce qui tient a la Chine. Et voila comme on ecrit rhistoire, meme celle des sciences!" S. chinensis is now believed to be a hybrid between the two Linnean species S. persica and S. vulgaris. It is known to have occurred as a natural hybrid about 1777 in the Botanic Garden at Rouen of which Varin was the director. Varin made no artificial cross but "Le Bon Jardinier" of 1805 quotes him as stating that after 1777 for a number of years he sowed seed of the cut-leaved Persian Lilac [ = S. persica var. laciniata], always obtaining this intermediate plant, — "le Lilas- Varin.,} Varin is not known to have considered it a hybrid; in fact "Le Bon Jar- dinier" states that because Varin always obtained this plant from his sowings he believed the cut-leaved Persian Lilac to be a "variete degener6e." The natural cross was an entirely possible one, however, since the blooming season of the two parents overlaps and there is every reason to believe that both were growing in the garden. Dumont de Courset writes: "Ce lilas tient, comme celui de Marly, encore le milieu entre le lilas commun et celui de Perse. Ses feuilles sont moins grandes que celles du lilas commun. Ses rameaux greles comme celui de Perse. Ses bouquets ou thyrses sont beaucoup plus allonges que ceux de ce dernier et beaucoup plus charges de fleurs. J'ai vu le premier pied de ce lilas dans le jardin botanique de Rouen, dont M. Varin est le directeur. II Pa obtenu des graines de la variete du lilas de Perse a feuilles pinnatifides. Ce premier pied formoit un buisson elargi, haut de 3 metres." The matter was considered of such interest that various attempts were made in later years to reproduce Varin's Lilac by artificial means. L. Henry (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, s6r. 3, xix. 448, 1897) was one of those who did so with success. He notes (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 740, 1901): "Nous possedons, en ce moment, une vingtaine de jeunes pieds ainsi obtenus et dont nous attendons la floraison." Most notable of the attempts was that of Mr. Emile Lemoine, described by him in the "Revue Horticole" (1900, 373) and re- printed in the "Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society" of the same year. He proved conclusively the hybrid origin of the plant. Lemoine's semi-double form, duplex, which is here discussed under the garden forms of S. chinensis, was the 406 THE LILAC result of a cross made between S. persica var. laciniata as seed parent and a double- flowered form of S. vulgaris, as pollen parent. Mr. Lemoine wrote me on July i, 1925: "J'ai fait autrefois la 'synthese' du Lilas Varin en croisant le S. persica laciniata avec le Lilas commun; j'ai obtenu des plantes qui ressemblaient au Lilas Varin, mais moins belles et moins vigoureuses; je les ai supprimees apres quelques annees." Mouillefert, who considered S. chinensis to be a variety of the Persian Lilac and called it S. P[ersica] Rothomagensis, named as a sub variety the "L[ilas V[arin] (type). Lilac Varina." Schneider (Wien. 111. Gartenz., 1. c.) states that he considers S. chinensis to be a hybrid of S. vulgaris and S. persica (S. vulgaris X S. afghanica). With his opinion as to the hybrid origin of S. persica I cannot agree. See S. afghanica. K. Koch in 1872 believed that S. rothomagensis [= S. chinensis] may have existed before Varin's day and says that the plant, figured in Miller's Icones (t. 164) and in Plunkenet's Almagestum (t. 227, fig. 8), more nearly resembles S. rothomagensis than S. persica. Whether Varin's Lilac was the original source whence came all plants of S. chinensis is uncertain; it is possible that the plant may have originated as a natural hybrid elsewhere. The Lilac media or Lilac de Marli, mentioned in a later paragraph, may have been the same hybrid but of different origin for it is spoken of as coming from Belgium which, at one time, as the Pays-Bas, was joined with Holland. The specimen of S. chinensis which Willdenow described in 1796 came from Holland. That it should have occurred as a spontaneous hybrid in China is impossible, for, although S. persica is now known to grow wild in Kansu, China, the home of 5. vulgaris is in the mountains of south- eastern Europe and there is no proof that it had been introduced to China when S. chinensis was first described. Varin's connection with the plant explains the names Lilac varina and Syringa Varina, as well as the common name Lilas Varin so frequently used by the French. The place where the hybrid is known to have occurred is recorded in the name S. Rothomagensis, — Rotomagus or Rothomagum being the old Roman name for Rouen. The vernacular names of Rouen Lilac or Lilas de Rouen are also much used. How certain other common names arose is uncertain. Miller (Bristol Nursery) in his catalogue (1826, 14) calls S. rothomagensis the Siberian Lilac, an identification which is made also by Sebire (Cat. 1 889-1 890, 22) for his S. rhothomagensis [sic]. It is probable from the dates that the Syringa Sibirica or Siberian Lilac listed with- out description by Backhouse (Cat. 1816. 46), by William Prince (Cat. 1823, 42) and by Landreth (Cat. 1824, 27) is the same. Sweet calls S. chinensis the Siberian Lilac and Prince in 1828 writes: "This is also called the Siberian, for many of the plants received from China, and supposed natives of that climate, have been ascer- tained afterwards to have been brought to that country from Siberia. It has thence arisen that many species, which were supposed at first to be delicate, and were treated as tender plants, have, by experiment, been found to withstand our severest SYRINGA CHINENSIS 407 winters, which at once proves, that they were either native of the northern provinces of China, or of some locality equally cold." The plant cultivated at the present day as Sibirica is a form of the Common Lilac. The name of the form of the Common Lilac called Speciosa, as is noted under that form, may have originated from confusion with S. speciosa Hort. a plant mentioned by Spach in 1839 as a synonym of S. chinensis; such wrong classifica- tions frequently arose as the result of omitting the specific name. Loudon (Gar- dener's Mag. n. s. vn. 394, 1841) identifies as the 5. rothomagensis of his "Arbore- tum et Fruticetum" a plant labelled Syringa speciosa in the Jardin des Plantes, Paris. Syringa japonica was also used as a name for this hybrid but for what reason is not known. K. Koch writes: "Als Syringa japonica habe ich einen Flieder leider nur mit Blattern erhalten, welche denen der S. chinensis gleichen, die Zweige sind aber steifer. Die weit kleineren Bluthen von violettblauer Farbe bilden schlaffere, kleinere und aus dem Winkel der Blatter entspringende Rispen. Sollte sie vielleicht zu S. oblata gehoren?" Koch does not state how he was able to describe the flowers from a leafy shoot only. Because of its characters which were intermediate between the two parents, S. chinensis has, by some writers such as Mirbel, Stokes and Mouillefert, been classified as a variety of S. persica, by others, such as Lamarck, as a variety of S. vulgaris. The S. persica var. latifolia which appears in the Catalogue of the Brompton Botanic Garden, and which is also cited by W. Salisbury, in both refer- ences is given the common name of Broad-leaved Persian Lilac and is undoubtedly S. chinensis. In view of the confusion in regard to the hybrid origin and native country of S. chinensis the name S. dubia explains itself. In 1802, three years before he wrote of the Lilac varina, Dumont de Courset had described another Lilac which he calls Lilac de Marli or Lilac media: "Cette variete" plutot qu'espece tient le milieu entre le lilas commun et celui de Perse. Ses feuilles sont moins larges que celles du premier et plus grandes que celles du second. Elles sont lanceolees. Les fleurs sont plus grandes que celles du Lilas de Perse. Leur couleur est plus fonc6e; leur panicules plus larges et plus garnies de fleurs." Despite the fact that De Courset states that he considers it to be a variety rather than a species, he apparently lists it as his third species and of the same importance as 5. persica, which it follows. In 1838 G. Don writes that in Belgium there is a hybrid of S. chinensis and S. vulgaris called the Lilac de Merli [sic] which is probably the S. rothamagensis [ = Lilac rothomagensis] of Poiteau and Turpin. Loudon in the same year also mentions this Belgian hybrid which he calls "S. media or the Belgic Lilas de Marly" and identifies it with the Poiteau and Turpin plant. Loudon's S. rothomagensis is based on Renault's plant, while he considers S. media to be a hybrid of S. rothomagensis [ — Lilac rothomagensis] of Poiteau and Turpin and S. vulgaris. Roemer and Schultes refer to it somewhat doubtfully as a hybrid and say that it differs from S. chinensis. "Le Bon Jardinier," which in 1805 had 408 THE LILAC been doubtful of the proper classification of the plant and wrote, "Est-ce une espece, ou bien ne seroit-ce qu'une vari£t6 du precedent [S. vulgaris], un peu plus petite dans ses dimensions?," in 1817 considers it to be a hybrid of S. persica and S. vulgaris, smaller in its dimensions, with thicker and fuller clusters and with larger and darker flowers. Decaisne says that the Lilas de Marly of gardens is S. chinensis although the name has been wrongly applied to a variety of S. vulgaris. As already noted this may have been the same hybrid as S. chinensis but one which originated in Belgium. Perhaps it was distinct, but it is certain that from De Courset's descrip- tion his plant cannot be distinguished from S. chinensis. Or possibly the writers of the day were in error as to its classification, for the Lilas de Marly at present in cultivation is not a hybrid, but, as noted under S. vulgaris var. purpurea, may be identified with that old variety of the Common Lilac having flowers variously described as purple, red or violet. The name Marly would seem to indicate some connection with the Chateau de Marly which was situated at Marly-le-Roi, about ten kilometers from Versailles. The chateau was built by Louis XIV. in 1679-1690 but was destroyed by fire in 1793. E. Lemoine (Rev. Hort. 1900, 375) considers that S. persica belongs to the section of the Varin Lilacs: "Le lilas dit de Perse est profondement different du Lilas lacinie" sous tous les rapports. Je le considere comme un hybride spontan6 entre le Lilas lacinie" et le Lilas commun, c'est-a-dire qu'il doit appartenir, ainsi que la forme a fleurs blanches qui en derive, a la section des Lilas Varins." Syringa correlata A. Braun, which is commonly noted as a synonym of S. chinensis is here considered to be identical with the old, so-called white form of that hybrid. See S. chinensis f. alba. H. L. Gerth van Wijk (Diet. PI. Names, 1. 1307, 191 1) gives as names for S. chinensis the following: (German) chinesischer flieder, chinesischer holunder, chinesischer lilak, chinesische syringe, lilak, syrene, syringe, syringsblume, zweifel- flieder (Salomon's Worterbuch der deutschen Pflanzennamen. . . umgearbeitet von A. Voss, 1903); (Dutch) chinesche sering, fransche sering (W. C. H. Staring, Huisboek voor den Landman in Nerderland, 105, 1862), rouaansche sering. Borbas (A Kert, 1. 245, 1895) calls S. chinensis "torok orgonafa," the Hungarian for Turkish Lilac. S. chinensis has been discussed from many points of view. Rousselon (Ann. Fl. Pomone, vm. 85, 1840), Regel (Gartenflora, xv. 374, 1866) and Nicholson (Garden and Forest, 11. 88, 1889) write of its value for forcing. Carriere (Rev. Hort. 1890, 136) and Batise (Rev. Hort. 1887, 278) state that for that purpose it is not thoroughly satisfactory since the flowers always retain some color. V. Lemoine (Garden and Forest, 11. 327, 1889) mentions his unsuccessful attempts to use it as a pollen parent in his hybridization of the early recorded double form of the Common Lilac, Azurea plena. "Garden and Forest" (n. 492, 1889) notes that it is liable to be affected by the fungus which attacks the forms of the Common Lilac. Its blooming season in the parterres of the Luxembourg Gardens, Paris, SYRINGA CHINENSIS 409 is recorded over a period of forty years by Gay (Bull. Soc. Bot. France, vi. 267, 1859) who also gives notes as to its blooming season at Montpellier, France. See also Barral in Rev. Hort. 1862, 141. At the date of Schmidt's writing, in 1794, he says that its hardiness has not been tested. Kuphaldt (Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 24, 231, 191 5) states that it is hardy at Riga, Russia. Dr. W. T. Macoun (Report of the Dominion Horticulturist for the year 1922, p. 38) mentions 5. rothotnagensis [ = S. chinensis] among the best ornamental shrubs hardy at Ottawa, Canada. Its method of flowering is discussed by Grosdemange (Rev. Hort. 1902, 178), Decaisne (Bull. Soc. Bot. France, xx. 236, 1873) and others. Notes on its winter buds are found in Bosemann (Deutsch. Geholze Winterkl. 67, 1884) and in Schneider (Dendr. Winterstudien, 220, fig. 211 a-f (p. 209); 266, 1903). O. Penzig mentions it in his "Pflanzen-Teratologie" (11. 144, 1894). Exceptionally large specimens of 5. chinensis have been recorded. Gordon (Gardeners' Mag. L. 432, fig., 1907) shows a plant growing at Easton Lodge, Essex, the home of the Earl and Countess of Warwick. Its circumference is given as 120 feet and its height as 16 feet. Gordon (Gardeners' Mag. xliv. fig. (p. 498) 1901), as S. Rothotnagensis, gives a picture of a large specimen growing at Kew. Under the caption "A gigantic Lilac" "The Garden Magazine" (xxin. 246, fig. 1916) gives a photograph of a Lilac growing at the home of Judge Samuel J. Tuttle at Lincoln, Nebraska. Miss Helen Tuttle, who had always considered the plant to be S. persica, kindly sent a foliage specimen for identification, and the plant proved to be S. chinensis. It is believed to be 45 years old and has a circumference of 114 feet and a height of 21 feet. Another picture, unnamed, shows a large plant of what appears to be S. chinensis growing at Bridgnerston House, Amesbury, Wilts, England (Garden, liii. 156, fig., 1898). S. R. Duffy (Garden and Home Builder, May, 1927, p. 257) gives a photograph of a lilac growing in "the gardens of Braehead, the home of Mr. and Mrs. W. Glasgow Greene, Palisades, N. Y., overlooking the Hudson." The plant is given no name but it is clearly 5. chinensis. Mr. Duffy notes: "We plant Lilacs too closely. This 50 year old bush given freedom to spread naturally covers a breadth of over 30 ft. and justifies Prof. C. S. Sargent's assertion that 25 ft. is the minimum space to allow." The value of S. chinensis as a garden plant was evidently at once appreciated for in 1805 "Le Bon Jardinier" states: "Le Lilas-Varin est devenu tres-commun dans le commerce; il est cependant assez rare de le trouver franc de pied; le plus souvent il est greffeV' The form of S. vulgaris, Rouen, cited by Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey, probably owes its origin, as noted under that form, to this practice of grafting .S. chinensis on the Common Lilac. Decaisne (Fl. Serres, xxii. 217, 1877) complains that in the parks of France the hybrid is frequently called S. persica. Mirbel (Hist. Nat. PI. xv. 146, 148, 1805-1806) speaks of S. chinensis as naturalized in France: "On trouve dans les bois de la France un lilas dont les f euilles sont petites et presque ovales Ce lilas . . . n'est peut-etre qu'une variete du 410 THE LILAC lilas commun. . . On presume qu'il vient de la Chine." He calls it the Lilas douteux and notes that the plant "croit dans les bois." This hybrid appears as a name only in the following French catalogues of early date: as S. rothomagensis (Audibert, 1817, 23. — Oudin, 1846-1847, 17. — A. Leroy, 1853, 57); as 5. dubia (Audibert, 181 7, 23); as 5. chinensis or Lilas Varin (Audibert, 1831-1832, 51. — Baumann, 1838-1839, 8. — Oudin, 1841, 22); as Lilas de Perse Varin (Sen£clauze, 1846-1847, n); as Syringa Varins, Varin's Lilac (Audibert, Suppl. 1850, 9. — A. Leroy, 1850, 9); as S. rothomagensis Varin (A. Leroy, 1851, 48); as Lilas Varin (Dauvesse, no. 20, 24, 1855). W. T. Aiton in the second edition of the "Hortus Kewensis" says that S. chinensis was introduced into England by Mons. Williams before 1785. It appears as a name only in early English catalogues as follows: as S. Sibirica (Mackie, 181 2, 54); as 5. chinensis (Mackie, 1812, 54. — Backhouse, 1816, 46. — Fulham Nursery [cir. 1817], 26. — Loddiges, 1820, 39; 1823, 35; 1826, 59; 1836, 66. — Covill, 1821, 130); as S. media (Loddiges, 1820, 39; 1826, 59; 1836, 66); as S. rothamagensis [sic] or Siberian Lilac (Miller (Bristol Nursery), 1826, 14). Whether the plant, listed as a name only, as S. vulgaris var. e. compacta or Chinese Lilac, by the latter nursery, is a wrong classification of this hybrid as a variety of the Common Lilac is uncertain; possibly it may have been a form of the Common Lilac but wrongly called Chinese Lilac. See the form of S. vulgaris, Compacta. When S. chinensis was introduced into the United States is uncertain but it is mentioned as cultivated, together with S. persica and S. vulgaris, in the Elgin Botanic Garden near New York City. This garden was established in 1801 (D. Hosack, Hortus Elginensis, 1 81 1) . It is listed in early nursery catalogues as follows : as S. Rothomagensis or Large-flowering hybrid Chinese or Siberian Lilac (William Prince, 1823, 42. — Parsons, 1846, 38); as S. chinensis or Chinese or Siberian Lilac (Winter, 1843-1844, 62); as S. chinensis vel. Sib. or Chinese or Siberian Purple Lilac (William R. Prince, 1 844-1 845, 70); as S. rothomagensis or Large-flowering hybrid Lilac (Winter, 1843-1844, 62); as 5. hybrida or Chinese Rouen hybrid Lilac (William R. Prince, 1844-1845, 70); as S. sinensis or Chinese Lilac (Parsons, 1846, 38. — Ellwanger and Barry, 1855-1856, 9), and in numerous other forms. At the present time this hybrid is easier to obtain than the Persian Lilac, with which, as already noted, it is frequently confused. S. chinensis is not known to fruit with any frequency. In his article in "Le Bon Jardinier" of 1805 [De Launay] writes: "de l'aveu de M. Varin, son Lilas ne lui en a jamais donne qu'une seule fois, et une seulement qu'il a semee avec soin et n'a point leve\" Certain writers have cited this as proof of its hybrid origin. Decaisne (Fl. Serres, xxn. 217, 1877; Jour. Soc. Hort. France, s6r. 2, xn. 277, 1878) states that he does not believe in its hybrid origin and that its sterility, which is almost constant, proves nothing since this is characteristic of other shrubs. He writes that the fruit capsules resemble those of the Common Lilac although smaller. E. Lemoine (Garden, xxxix. 91, 1891) considers it to be sterile. Carriere, who SYRINGA CHINENSIS 411 probably would not have mistaken the plant, tells on various occasions of having seen the fruit (Rev. Hort. 1877, 382, 403; 1878, 6, 219; 1879, 82). He states in the first of these references that it does not frequently bear fruit in France, but reports that a large amount was produced on a plant in a public garden three kilo- meters from Metz. The "Lyon-Horticole" (xi. 20, 1889) notes: "M. Henry de Vilmorin a presente une branche de Lilas Varin qui a developpe quelques fruits et les a amenes a maturite. Le Lilas en question fructifie tres rarement." Baillon (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 2, xii. 326, 1878) also testifies to the fact that fruit is sometimes found. L. Henry (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, s£r. 4, n. 745, 1901) writes that the capsules resemble those of S. persica but are browner and lustrous; he has not, however, found the seed to be fertile. He notes that in March, 1900, Cornu received seed listed as S. dubia Persoon from the Forestry Institute at Vallom- brosa, Italy, which germinated in June, 1901; all the thirty plants raised showed the characters of the Varin Lilac. Henry suggests that a warmer climate may have some bearing upon the production of fertile seed. Elsewhere (Rev. Hort. 1901, 41) he notes again that the seed is not always good. I have never seen the fruit. It is shown in the figure which accompanies the article by Carriere in the "Revue Horticole" (1878, 79, fig. 17). Dr. Gustav Hegi notes that the fruit is seldom produced and then resembles that of S. persica. Charles Darwin in "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestica- tion" (11. 164, 1868) writes: "Nevertheless I presume we must attribute to change of climate the sterility of many foreign plants; thus the Persian and Chinese lilacs (Syringa Persica and Chinensis), though perfectly hardy, never here produce seed; the common lilac (S. vulgaris) seeds with us moderately well, but in some parts of Germany the capsules never contain seed." He refers for his statement about Germany to Gartner (Beitrage zur Kentniss, etc., 560, 564). In the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum are numerous specimens taken from cultivated plants of S. chinensis and among them the following: G. Nicholson (no. 755) collected in the Arboretum, Royal Gardens, Kew, on May 17, 1880; C. Baenitz, from Gopperthain, Breslau, Silesia, dated 1900; H. Zabel, 2 specimens from Buddenhagen, Greifswald, dated 1866; another from the Botanic Garden, St. Petersburg, no collector mentioned; and another collected by C. K. Schneider in the Botanic Garden, Vienna. This hybrid is one of the handsomest of all garden shrubs and if given sufficient room to develop forms a well-filled, large, somewhat hemispherical bush. The plant has not the upright, tall habit of S. vulgaris, the branches are less heavy and in winter the plant appears more "twiggy"; in this respect, as well as in most other characters, it more nearly resembles the parent S. persica. While the foliage is considered to be intermediate between the parent plants, yet in size and form it is closer to that of S. persica and frequently shows a tendency to produce lobed leaves. Nor do the flower clusters show so great a resemblance to those of the Com- mon Lilac as to those of the Persian. The individual panicles are small, only about 412 THE LILAC three of four inches long, but they are produced frequently from as many as eleven pairs of lateral buds on the same branchlet and appear as one immense inflorescence, so heavy sometimes that the flowering branchlet droops gracefully under the weight. The plant blooms profusely each year — around Boston between the middle and end of May. The flowers have not so strong a fragrance as those of the Common Lilac. The individual blossom has a long, slender corolla-tube and broad, somewhat bluntly pointed, cucullate corolla-lobes which curl backward after they have been expanded for a short time; the expanded flowers are paler without than within and the anthers may be seen in the open flower. The foliage unfolds early in the spring and in autumn sometimes turns a pale yellow before falling. Frequently the plant is in full green leaf in the late autumn. The attempt has been made by Miss Isabella Preston, producer of the S. Prestoniae hybrids, to cross S. villosa (9) with 5. chinensis (6); she wrote of this cross in "The National Horticultural Magazine" (January, 1927, 27). In June, 1927, I examined seedlings raised from this cross and could find no evidence of S. chinensis parentage. I know of no successful cross between Lilacs of the two groups Villosae and Vulgares. L. Henry (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, s6r. 4, 11. 745, 1901) describes, without botan- ical name, a form which he calls Lilas Varin a petites fleurs ou L[ilas] Varin precoce: "Nous avons trouve dans les collections du Museum, un vieil exemplaire de cette forme tres sp£ciale par ses rameaux plus rigides et plus courts; sa floraison d'une huitaine de jours plus native que celle du Lilas Varin ordinaire; ses boutons globu- leux; ses fleurs sensiblement plus petites (10 a 12 millimetres de limbe, 6 a 9 milli- metres de tube) a divisions larges, rapprochees, tout a fait arrondies, restant incurvees, d'un bleu plus intense et plus sombre; ses inflorescences plus compactes et plus courtes (ne depassant g6neralement pas 7 a 8 centimetres). Nous nous demandons si ce Lilas ne serait pas le vrai L. de Marly dont parlent les Editions du Bon Jardinier d'il y a cent ans, Dumont de Courset, Noisette, Spach et Decaisne." This plant is not mentioned elsewhere and is probably no longer in existence. The forms of S. chinensis with botanical names which follow are for convenience arranged alphabetically. They are: Syringa chinensis f. alba (Audibert) Hort. according to Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 77 (1885), as 5. chinensis alba. — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 206 (1899); in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (1917), as a variety; Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 756 (1927), as a variety. — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz- Ben. 414 (1903). — Schneider in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 360 (1913). — Bean, Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, 11. 566 (1914). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxm. 155 (1916), as a variety; Aristocrats of the Garden, 229 (1917), as a variety. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 90 (1920). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922), as a variety. SYRINGA CHINENSIS 413 Syringa dubia b. Alba Audibert, Cat. 1817, 23, name only. — Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 168 (1877), name only. — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 114 (1889), as a form. — Hart- wig, 111. Geholzb. 378 (1892). Syringa sinensis alba A. Leroy, Cat. 1856, 85, name only. — ■ Dauvesse, Cat. no. 24, 42 (1859), name only. — Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 42 (1867-1868), name only. — Parsons, Cat. no. 1, 28 (1869), name only. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 141 (1880), name only. Syringa rothomagensis 2. alba Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 493 (1864). — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 562 (1875). — Bau- driller, Cat. no. 43, 141 (1880), as 5. Rhotomagensis alba. S[yringa] Chinensis var. fl. albo Jager, Ziergeholze, 528 (1865). Syringa sinensis fl. albido Van Houtte, Cat. no. 117, 12 (1867), name only. Syringa correlata A. Braun in Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin, Sitzerb. 69 (1873); in Bot. Zeit. 665 (1873); m Bot- Ver- Brandenb., Verh. xvi. 12 (1874). — Bull. Soc. Bot. France, xxn. 62 (1874). — Borbas in Erdesz. Lap. 1882, 883. S[yringa] rothomagensis b. albida hort. according to Klinge, Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 25 (1883). S[yringa] Siberica alba Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. no. 2, 87 (1886). ? Syringa bicolor Borbas in Termesz. Kozlony, xxv. 496 (1893). ? Syringa dichroa Borbas in A Kert, 1. 245, t. (1895). — Schneider, 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 1062 (1912). Lilas {Syringa) Sangeana [sic] alba Catalogo Jeneral ... del Criadero de Arboles de "Santa Ines" (Nos.) Chile, no. v. afio xxrv. [= 1912], 356. Differs from the type in the form and color of its flowers and in its more upright inflorescence. In color the flowers are in bud, corolla- tube Lilac to Mauvette (xxv.), corolla-lobes Light Dull Green-Yellow (xvn.) to Marguerite Yellow (xxx.) marked with Mauvette (xxv.) ; when expanded white marked with Mauvette (xxv.) on corolla- tube without and on corolla-lobes within, with a pronounced marking of Chinese Violet (xxv.) at throat. (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant grown from cuttings taken June 25, 1902 or 1903, from a plant received from Spath in November, 1900; no. 4339-1 Am. Arb.) See Plates cxxxvn., cxxxix. Two plants of this form have been observed, — one growing in the Arnold Arboretum (no. 4339-1 Am. Arb.), the other at Holm Lea, Brookline, Massa- chusetts. The former was raised from cuttings taken from a plant received from Spath in November, 1900; the origin of the latter is unknown. Flowering specimens, easily recognized as this form and which were taken from still other plants have been brought in to the Arnold Arboretum. The form is apparently not rare in cultiva- tion. While the flowers are identical in color with those of S. chinensis i. bicolor they are distinct from it in being noticeably smaller and in having pronouncedly cucullate corolla-lobes which remain more erect than do those of the form bicolor which expand at right angles to the corolla-tube. The flower clusters too are held stiffly upright, more so than those of the type S. chinensis or of any other of its 414 THE LILAC forms, and the shrub when in bloom has, therefore, quite another appearance. Because of these characters S. chinensis f. alba is more distinct than all other forms of 5. chinensis which differ from the type for the most part merely in the color of their flowers. L. Henry (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 746, 1901) mentions that he has received from various firms as S. rothomagensis alba, which he notes is the same in horticultural parlance as S. rothomagensis bicolor, a Lilas Varin bicolore a petites fleurs. He knows nothing of its history, despite investigation, but says that it is everywhere confused with the true bicolor of Lemoine [= .S. chinensis f. bicolor]. V. Lemoine identified his form bicolor for Henry and said that he did not know the origin of this small-flowered form. From Henry's description which fol- lows it is apparent that he is writing of the plant here called S. chinensis f. alba: ". . . se distingue du L. Varin bicolore vrai par ses fleurs sensiblement plus petites (6 a 10 millimetres de diametre de limbe et longueur de tube a peu pres egale), ne s'6talant que tardivement et presque toujours incompletement; par les divisions plus courtes, arrondies, cucull£es, a bords relev6s et formant bourrelet, a pointe epaissie, termin6e par une grille bien prononcee; par le bouton globuleux, gris de lin, au lieu d'etre allong6, et plutot blanc lilacd; enfin par le coloris general d'apparence plus grise, en realit6 blanc legerement bleute, avec gorge et base des divisions oculees violacS pourpre ou un peu bleuatres, devenant plus bleues a la fin de la floraison. De meme que le L. bicolore vrai, l'odeur est ici moins prononcee que dans le L. Varin type." The color distinctions alone, which are noted by Henry between this form and S. chinensis f. bicolor, would not differentiate the plant, for they describe very well the color of Lemoine's form. It is stated (Bot. Ver. Brandenb., Verh. xvi. 12, 1874) that A. Braun showed specimens and drawings of a Syringa, cultivated in gardens as Syringa Rothoma- gensis flore albo to which he gave the name Syringa correlata, and that an old specimen is found in the Berlin botanical gardens, with flowers not white but very pale lilac, more of a tree than a shrub, about ten feet high; this was received, ac- cording to the superintendent Bouche, from the nurseryman Wolfhagen at Halle, and is said to have been grafted on Syringa Rothomagensis. A. Braun makes a comparison of the flowers of S. vulgaris and 5. persica and notes that in form of flower his S. correlata resembles the former in having cucullate corolla-lobes and a corolla-limb noticeably smaller than that of S. Rothomagensis but more slender than that of S. vulgaris. The flowers, almost white, become plainly reddish as they fade. The clusters, like those of S. vulgaris are erect, rather than, as in 5. Rothomagensis and in S. persica, bending or pendent, although these, after flowering, become for the most part upright. He also notes "S. correlata dagegen stimmt in der Bliithe ebenso volkommen mit S. vulgaris uberein, nur ist die Krone, deren Saum bedeutend kleiner als bei Rothomagensis ist, im Ganzen etwas schmachtiger als bei vulgaris, auch der Kelche, der deutlich gerundete Ausschnitte hat, etwas kleiner. Die Farbe der Bliithe ist an unserem Stocke mattweiss, beim Abbliihen mit SYRINGA CHINENSIS 415 schwacher Rothung. Mit S. vulgaris stimmt S. correlata auch darin iiberein, dass die Bliithenrispen aufgerichtet sind, wahrend sie bei S. Rolhomagensis, ebenso bei Persica, zur Bliithezeit mehr oder weniger herabgebogen, oft selbst hangend erscheinen, nach der Bliithe jedoch sich grossentheils aufrichten." He states that S. correlata is sterile and S. Rolhomagensis ordinarily. The characters which Braun notes as distinguishing his S. correlata are the same as those which differ- entiate the Lilac, S. chinensis f. alba, from Lemoine's form bicolor. Braun's name ordinarily appears as a synonym of S. chinensis, the type. Borbas (Erd6sz. Lap. 1882, 1. c.) considers S. dubia [= S. chinensis] and S. correlata to be two different hybrids of S. vulgaris and 5. persica, the former being more akin to S. persica and the latter to S. vulgaris. Dr. Ferdinand Filarsky, director of the botanical section of the Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum, Budapest, kindly supplied the following information (which is here translated from the German) in regard to the Syringa dichroa Borbas: "At the meet- ing of the botanical section of the Society of Natural Sciences on May 10, 1893, V. Borbas showed a Lilac from the Budapest municipal park under the name Syringa bicolor (corolla-tube lilac, limb white, which colors remain well-preserved in the dried flowers) and believed, in view of the systematic characters, this Lilac to be a hybrid of S. persica and S. vulgaris albiflora Opiz. All this is a small notice in Hungarian in 'Termeszettudomanyi Kozlony,' vol. xxv., Budapest, 1893, p. 496. In the year 1895, V. Borbas published in "A Kert" 1. Jhg. 1895, p. 245, in a longer paper, the same Syringa, but under the name S. dichroa; he gives a detailed descrip- tion of it in Hungarian, also one in Latin, and on a plate a very pretty colored, well-executed figure of a flowering branch. I am enclosing a copy of this paper, which the publisher of this periodical had prepared at my request; unfortunately without the beautifully colored plate which can no longer be supplied. Borbas says in this detailed paper that for years he has observed this Syringa in Budapest on the Margaret Island, in gardens, and in the park in front of the Academy and has found the cited characters to be stable (!). In the 'Termes- zettudom&nyi Kozlony' 1893, p. 496, he had already published it as S. bicolor, but since Karl Koch in his "Dendrologie" 11. pt. 1. 266, 268, 1872 had given another hybrid of S. vulgaris and S. chinensis the name bicolor, he had changed his old name, and had denoted the bicolored character by the Greek word dichroa. Borbas says further that the investigation of the origin of Syringa dichroa is very difficult; he believes however that the plant originated in some garden through hybridization, and, moreover, in view of its systematic characters, from the white Syringa alba, and the lilac Syringa persica. Its further distribution it owes to the nurseries. The two colors of the flowers it derives from the white- and lilac-flowered parents. Per longum et latum he suggests other but less plausible possibilities of a hybridi- zation, also philosophizes about the manner of fructification, inheritance of char- acteristic features, etc. . ." Since Lemoine's form bicolor was put on the market in 1853 and was widely 416 THE LILAC distributed throughout Europe it seemed probable from Dr. Filarsky's letter that Borbas was writing of this form. But a translation of his article in "A Kert" makes it seem probable that he was concerned with the older form 5. chinensis f. alba. He writes : "The flower of S. dichroa agrees on the whole more with the flower of S. vulgaris than with that of S. alba [he refers to S. alba Renault meaning pre- sumably Liliacum alba Renault, a synonym of S. vulgaris var. alba]', but its leaf is small, so that it is almost impossible to distinguish it from that of S. chinensis. The flower of S. dichroa, however, is entirely different from that of S. chinensis. It is smaller and double-colored; its top is convex, the rim turns inward and is not flat like that of S. chinensis; the corolla is much shorter than the tube whereas the corolla-lobes of S. chinensis are only a little shorter than the tube." It seems curious however that Borbas, who had written of S. correlata in 1882, did not identify the plant with his S. bicolor or 5. dichroa. As is noted under S. chinensis f. bicolor that plant was frequently confused with this white form which was of older origin. Both E. Lemoine and L. Henry mention as synonyms of Lemoine's plant the Syringa rothomagensis alba of gardens. Nu- merous authors however distinguish the two forms. To this day the two are frequently confused because of their similarity in color. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 1. c.) mentions S. rothomagensis b. albida hort. as cultivated at Riga, Wagner's nursery according to Buhse. Ellwanger and Barry mention a S. Siberica alba or Siberian White Lilac which they describe as "A vigorous grower; foliage small and narrow; flowers white with a bluish tint. Fragrant and handsome." As noted under 5. chinensis, S. Siberica was frequently used as a synonym for the typical form. Mouillefert (Traite Arb. Arbis. 11. 1000, 1 892-1 898), who considered S. chinensis to be a variety of the Persian Lilac and called it S. P[ersica] Rothomagensis, mentions this white form as a sub variety calling it the L[ilas] V[arin] a fleurs blanches; S. Rothomagensis alba. Baudriller mentions as two distinct Lilacs S. Rhotomagensis [sic] alba and S. sinensis alba, calling the latter the Lilas de Chine blanc, and the former the Lilas Varin blanc. As noted under S. chinensis that plant was thought by many to come from China. Baudriller is evidently confused in the matter. It is probable that, as with Lemoine's form bicolor, the older form alba also originated as a sport, for such were not uncommon on the type or on the reddish form Saugeana. Carriere (Rev. Hort. 1876, 413, fig. 95) writes of a white sport which occurred on this "Lilas Sauge." L. Henry in an article in "Le Jardin" (vm. 225, 1894) mentions blue sports which appeared in 1892 and 1893 on two dif- ferent plants of the "Lilas Varin a fleurs blanches" which were growing at the Museum of Natural History, Paris, and he cites this evidence of reversion as a proof that the white form, alba, originated as a sport. In the article (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, 1. c.) already quoted he notes this reversion as occurring in seven different years on various plants of this form. SYRINGA CHINENSIS 417 Frieda Cobb and H. H. Bartlett (Bot. Gazette, lxv. 560, fig. 1, 1918) tell of a purple sport which appeared on a plant which they identify as 5. persica. They were evidently in doubt as to the proper classification of this plant: "The bushes under consideration are identified as Syringa persica with some doubt. The upper surface of the leaves lack stomata, which should be present in S. persica, as denned by Schneider in his "Handbuch der Laubholzkunde." The flowers are sterile, a fact which would presumably point to a hybrid ancestry, and the terminal bud is not suppressed, but generally gives rise to a panicle. The flowers are produced, then, from lateral and terminal buds on the wood of the preceding year. The bushes were purchased as S. persica, which seems on the whole, the most applicable name." They describe the plant thus: "The bush is one of the very pale-flowered varieties, by no means white, which is best described as lilac-tinged. The bud sport was deep purple, of exactly the same color as the darkest flowered variety of the Persian lilac commonly grown"; also, "It is evident that the chief size differences are in the spread of the corolla and the width of the lobes. In both measurements and color, the bud sport exactly duplicated a dark purple variety of Syringa persica which is commonly cultivated. The latter differs from the lilac-tinged variety in that the corolla lobes appear to be 3-nerved rather than i-nerved. In this character, also, the bud sport was different from the bush that produced it, and exactly like the purple variety. Microscopic examination showed that what appeared to be lateral nerves were not due to bundles, but were merely folds. Nevertheless they afford a striking character difference between the two forms. " Not only the text, but the figure, which shows both the sport and the flowers of the plant on which it occurred, leave no doubt that the parent plant is S. chinensis f. alba and the sport either the type S. chinensis or its dark-flowered form Saugeana. The figure brings out clearly the different appearance of their flowers and cluster. L. Henry also mentions reversions to type as particularly common on his L. Varin a. petites fleurs; these are shown not only in the color of the flowers but also in their shape and size; on this plant he saw also in 1897 a sport resembling the "Lilas SaugeV' A. Braun in writing of his S. correlata also mentioned the fact that he had found on one inflorescence, flowers, eight or ten in number, which in size and form of corolla-limb as well as in color, were the same as those found on 5. chinensis; at another time he found individual flowers one half of which resembled those of S. correlata, the other half those of S. Rothomagensis. This reversion was found again in 1874 upon the same plant and Braun states that Spath has informed him that he had noted in his garden on S. varina alba, which Braun says is similar to S. correlata, similar reversions. The plant (no. 4339-1 Arn. Arb.) of S. chinensis f. alba growing in the Arnold Arboretum produces small, single flowers, whose cucullate corolla-lobes are held erect, only rarely, or late, expanding to a right angle with the corolla-tube. In color they resemble exactly those of S. chinensis f . bicolor. The clusters too are held stiffly upright, whereas the flowering branchlets of S. chinensis and its other 418 THE LILAC forms are drooping, only resuming a more erect position after the flowers have fallen. White Chinese has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (488, 1923). Syringa chinensis f. bicolor (Lemoine) Jager, Ziergeholze, 528 (1865), as 5. Chinensis var. bicolor. — Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 77 (1885). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 414 (1903). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 90 (1920). Syringa rothomagensis bicolor Lemoine, Cat. no. 8, 6 (1853). — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 494 (1864). — A. Leroy, Cat. 1865, 100. — K. Koch, Dendr. II. pt. 1. 268 (1872). — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 562 (1875). — Van Houtte, Cat. no. 165-LL, 18 (1875-1876), as Syringa rototnagensis bicolor. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 141 (1880), as 5. Rhotomagensis bicolor. Syringa sinensis rhotomagensis bicolor Van Houtte, Cat. no. 117, 12 (1867), name only. Syringa persica rotomagensis bicolor Van Houtte, Cat. no. 152-AA, 27 (1873-1874). Syringa dubia bicolor Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 114 (1889), as a form. — Hartwig, III. Geholzb. 377 (1892), as a variety. — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 653 (1896). — E. Lemoine in Rev. Hort. 1900, 373; in Jour. Hort. Soc. London, xxiv. 301, fig. 115 (1900). S[yringa] rothomagensis alba Hort. according to E. Lemoine, in Rev. Hort. 1900, 373, as a synonym. Differs from the type merely in the color of its flowers which are in bud, corolla-tube Lilac to Mauvette (xxv.), corolla-lobes Light Dull Green-Yellow (xvn.) to Marguerite Yellow (xxx.) marked with Mauvette (xxv.); when expanded white marked with Mauvette (xxv.) on corolla-tube without and on corolla-lobes within, with a pronounced eye of Chinese Violet (xxv.). (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant grown from grafts received from Parsons in March, 1882; no. 12,082 Arn. Arb.). In 1853 the firm of V. Lemoine, Nancy, France, introduced in their autumn catalogue, as Syringa rothomagensis bicolor, a form with flowers which they describe as "blanches a centre pourpre." E. Lemoine (Jour. Hort. Soc. London, xxrv. 301, fig. 115, 1900) writes that the flowers of this plant are " slaty-grey with a bluish violet throat" and that it is "a fixed dimorphic form or 'sport'." Of its origin he adds: "In 1850 M. Victor Lemoine found at Noveant (old department of the Moselle), on the property of M. Guerber, an ordinary Varin Lilac, a branch of which bore nearly white flowers. It is this branch which, grafted and multiplied, was put into commerce by M. Lemoine under the name S. rothomagensis bicolor" E. Lemoine gives S. rothomagensis alba as a synonym of this form. The article just quoted had previously appeared in French (Rev. Hort. 1900, 373). The similarity of the forms bicolor and alba was discussed by L. Henry (Jardin, viii. 225, 248, 1894) and he considered them from descriptions to be the same; he described the form bicolor which he calls "Lilas Varin a fleurs blanches (sou vent indique" dans les catalogues sous le nom de S. rothomagensis alba)" as follows: "Cette belle vari6te n'est pas absolument blanche; les fleurs se montrent d'abord SYRINGA CHINENSIS 419 gris ardoise tres pale, avec gorge violet bleuatre; elles deviennent plus blanches a. complet epanouissement, tout en conservant une nuance grisatre. . . il a la vigueur, la bonne tenue et la floribondite" ; and again he states that the flowers of both forms are "presque blanches avec gorge bleuatre." At a later date (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, s6r. 4, n. 746, 1901) he mentions S. rothomagensis alba Hort. as a synonym of the "Lilas Varin bicolore" or S. rothomagensis bicolor Lemoine. Undoubtedly the name alba was, and still is, used erroneously for the form bicolor, because of their similarity in color. Yet many writers such as Kirchner, Hartwig and Riimpler, Dippel, Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, and Lingelsheim keep them as distinct forms. In Baudriller's catalogue they are also separated. As is noted under S. chinensis f. alba, that plant possesses certain characters which differentiate it from Lemoine's form bicolor as well as from all other forms of S. chinensis. L. Henry, in the reference in "Le Jardin" just noted, states that, if the two forms are the same, the name bicolor should be retained as the older and more exact. The word bicolor is undoubtedly more descriptive of the color of the flowers. See S. chinensis f . alba. It is possible that the name of the form of the Common Lilac called Bicolor may have come into existence as the result of confusion with this form of S. chinensis. See also the form of S. vulgaris, Bicolor. Syringa chinensis f. carnea Audibert, Cat. 1831-1832, 51, as S. chinensis carnea, name only. Audibert gives this the common name of Lilas couleur de chair. L. Henry (Jardin, vm. 225, 1894) writes: "Sous ce nom [Lilas carne de Chine] les horticulteurs d6signent une vari6te de 5. dubia dont les fleurs, blanc carne* sur le limbe et lilace* cendre vers la gorge, sont disposers en bouquets ou en grappes composees sur de longs rameaux rappelant des panaches ou des guirlandes. De meme que tous ceux du groupe, ce Lilas est florifere et meritant." Mouillefert (Traite Arb. Arbris. 11. 1000, 1892-1898), who considered S. chi- nensis to be a variety of the Persian Lilac and called it S. P[ersica] Rothomagensis, names this form as a sub-variety, calling it the L[ilas] V[arin] carne* de Chine (Lilas carne de Chine). Henry's description is in part close to that of Mouillefert. Later (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 748, 1901) Henry states that under the name L. carne de Chine he has received from reliable firms two different plants, "le Sauge* de Metz" and "le Varin bicolore," and despite investigation has ob- tained only vague and unreliable information. He does not know to what variety the name should be applied and suggests that it be abandoned. Syringa chinensis f. duplex (Lemoine) Render in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 206 (1899), as 5". chinensis duplex; in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (191 7), as a variety; Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 756 (1927), as a variety. — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 415 (1903). — Bean, Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, 420 THE LILAC n. 566 (1914). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 90 (1920). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922), as a variety. Syringa Varina Duplex Lemoine, Cat. no. 134, ix. (1896). — E. Lemoine, in Rev. Hort. 1900, 374; in Jour. Hort. Soc. London, xxiv. 307, fig. 121 (1900). — Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xxii. 381 (1907). — Steffen in Gartenflora, lxii. 15 (1913). S\yringa] rothomagensis semp-duplex V. Lemoine according to L. Henry in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, n. 747 (1901). This was one of the forms obtained by Mr. Emile Lemoine in his attempt to reproduce Varin's hybrid Lilac. It is important as proving conclusively, in con- junction with other forms so raised by Lemoine, the hybrid origin of S. chinensis It was introduced in 1896 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils of Nancy, France. The original description which appeared in the Lemoine catalogue of 1896 reads:". . . Nous avons croise artificiellement le Syringa persica laciniata par une forme a. fleurs doubles du Syringa vulgaris et nous avons realist experimentalement un Lilas Varin parfaitement caracterise et portant l'empreinte vivante de Fhybrida- tion qui Fa produit, car ses fleurs semi-doubles rappellent les fleurs pleines du pere, et son feuillage, semblable a, celui de Fancien Varin, pr£sente a Fetat d'exception quelques feuilles lobees, ce qui est le regie dans le Lilas de Perse lacinie, sa mere. . . Notre plante fleurit en longues panicules tout comme les autres Lilas Varins, mais, ses fleurs, grandes, sont generalement formees de deux corolles emboitees; excep- tionnellement on en rencontre dans le nombre quelques-unes qui sont simples; la couleur est d'un lilas purpurin passant au lilas m6tallique." The origin and description of this form is also given by L. Henry (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, n. 747, 1901) who calls it the L[ilas] Varin semi-double (S. rothomagensis semi-duplex V. Lemoine). Syringa chinensis f. metensis S[imon] L[ouis] according to Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 77 (1885), as 5. chinensis metensis. — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Garten.-Zeit. xiv. 206 (1899); in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (1917), as a variety; Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 756 (1927), as a variety. — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 414 (1903). — Schneider in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 360 (1913). — Bean, Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, 11. 566 (1914). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. i-n. 90 (1920). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland- Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922), as a variety. Syringa rothomagensis metensis Simon-Louis (Prospectus of Cat., Autumn, 1871-Spring, 1872) according to Herincq in Hort. Francais, 1871, 325, name only. — Bonard in Hort. Francais, 1871, 350, as Syringa rathomagensis [sic] metensis. — Transon, Cat. 1876-1877, 55. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 141 (1880). Syringa dubia Metensis Hort. according to Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 114 (1889), as a form. — Mouillefert, Traite Arb. Arbris. 11. 999 (1892-1898). — Van Houtte, Cat. no. 255-G, 36 (1893). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 653 (1896). S[yringa] dubia rothomagensis metensis E. Lemoine in Rev. Hort. 1900, 373; in Jour. Hort. Soc. London, xxrv. 302, fig. 116 (1900). SYRINGA CHINENSIS 421 Differs from the type merely in the color of its flowers which are in bud Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvni.) ; when expanded Pale Laelia Pink without, Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) with tinge of Light Lobelia Violet (xxxvii.) at throat within. (The color of the flowers was taken from a plant (no. 10,607 Am. Arb.) growing in the Arnold Arboretum; plant received as a form of 5. vulgaris, Progress, from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in November, 1920; it represents neither a form of the Common Lilac nor S. chinensis Le Progres, but S. chinensis f . metensis.) Herincq mentions this form as appearing in the prospectus, devoted to novelties, of the Simon-Louis catalogue of 1871-1872, which I have not seen. Simon-Louis (Hort. Francais, 1871, 340) states that the form appeared at Metz "sur une tres-forte touffe du Lilas Varin." Bonard in the same periodical adds: "c'est ce que nous appelons autrefois naivement un accident, un jeu de la nature. Aujourd'hui. . . un dimorphism." L. Henry (Jardin, vm. 225, 1894; Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, n. 747, 1901) states that this was a sport obtained about i860 from a plant of the Lilas Sauge" [= 5. chinensis f. Saugeana] which had come from the Simon-Louis nurseries at Plantieres-les-Metz and been planted in the Place de l'Esplanade at Metz. The plant on which the sport occurred still existed at the date of Henry's article of 1894 and he writes that it was growing only a few feet from the statue of Ney, "le brave Lorrain." Henry describes the flowers as follows: "F[l]eurs rose lilace* frais; inflorescences bien fournies et legeres"; and again, "II ne differe du type que par sa couleur, d'un rose lilace* frais; avec gorge bleuatre. Cette forme est d'une grande beaute." E. Lemoine (Rev. Hort. 1900, 373; Jour. Hort. Soc. London, xxrv. 302, fig. 116, 1900) who calls this form the Lilas Varin de Metz (S. dubia rothomagensis metensis) also states that it was found as a sport on S. chinensis f . Saugeana which he calls the Lilas Saug6. Simon-Louis evidently differed from both L. Henry and E. Lemoine as to the name of the plant on which the sport occurred. Mouillefert (Traits Arb. Arbris. n. 999, 1892-1898), who considered S. chinensis to be a variety of the Persian Lilac and called it S. P[ersicd\ Rothomagensis mentions this form as a sub-variety, calling it the L[ilas] V[arin] de Metz; 5. metensis Hort. Henry states, in his article of 1901 already quoted, that at the Museum of Natural History, Paris, he has noticed upon this form a return to type both in 1896 and in 1897, and he says that the same reversion has been seen by the Messrs. Jouin on plants growing in the Simon-Louis nurseries. Pale Chinese has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (487, 1923). Syringa chinensis f. Saugeana (Loudon) Hort. according to Dieck, Haupt-Cat. Zoschen, 77 (1885), as S- chinensis Saugeana. — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 756 (1927), as a variety. — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922), as a variety. 422 THE LILAC S\yringa] r[othomagensis] 3. saugeana Hort. according to Loudon, Arb. Brit. 11. 121 2 (1838). — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 562 (1875). Syringa coccinea Loddiges, Cat. 1836, 66, name only. — Loudon, Arb. Brit. 11. 1212 (1838), as a possible synonym. Syringa chinensis rubra Loddiges, Cat. 1836, 67, name only. — Loudon, Arb. Brit. II. 1212 (1838), as a synonym. — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xiv. 206 (1899), misprinted alba. — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 415 (1903), as a form. — Schneider in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 360 (1913). — Bean, Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, 11. 566 (1914), as a form. — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. 1-11. 90 (1920), as a form. — Mottet, Arb. Arbust. Orn. 338, fig. 146 (1925). Syringa Sanger Baumann, Cat. 1846, 15. Syringa saugeanea A. Leroy, Cat. Suppl. 1850, 9. — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 494 (1864), as 5. Saugeana, as a synonym. Syringa rothomagensis saugeana rubra A. Leroy, Cat. 1851, 48. — L. Leroy, Cat. 1858— 1859, 94, name only. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 141 (1880). Syringa rothomagensis sanguinea rubra A. Leroy, Cat. 1856, 85. — Dauvesse, Cat. no. 24, 42 (1859). Syringa Marlyi Dauvesse, Cat. no. 24, 42 (1859), with synonym Varin Sanger. Syringa Rothomagensis Sanguinea Dauvesse, Cat. no. 24, 42 (1859), name only. S[yringa\ r[othomagensis] 4. rubra Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 494 (1864). S[yringa] chinensis var. Sougeana [sic] (rubra) Jager, Ziergeholze, 529 (1865). Syringa persica Saugeana Van Houtte, Cat. no. 152-AA, 27 (1873-1874), name only. S[yringa] dubia var. sanguinea Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 168 (1877), name only. S[yringa] sinensis ruberrima Froebel, Cat. no. 90, 78 (1880). Syringa dubia rubra Lodd[iges] according to Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 114 (1889), as a form. — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 653 (1896). Syringa dubia Saugesna [sic] Hort. according to Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 114 (1889), as a form. Lilas (Syringa) Sangeana [sic] rubra Catalogo Jeneral . . . del Criadero de Arboles de "Santa Ines" (Nos.) Chile, no. v. afio xxiv. [= 191 2], 356. Differs from the type merely in the color of its flowers which are in bud Deep Hellebore Red to Eupatorium Purple to Tourmaline Pink (xxxviii.); when expanded Laelia Pink tinged with Tourmaline Pink without, Eupatorium Purple (xxxvtii.) within, a solid color. (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant in the Arnold Arboretum, received from Spath, November, 1910; no. 12,081 Arn. Arb.). See Plates cxxxiv., cxxxv., cxxxvi. Without giving it a specific name "Le Bon Jardinier" (1830, p. xc.) in its "Revue Horticole", signed by J. Vallner, first mentions and describes this form in an article entitled "Note sur le Lilas Sauge" (Lilas Saugeiana Hort.)" [L. Henry (Rev. Hort. 1901, 94) cites this article as appearing in "Le Bon Jardinier" of 1829, July, no. 2, p. 81; I have been unable to find such a reference.]: "En 1809, M. Sauge, fleuriste rue de la Sante, no. 13, a Paris, a sem6 des graines de Lilas de Marly, et il a remarque, dans le [sic] plante qui en etait provenu, un individu assez sem- blable a un Lilas Varin. M. Sauge a donne des soins particuliers a cet individu qui, SYRINGA CHINENSIS 423 aii bout de trois ans, a produit des fleurs rouges plus belles, plus nombreuses et portees sur des thyrses encore plus allonges que ceux du Lilas Varin. On sent bien que M. Sauge a de suite concu des esperances sur la vente de ce nouveau lilas et qu'il l'a multiplie de couchage et de greffe pendant plusieurs annees avant d'en parler a. personne. Ce ne fut en effet qu'en 1822 qu'il a commence a en porter au marche aux fleurs. Ses amis et ses confreres furent aussi etonnes de l'apparition de ce nouveau lilas, qu'enchantes de sa beaute, et ils resolurent a l'unanimite de l'appeler Lilas Sauge, nom sous lequel il est connu depuis cette epoque en France et a l'6tranger." E. Lemoine (Rev. Hort. 1900, 373; Jour. Hort. Soc. London, xxrv. 300, 1900) states that Sauge was a son-in-law of Varin, with whom the type S. chinensis is first known to have originated. Poiteau (Ann. Soc. Hort. Paris, vi. 294, 1830) tells of a visit which he paid to Sauge" when his Lilac was in flower and says that the producer is able to distribute the plant "par milliers aux amateurs"; "Nous reconnumes en eflet qu'il est bien sup6rieure au Lilas Varin par la beaute" de ses fleurs qui sont d'un rouge tres vif, plus nombreuses et peut-etre un peu plus grandes." He adds, "le Lilas Sauge produit des fleurs encores plus rouges greffe sur le Lilas de Marly qu'etant franc de pied; avis aux physiologists." Loudon writes of this form which he mentions as having been described in "Le Bon Jardinier": "... There are plants in the arboretum of Messrs. Loddiges. It is probably identical with the variety mentioned in the Gard[ener's] Mag[azine], vii. p. 370, [183 1] of which there are plants in the Grosvenor Nursery, King's Road, cultivated by Mr. Dennis. S. coccinea and S. chinensis rubra Lodd. Cat. ed. 1836, appears to be identical with this variety, or very slightly different; but the plants are too small to have yet produced flowers." J. D. writing in "The Gardener's Magazine" referred to by Loudon, asks information in regard to some Lilac plants which he has been unable to identify and which he says are growing in the botanic garden at Bury St. Edmunds; they were bought by the "spirited" superintendent, Mr. N. S. Hodson, from a "French itinerant vender of shrubs, bulbs, seeds and also of what he termed vivacious plants." There were in all six plants budded on stock of the Common Lilac at eighteen inches above the ground; "when the plants flowered, three of the six proved the Siberian lilac; but the remaining three showed themselves of a kind which, though more like the Siberian than like the common or the Persian, is obviously distinct from, and quite superior to, the Siberian." That the name Siberian is here used for S. chinensis seems probable. Dippel keeps distinct Syringa dubia Saugesna and rubra. Kirchner con- siders them to be the same, as do Hartwig and Riimpler, Rehder, and others; and since 1899 they appear generally to have been so classified. Mouillefert (Traite Arb. Arbris. 11. 998, 1 892-1 898), who considered S. chinensis to be a variety of the Persian Lilac and called it S. P[ersica] Rothomagensis, mentions as subvarieties the L[ilas] V[arin] Sauge, 5. saugeana, and also the L[ilas] V[arin] sanguin, the flower 424 THE LILAC of which he describes as "tres rouge." The latter is not mentioned elsewhere and is probably a confusion with the form Saugeana, although Mouillefert keeps them distinct. Van Houtte wrongly classifies the form as a variety of the Persian Lilac. Decaisne in his monograph (Nouv. Arch. Mus. Paris, s£r. 2, n. 42, 1879) gives Lilas Sauge" as a French common name for S. chinensis, but the form is generally recognized as distinct from the type. E. Lemoine (Rev. Hort. 1900, 373; Jour. Hort. Soc. London, xxiv. 300, 1900) believes that this form which he calls the Lilas Sauge" (S. dubia Saugeana) is only an accidental variation from what he calls S. dubia, the type. L. Henry writes (Rev. Hort. 1901, 258) that at the Museum of Natural History, Paris, on May 13, 1900, a dimorphism was observed on the Lilas Varin which was similar in appearance to the Lilas Sauge. Carriere (Rev. Hort. 1876, 413, fig. 95) mentions a white sport which appeared on a plant of Syringa Saugeana. He tells (Rev. Hort. 1879, 83) of collecting fruit from this form and says that it is the first which he has seen. Henry who calls this Lilac the Lilas Sauge" or Lilas Sauget, without botanical name, has also described it and given an account of its origin (Jardin, vm. 225, 248, 1894; Jour. Soc. Hort. France, s6r. 4, 11. 744, 747, 1901). There appears to be no doubt that the forms Saugeana and rubra are the same. In "Standardized Plant Names" (487, 1923) the two are kept distinct, — Saugeana, with approved common name of Purple Chinese, and rubra, with approved common name of Red Chinese. According to the generally accepted classification one of these names should be dropped. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 25, 1883) mentions S. rothomagensis Renault, hort., a. Saugeana hort., as cultivated at Riga according to Wagner's catalogue and at Dorpat in the Botanic Garden. In French nursery catalogues this form appears in a number of ways: as Lilas Sauget (Audibert, 1831-1832, 51); as Lilas Sauget (varin rouge) (Oudin, 1839-1840, 1); as S. chinensis saugeana, Lilas sauget (Oudin, 1841, 22); as Lilas Varin a fleurs rouges (Sauger) (Oudin, 1845-1846, 6); as Syringa Rothomagensis Saugeana (Oudin, 1846-1847, 1 7). Some other catalogue references may be found in the bibliography of this form. In the United States it has been found in the catalogue of Prince's nursery for 1839 (p. 49), as S. saugeiana or New French Lilac. One curious version of the name appears in the catalogue of the Swiss nurseryman Froebel (no. 90, 78, 1880) as S. sinensis ruberrima, L. Sauget. Rousselon (Ann. Fl. Pomone, vm. 85, 1840) mentions the "Lilas Sauge\ syringa saugeana Hort." as much used in forcing: "Autrefois c'£tait le lilas de Perse que Ton chauffait, mais le Varin [= S. chinensis] l'a d'abord remplace" et aujourd'hui c'est presque exclusivement le lilas Sauge" auquel on donne la preference pour cette culture artificielle, parce qu'il r£ussit mieux et forme d'elegantes petits arbustes qui fleurissent abondamment. Ces deux dernier lilas sont forc6es pour fourni des fleurs sur pied en pots, aussi les soins qu'on leur donne ne sont SYRINGA CHINENSIS 425 pas semblables a, ceux que Ton applique au lilas de Marly [= S. vulgaris var. purpurea]." A form which is not noted elsewhere and which may be considered to have been a subform of S. chinensis f. Saugeana is described by L. Henry (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, n. 747, 1901) under the name L[ilas] Sauge" semi-double. It was found at the Museum of Natural History, Paris, in 1889: "C'est une variation du type remarquee par nous sur un pied deja vieux; un rameaux c'est trouve dormer des fleurs semi-doubles; nous l'avons detache" et multiplied Les fleurs qui mesurent jusqu'a 30 millimetres de diametre, presentent, chez un certain nombre, deux rangs de divisions superposees, contournees et 6bourifIees." This is chiefly inter- esting as a record of a double form occurring as a sport. A number of other garden forms of S. chinensis have appeared. For convenience they are arranged alphabetically. They are: La Lorraine Lemoine. Syringa Varina (Lilas Varin) La Lorraine Lemoine, Cat. no. 143, x. (1899). Syringa rothomagensis La Lorraine Simon-Louis, Cat. 1900-1901, 67. Syringa La Lorraine Barbier, Cat. (English edition), 1901-1902, 103. Syringa chinensis La Lorraine Bean, Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, n. 566 (1914), as a form. Introduced in 1899 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. Since, as noted by Lemoine, this is of the same origin as S. chinensis f. duplex, it was evidently produced by artificial hybridization of S. persica var. laciniata with pollen from a double-flowered form of the Common Lilac. Lemoine's original description reads: "Cette nouveaute a la meme origine que le Lilas varin semi-double [-S. chinensis f. duplex], mais lui est bien superieure sous tous les rapports. D'une vigueur beaucoup plus grande, elle est aussi bien plus florif&re. Ses longs thyrses sont mieux garnis, les fleurs individuelles, a lobes plus larges et plus longs sont toutes pleines, et constitutes par 3 corolles emboitees et imbriquees; la couleur est d'un ton plus purpurin et plus brillant que la variete duplex." Le Progres Lemoine. Syringa Varina le progres Lemoine, Cat. no. 155, 29 (1903). Introduced in 1903 by the firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France, and one of their productions. The original description in Lemoine's catalogue reads: "Fleurs bien rondes, semi- doubles, couleur lilace bleuatre fonce a revers plus clairs, lobes des fleurs tr£s concaves, couleur n'existant pas dans les Lilas Varins." This form is mentioned in "Standardized Plant Names" (486, 487, 1923) without indication of its hybrid origin. The paragraph prefacing the list in which it appears is misleading and would indicate that it was a form of S. vulgaris. Progress has been adopted as approved common name by this work. 426 THE LILAC Mrae. Jeanne Cornu L. Henry. Lilas Madame Jeanne Cornu (S. dubia rosea) L. Henry in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 748 (1901). S[yringa\ dubia rosea L. Henry in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 748 (1901), as a synonym. Syringa rothomagensis Madame Jeanne Cornu Chenault, Cat. 1912-1913, 19. — Simon- Louis, Cat. "Enumeration des arbres et arbustes" [undated and unnumbered], 18. The Chenault catalogue, English edition, describes this as "Pale violet", with single flowers and notes that it has large panicles and is very floriferous. Henry's description reads: "C'est un des plus beaux, sinon le plus beau, du groupe des S. dubia. La fleur en est exceptionnellement grande (diametre du limbe: 20 milli- metres et au dela; longueur du tube: 13 a. 14 millimetres); le bouton, rose lilace argente s'ouvre en rose purpurin tres frais; a complet epanouissement, la fleur est vieux rose, avec base des sinus argentee et gorge lilace ardoise." He states that it was grown from seed, naturally pollinized, of S. persica var. laciniata, collected at the Museum of Natural History, Paris, in 1901. The plant, still young at the date of Henry's article, showed some lobed leaves which Henry believed might dis- appear as the plant grew older. It was named for Mme. Cornu as a tribute to her husband, Maxime Cornu. Mme. Louis Henry Chenault. Syringa rothomagensis Madame Louis Henry Chenault, Cat. 191 2-1 913, 19. — Simon- Louis, Cat. "Enumeration des arbres et arbustes" [undated and unnumbered], 18. The Chenault catalogue, English edition, describes this as a new hybrid "of Syringa Varin, very floriferous and large panicles," with single flowers. In the Simon-Louis catalogue it appears as a name only. Major Hort. Syringa Rothomagensis major H[o]rt. according to Spath, Cat. no. 69, 114 (1887-1888). The Spath catalogue describes this as "Grossbl. chinesischer Fl., zum Treiben M." I have not found the form mentioned elsewhere. Possibly a confusion with the form of the Common Lilac, Major. President Hayes Lemoine. Syringa dubia president Hayes Lemoine, Cat. no. 113, 9 (1889), name only; no. 124, 25 (1893). Syringa rothomagensis President Hayes Spath, Cat. no. 121, 131 (1906-1907). Lemoine's catalogue for 1893 describes this as "Variete a. fleurs grandes, d'un violet metallique." L. Henry (Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 746, 1901) writes of this form which he calls L[ilas] Varin President Hayes: "Ne differe du Varin type que par la nuance des fleurs, dont la face superieure est violet pourpre bleuatre, avec gorge bleu metallique, et le revers un peu argente. C'est une belle forme, intermediaire comme coloris entre le L. Varin et le L. Sauge." Again (Rev. Hort. 1901, 258) he states that seedlings of S. persica var. laciniata, sown in 1894, of which he has 42 plants, are in general inter- mediate in color between the Lilas Varin [= 5. chinensis] and the Lilas Sauge SYRINGA CHINENSIS 427 [= S. chinensis f. Saugeana], many of them "reproduisant exactment la jolie variete connue dans le commerce sous le nom de L. Varin President Hayes." E. Lemoine (Rev. Hort. 1900, 373; Jour. Hort. Soc. London, xxiv. 302, rig. 117, 1900) notes that this form which he here calls Lilas Varin President Hayes was offered for sale by an American horticulturist and its origin has not been given. Lemoine's illustration shows foliage only. The name of this form is incorrectly given by "Standardized Plant Names" as President Harjes. A plant in the Arnold Arboretum was so named, and was classified when received as a form of S. vulgaris. Mr. Rehder tells me that he compiled his list of Lilacs, upon which Olmsted, Coville and Kelsey based the "Standardized Plant Names" list, in part from Arboretum records. The Arboretum plant, which was possibly grafted, is not true to name and is merely the type S. chinensis. The same work (487, 1923) mentions the form without indication of its hybrid origin. The paragraph prefacing the list in which it appears is misleading and would indicate that it was a form of S. vulgaris. Purpurea duplex L. Henry. S[yringa] dubia purpurea duplex L. Henry in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, n. 748 (1901). Under the name L[ilas] Varin double pourpre (S. dubia purpurea duplex) L. Henry describes this form as follows: "Fleurs grandes (16 millimetres de diametre; 8 a 10 milli- metres de longueur de tube), bien doubles, s'etalant regulierement, lilas pourpre." He states that this was grown from seed, naturally pollinized, of S. persica var. laciniata which was collected at the Museum of Natural History, Paris, in 1895. It first flowered in 1901. The plant, still young at the date of Henry's article, showed some lobed leaves which he believed might disappear as the plant grew older. No mention of this form is found elsewhere and it is doubtful if it was ever put on the market. SYRINGA AFGHANICA Syringa afghanica Schneider in Wien. 111. Gartenz. xxvm. 105 (1903); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 227, 229 (1911); HI. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 775 (1912). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 90, fig. 6, a (1920). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922). — K. Stares, Cerines (Syringa L.), 4, 19 (1926), reprinted from Darzkopibas, n. (1926). — G. Hegi, HI. Fl. Mittel-Eur. v. pt. 3, 1911 (1927)- Syringa persica Brandis, Forest Fl. N. W. Centr. India, 306 (1874); Indian Trees, 445 (1906), in part. — Aitchison in Jour. Linn. Soc. xvni. 10, 78 (Fl. Kuram Valley, etc., Afghan.) (1880). — C. B. Clarke in J. D. Hooker, Fl. Brit. India, hi. 604 (1882), in part. — Bean, Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, 11. 571 (1914), as to the synonym S. afghanica. A dwarf (?) shrub; branches smooth or sometimes minutely and sparingly lenticel- late; leaves on old wood fascicled, oblong-lanceolate to narrow-lanceolate, V%-iY% in. long, Vs-'/ia m- broad, on young shoots linear-lanceolate or ovate lanceolate, %-2% in. long, y%-y% in. broad, acuminate, acute, sometimes obtuse and mucronulate, base cuneate or attenuate, glabrous, subcoriaceous; midrib prominent; petiole y% in. long or less, sometimes almost lacking. Inflorescence lateral, Yl in. long, flowers fascicled; rhachis glabrous; pedicel short, Vis in. long; calyx undulate or with short acute teeth; corolla- tube slender, cylindric, Y% in. long; corolla-lobes spreading at a right angle to corolla-tube, pointed, sometimes cucullate; corolla Y% in. in diameter; anthers inserted slightly below the mouth of corolla-tube. Capsule ovoid or ovoid-oblong, smooth, Y% in. long, abruptly contracted into a long beak. Habitat: Afghanistan. When C. K. Schneider first wrote of Syringa afghanica it was in connection with the origin of 5. persica, a sterile plant, the fertile variety of which, S. persica var. laciniata, when crossed with S. vulgaris, produces the hybrid 5. chinensis. Schneider was of the opinion that S. persica was the product of cultivation; the wild type, which he calls S. afghanica, he described from specimens collected by Major J. E. T. Aitchison in Afghanistan and by Hiigel in Tibet. The Hiigel material Schneider notes as fragmentary but bearing a slight resemblance to that of Aitchison. This Hiigel specimen I have not seen. He also mentions, as possibly representing a spontaneous type, the specimen collected by Prince Henri d'Orl6ans on his trip across Tibet, made in 1890 with Bonvalot, and noted by A. Franchet (Rev. Hort. 1891, 322). Schneider believed S. persica to be, like 5. chinensis, a hybrid form, with S. vulgaris and S. afghanica as its parents. He states that he considers the supposition that these two parent plants were long cultivated side by side in the Orient to be very plausible; S. persica having originated through a 428 SYRINGA AFGHANICA 429 chance or artificial hybridization, the inconspicuous S. afghanica, which may have been difficult to cultivate, disappeared and did not reach Europe. In Schneider's opinion the fact that S. persica was always considered to be a good species was easily conceivable, for, as the result of continuous artificial propagation, the form, once fixed, remains quite constant. Schneider describes 5. afghanica as follows (it is given in translation) : "... we have to picture the wild plant as a small, gnarled and much ramified, dwarf shrub, with very finely leaved foliage (leaves 1-3 cm. long, and 0.2-1.2 cm. broad, while those of the cultivated form are 4.7 cm. long, and 1-2.5 cm- broad); also the in- florescences are small, dense, terminal, compound panicles, lengthened and com- posed of terminal and lateral panicles. . . flowers lilac; pedicel at most as long as the calyx, the latter equal to about a quarter of the corolla- tube, four- toothed; the corolla-tube averaging a centimeter long, at times at the insertion of the stamens slightly ventricose, its lobes shorter than half the tube; stamens inserted in the upper third of the tube, never immediately below the mouth, yellow; style often reaching between the anthers, with a deeply bifurcate stigma; fruit to 1.2 cm. long, long-oblong, acuminate, nearly smooth." He further notes that in S. persica the stamens are inserted, on vigorous forms, directly below the mouth of the corolla- tube, while on the typical specimens, which resemble in habit the wild species, they are more deeply inserted. In his "Handbuch" Schneider describes S. afghanica still further as: "A low, short-branched spreading shrub, only the long shoots very finely glandular when young, otherwise glabrous. Annual branchlets more or less gray, angular. Leaves fairly firm, on flowering branchlets small, linear, 1-3 cm. long, 0.2-1.3 cm. broad; on shoots up to 5 by 2 cm. but the stalk scarcely up to 5 mm., color apparently pale green. Inflorescence fascicled-paniculate, 2-4 cm. long, flowers lilac, tube about 1 cm. long, corolla-lobes about 2.5-3 mm. long, calyx longer than the pedicel, truncate, short-toothed. Fruit about 14 mm. long, acuminate.'' He adds: "This form is unfortunately only known from these specimens [he refers here only to Aitchison's collections, stating in a footnote that the Hiigel specimens from Tibet which he had cited in 1903 are still uncertain but they show longer petioled leaves, purple flowering branches and apparently abnormal inflorescence; the ma- terial is poor however; Schneider states he has not yet seen the specimen of Prince Henri d'Orleans from Tibet]. I suppose that of this form exists a spon- taneous form with pinnate leaves which is the type of persica laciniata, or the latter is a variety of afghanica originated in cultivation." Lingelsheim also based his description upon Aitchison's specimens (nos. 188, 356). He comments on Schneider's opinion as to the hybrid origin of 5. persica as follows: "S. afghanica according to Schneider, on the label, is a very distinct species, 'a spontaneous form of persica which is a hybrid plant of afghanica and vulgaris,' but S. persica is neither intermediate between the parents nor in geo- graphical distribution is S. vulgaris contiguous to S. afghanica." 430 THE LILAC With Lingelsheim, I believe that there is no foundation for Schneider's supposi- tion as to the hybrid origin of S. persica and after studying Aitchison's specimens consider that these represent a distinct species from S. persica with which they were for a considerable time confused. Dr. Gustav Hegi also notes that Schneider, wrong apparently, considers S. persica to be a hybrid cultivated since ancient times with S. vulgaris and S. afghanica, or a species closely related to the latter, as the parents. In 1874 Sir Dietrich Brandis wrote of the Persian Lilac: "Cultivated in Kashmir and at Lahore. Found (apparently wild, with entire leaves) by Dr. Stewart near Kanigorum, the chief village of Waziristan, on the eastern flank of the Suliman range, at 8000 ft. believed to be indigenous to Persia, whence it has been introduced to Europe. . ." Brandis is undoubtedly writing of the true Persian Lilac when he mentions the cultivated plant but that discovered by Dr. Stewart is presumably S. afghanica. I have not, however, seen his material. James Edward T. Aitchison was Surgeon-Major in H. M. Bengal Army. His paper "On the Flora of the Kuram Valley, etc., Afghanistan" was read before the Linnean Society, London, on February 19, 1880, and later published in that So- ciety's Journal. He determined his specimens (nos. 188, 356), collected in 1879, as S. persica Linnaeus and notes: "A very common shrub on the low and outer hills near Shalizan up to nearly 7500 feet; never quite reaches the altitude of S. Emodi. I have never seen these species growing together." When describing the "Vegetation of the flanks of the Safed Koh" he writes: "The directly southern exposure of the Safed- Koh range up to an altitude of 7500 feet is devoid of forest, and nearly bare of anything like an undergrowth. The few occasional trees which are to be found consist solely of Pistacia integerrima and P. cabulica; and forming the little scrub-like jungle, these are our companions throughout, the Daphne, Sophora, Punica, Cotoneaster, a Berberis, Berchemia, a variety at least (if not a new species) of Cotoneaster nummularia, Rhamnus persica, Rhus Cotinus, Syringa persica, Caragana brevissima, and frequently mixing with them Morina persica. On all other exposures, except that directly facing the south, or when in the vicinity of water, a luxuriant vegetation exists. . ." The character of the surroundings in which exists Aitchison's S. persica, or what is now considered to be the species S. afghanica, accounts probably in large measure for the appearance of the shrub which is obviously that of a plant growing under difficult conditions. I have seen Aitchison's type specimens in the her- barium at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and also co-type specimens in the Gray Herbarium, Cambridge, Mass. The characters, distinguishing this species from 5. persica, appear to be its short-petioled subcoriaceous leaves, resembling sometimes those of a Ligustrum, its short, compact inflorescences and the form of its fruit which, instead of being ob- long and obtusish at the apex as in S. persica (the fruit of S. persica with entire leaves is unknown to me but that of the variety laciniata is not uncommon), is SYRINGA AFGHANICA 431 ovoid or ovoid-oblong, and abruptly contracted into a long beak. The foliage shows great variation in form and in size. On my behalf in June, 1927, Mr. Schneider visited Paris and examined the speci- men collected by Prince Henri d'Orleans in 1890. He believes the plant to be identical with a specimen collected by Joseph Hers in Kansu (no. 2405). This Hers plant has been identified as 5. persica var. laciniata. The Prince Henri specimen is not, as thought possible by Schneider in 1903, identical with S. afghanica. See S. persica. W. J. Bean merely cites S. afghanica as a synonym, "the wild type," of S. persica; while Silva Tarouca and Schneider note: "der wilde Typ diirfte S. afghanica sein." More material, permitting further study, should be collected. SYRINGA BUXIFOLIA Syringa buxifolia Nakai in Tokyo Bot. Mag. xxxh. 131 (1918). Habitat: China : province of Kansu. Nakai described this species from an undated and unnumbered specimen, col- lected "in hortis Lan-chau, Kan-su," China, by G. Umemura. He notes that it is "near to S. Dielsiana [= S. microphylla], but differs from it by the small obtuse glabrous leaves which are elliptical or obovate and glabrous inflorescence." He calls it a shrub with a question and describes it as follows: branches graceful, more or less quadrangular; branches of previous year red-brown, very sparingly marked with minute lenticels; leaves fascicled on very short lateral branches, with petiole 0-6 mm. long, glabrous, slender, with blade elliptic or oblong or oblong-obovate, bright green above, pale beneath, obtuse at apex, attenuate at base, 25 mm. long, 12 mm. broad "(25:9, 22:13, 17:9, 18:10, 10:6 etc.)," very entire; inflorescence terminal, at apex of branch of previous year, panicled, rather loose, 12 mm. long, with rhachis and calyx very glabrous; pedicel 2-4 mm. long; calyx subtruncate at apex or 4-lobed; corolla appears to be lilac, with tube 9-10 mm. long, with ovate or broad-ovate spreading lobes; yellow stamens included. Nakai gives the Japanese name as "Koba-no-hashidoi." Mr. E. H. Wilson, who saw this specimen when in Tokyo in 191 9, remembers it as suggesting in general appearance of the foliage Viburnum Harryanum Rehder or Lonicera nitida Wilson. I have never seen this specimen but from its description it appears to be much like S. ajghanica Schneider except for its broader and very obtuse leaves; in S. afghanica the leaves are sometimes obtuse and mucronulate; in both species they are attenuate at the base. 432 Plate CXL SYRINGA PERSICA var. LACINIATA (Arnold Arboretum no. 1036-2) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1925. Plate CXLI SYRINGA PERSICA var. LACINIATA (Arnold Arboretum no. 40,709) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1925. Plate CXLII SYRINGA PERSICA var. LACINIATA (Arnold Arboretum no. 1036-2) Expanding buds, enlarged. May 3, 1926. Pl.\TE CXLIII SYRINGA PERSICA (Arnold Arboretum no. 40,709) Expanding buds, enlarged. May 3, 1926. Plate CXL1V < < < < u I— I en w ft <; o to o O o d o Si 2 < 5 CO JZ u o Plate CXLY Plate CXLVI ,. — s > rt rt w (X 2 o o S < S-C -o ft )-0 t^ (N < u H K- « A C w g _c 0, 5 H -■— > cj < i- o > c ,X3 « < C/3 ^ o c SYRINGA PERSICA Syringa persica Linnaeus, Sp. PI. i. 9 (1753). — Miller, Diet. Gard. ed. 8 (1768). — Weston, Bot. Univ. 1. 289 (1770). — Duroi, Harbk. Baumz. 11. 447 (1772). — Murray ^ Syst. Veg. 55 (1774). — Houttuyn, Pflanzensyst. 111. 21 (1778). — Medikus, Beytrage Gartenk. 344 (1782). — W. Aiton, Hort. Kew. 1. 15 (1789). — Baumgarten, Fl. Lips. 5 (1790); Sert. Lips. 45 (1790). — Schkuhr, Bot. Handb. 1. 8 (1791). — Gartner in Neues Mag. Bot. 1. 138 (1794). — Schmidt, Oesterr. Baumz. n. 28, t. 78 (1794). — Willdenow, Berlin. Baumz. 379 (1796); Sp. PI. 1. 48 (1797). — Marter, Verz. Oestreich. Baume, 452 (1796). — Curtis, Bot. Mag. xiv. t. 486 (1800). — Persoon, Syn. PI. 1. 9 (1805). — Gmelin, Fl. Badens. 1. 14 (1805). — Vahl, Enum. PI. 1. 38 (1805). — [De Launay] in Bon Jard. 1805, 584. — Mirbel, Hist. Nat. PI. xv. 147 (1805-1806). — F. G. Dietrich, Vollst. Lex. Gartn. Botanik, ix. 591 (1809). — Salisbury, Cat. London Bot. Gard. pt. 1. 1 (1809). — Desfontaines, Hist. Arb. Arbris. 1. 99 (1809); PI. Hort. Reg. Paris, ed. 3, 87 (1829). — Roemer and Schultes, Syst. Veg. 1. 77 (1817); Mantissa, 1. 84 (1822). — Hayne, Dendr. Fl. 2 (1822). — Sprengel, Syst. Veg. 1. 36 (1825). — Richard, Diet. Class, ix. 400 (1826). — Sweet, Hort. Brit. 272 (1827). — W. Prince, Short Treatise Hort. 122 (1828). — Stokes, Bot. Comment. 31 (1830). — A. Dietrich, Sp. PI. 1. 247 (1831). — G. Don, Gen. Syst. rv. 51 (1838). — Loudon, Arb. Brit. n. 1211, fig. 1039 (1838). — D. Dietrich, Syn. PI. 1. 38 (1839). — Spach, Hist. Nat. Veg. vm. 285 (1839). — Bosse, Vollst. Handb. Blumengartn. 111. 460 (1842). — Caron in Mel. Litt. Sci. 156 (1844). — De Candolle, Prodr. vm. 283 (1844), excluding synonym Lilac skrilis. — Pabst in Gartenflora, 1. 142 (1852). — Decaisne and Naudin, Man. Amateur Jard. in. 89, fig. 28 (1862-1866). — Willkomm, Fiihr. Reich Deutsch. Pflanz. 445 (1863); Forstl. Fl. 566 (1875); in Engler and Drude, Veg. Erde, 1. 338 (1896). — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 492 (1864). — Jager, Ziergeholze, 529 (1865). — Lindley and Moore, Treasury Bot. 11. 1117 (1866). — Schur, Enum. PI. 451 (1866). — O. Kuntze, Taschen-Fl. Leipzig, 82 (1867). — Pasquale, Cat. Orto Bot. Napoli, 100 (1867). — K. Koch in Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xh. 43 (1869); Dendr. n. pt. 1. 269 (1872). — Regel, Russ. Dendr. 207 (1870). — D. Brandis, Forest Fl. N. W. Centr. India, 306 (1874); Indian Trees, 445 (1906), in part. — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 562, fig. (1875). — Debeaux in Act. Soc. Linn. Bordeaux, xxx. 1 (Fl. Shang-hai, 43) (1875). — La- vallee, Arb. Segrez. 168 (1877). — Hemsley, Handb. Hardy Trees, 296, fig. 166 (1877). — Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1878,454; 1883, 79. — Boissier, Fl. Orient, rv. 38(1879); Suppl. 342 (1888). — Decaisne in Nouv. Arch. Mus. Paris, ser. 2, n. 42, 1. 1. B, fig., 46, 47 (1879). — Lauche, Deutsch. Dendr. 170 (1880). — Borbas in Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr. xxxi. 144 (1881); in Erdesz. Lap. 1882, 884. — Dietz in Erdesz. Lap. 1882, 221. — C. B. Clarke in Hooker, Fl. Brit. India, in. 604 (1882), in part. — Bosemann, Deutschl. Geholze Winterkl. 67 (1884). — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. in. 536 (1887). — Sargent in Garden 433 436 THE LILAC Syringa Persica Heucher, Novi Prov. Hort. Med. Acad. Vitemberg. 8 (1711). Jasminum fl[ore\ coerulo [sic] Heucher, Novi Prov. Hort. Med. Acad. Vitemberg. 8 (1711), as a synonym. Lilac; folio Ligustri Boerhaave, Index Alter PL 221 (1720). — Miller in Cat. PL 45 (1730); Gard. Diet. (1731). Syringa foliis lanceolatis integris Linnaeus, Hort. Cliff. 6 (1737) ; Hort. Upsal. 1. 6 (1748). — Royen, FL Leydens. 397 (1740). Syringa Persica seu Lilac Persarum Weinmann, Phyt. Icon. iv. 394, t. 959, fig. b (1745); Taalryck Reg. Plaat. Fig. (Dutch title page is Duidelyke Vertooning), Vin. 455, t. 959, fig. b (1748). Syringa ligustri folio Ruppius, FL Jenens. 24 (1745). Agent Lilac persarum Cornut according to Linnaeus, Hort. Upsal. 1. 6 (1748), as a syno- nym. — Not Cornuti. A small round- topped shrub 6 or rarely 10 ft. tall and of slightly greater breadth; branches slender, upright or drooping, gray-brown, lenticellate; bark when old ex- foliating in short, heavy plates; branchlets smooth, rarely lenticellate, glabrous. Winter- buds ovoid with acute apex, flower bud x/i in. long more or less, scales often loosely ap- pressed, reddish brown with occasional dark brown margins, slightly lustrous, acuminate or acute, keeled, glabrous. Leaf-scar slightly raised, crescent-shaped, inconspicuous, small; bundle-trace raised, slightly curved. Leaves lanceolate or ovate-lanceolate, occasionally lobed, zA~2Yi m- l°ng> zArxA. m- broad, acuminate, sometimes acute, base cuneate, glabrous; petiole Y^rYi in. long, glabrous. Inflorescence from lateral buds, frequently from many pairs on same branchlet, 2-4 in. long, 2-3 in. broad; rhachis glabrous, minutely lenticellate ; pedicel 3/i6 in. long or less, glabrous; calyx glabrous, with short, acute teeth; corolla-tube cylindric, slender, ]4rzA m- long; corolla-lobes spreading at a right angle to corolla- tube, pointed, cucullate; corolla Yi in. in diameter or less; color in bud Light Russet Vinaceous (xxxix.) to Rhodonite Pink to Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) ; when expanded Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink without, Eupa- torium Purple to Laelia Pink (xxxvin.) within; anthers small, Pale Greenish Yellow (v.), inserted just below mouth of corolla-tube. Fruit not produced on typical form. (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant (no. 17,358 Am. Arb.) growing in the Arnold Arboretum; plant received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Mass., in April 1907.) In the typical form known only as a cultivated plant. The type of the Persian Lilac, Syringa persica, is primarily distinguished by its entire leaves; while lobed or laciniate leaves may usually be found on the plant, they are the exceptional, rather than, as in the case of its cut-leaved variety S. persica var. laciniata, the predominating form. What is probably one of the earliest records of the existence in Europe of the Persian Lilac with entire leaves appears in 1660, when, as Jasminum persicum seu ligustrum persic, it is listed as a name only, in the catalogue of the Jardin des Plantes, Paris (Cat. Hort. Reg. Paris, 39, 1660). Corroborative evidence of its presence in this collection exists in the fact that Paul Hermann (Hort. Acad. Lugduno-Bat. 586, 1687) refers his Syringha Persica foliis integris to a plant in SYRINGA PERSICA 437 the "Cat. Hort. Reg. Paris, 105," a citation which I have been unable to verify; his abbreviation is explained as "Hortus Regius, Parisiis," merely. What may be another early record of the plant is found, again as a name only, in Pierre Morin's "Remarques necessaires pour la Culture des Fleurs" published in 1665, where the author cites a Lilac Persica in a classification of plants having "Fleurs de meilleurs odeurs." In 1672 Abraham Munting is the first to differentiate the Persian Lilac which he calls Jasminum Persicum foliis integris from its cut-leaved variety which he calls Jasminum Persicum foliis dissectis. Not therefore till some fifty years after Bauhin (Prodr. 158, 1620) had written of the introduction of the Persian Lilac with laciniate leaves which he calls Ligustrum foliis laciniatis do we find the type 5. persica clearly distinguished. James Sutherland, in 1683, also classifies the two plants according to their foliage; for his Jasminum Persicum foliis non laciniatis he cites no previous authority. Paul Hermann mentions among the synonyms of his Syringha Persica foliis integris, the Agem Lilag Persarum, folio integro Corn[ut]. This is the beginning of an error which is persisted in by succeeding writers, for Cornuti makes no men- tion of the entire-leaved Persian Lilac, although he does state that on his plant the foliage is both entire and laciniate, — which is always the case, so far as I have been able to learn, on mature plants of S. persica var. laciniata. Ray (Hist. PL 11. Bk. xxxi. 1763, 1688) writes of the cut-leaved plant: "Variat foliis integris, unde A gem Lilag Persarum folio integro Cornut. . ." Commelin, Boerhaave, Plukenet, and Munting in 1702, repeat the error; Linnaeus (Hort. Upsal. 1. 6, 1748) refers his plant Syringa foliis lanceolatis integris to the Agem Lilac persarum of Cornut (p. 190), and his Syringa foliis lanceolatis integris laciniatisque to the Agem lilac persarum, inciso folio Cornut (p. 188), thereby applying a part of Cornuti's entire name, — Agem Lilag Persarum sive Lilac inciso folio, — to the plant with entire leaves and continuing the error in another form. The English botanist Leonard Plukenet gives an excellent figure of his Syringa Babylonica indivisis densiorib[us]; foliis confertis & minus acutis and from this we are able to identify it with certainty as S. persica despite the fact that he also describes the species under the name Syringa Persica foliis indivisis, flare majore pallide caeruleo; he states that he has seen the plant under the name Ligus- trum Orientate in herbariums at Padua: "sub Ligustri Orien talis titulo in hortis Patavinis siccis haud semel observavimus." The name Ligustrum Orientate had been given to the plant which we now call S. vulgaris by Cesalpinus (De Plantis, Bk. in. Chap, xliii. 120; Bk. rv. Chap. x. 153, 1583). The French botanist Joseph Pitton de Tournefort in 1 700 compares the foliage to that of the Privet or Ligustrum when he adopts the name Lilac Ligustri folio; certain succeeding writers retain his name in the form Lilac; folio Ligustri and, as noted elsewhere, the resemblance is also recorded in various vernacular names for the plant. 438 THE LILAC Munting in his "Phytographia curiosa," published in 1702, gives an excellent engraving of S. persica which he calls Jasminum Pallidocaeruleum Persicum lati- folium; he gives as a synonym the Ligustrum Myrtifolium of Bauhin's "Pinax." This is an error since Bauhin is there clearly writing of the Privet. H. B. Ruppius, in 1745, also wrongly gives this plant of Bauhin's as a synonym of his Syringa ligustri folio. J. H. Heucher (Novi Prov. Hort. Med. Acad. Vitemberg. 8, 1711) notes that the synonyms Jasminum Persicum, Jasminum fl[ore] coerulo [sic], and Ligustrum foliis laciniatis, are wrongly used for the Persian Lilac. Ligustrum foliis laciniatis Bauhin is here included among the pre-Linnean synonyms of S. persica var. laciniata. In 1755 Duhamel de Monceau (Traite Arb. Arbust. 1. 362, 1755) still retains Tournefort's name of Lilac Ligustri folio, as does Philip Miller (Fig. Beautif. PI. 11. 109, t. cliv. fig. 1, 1760) who gives the first colored figure of S. persica. Beginning with Linnaeus (Sp. PL 1. 9, 1753) numerous writers include both the entire and the cut-leaved Persian Lilacs in the species S. persica; as the type of this species Linnaeus cites the entire-leaved plant which he calls S. persica a and describes as Syringa foliis lanceolatis integris; as does Lamarck (Encycl. Meth. Bot. in. 513, 1 791) although he uses the generic name Lilac, — calling it Lilac persica a. Vahl, Roemer and Schultes, A. Dietrich, De Candolle, Nicholson and others call their type S. persica a integrifolia. The S. persica var. typica of Schneider (111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 775, 191 1) includes only the Persian Lilac with entire leaves while that of Lingelsheim (Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. i-n. 90, 1920) comprises both that and the cut-leaved variety. The latter, in note 1, page 92, of the same work, states that S. persica, variety or form, laciniata, should not be considered a garden form: "S. persica var. vel forma laciniata auctor. (cf. Loddiges, Bot. Cab. [1862] t. 1107) nullo modo pro forma hortensi habenda est." Schneider in 1903 (Wien. 111. Gartenz. xxvin. 100, 1903; Dendr. Winterstudien, 226, footnote, 1903) states that he considers S. persica to be a hybrid and in 191 1 (111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 775, 191 1) names the parents as S. vulgaris and S. afghanica. Since S. afghanica is a wild species, from Afghanistan as the name implies, and is not known to be in cultivation, and since the home of S. vulgaris is in the mountains of southeastern Europe, the occurrence of such a hybrid either spontaneously or by artificial means was unlikely; moreover S. persica, in its cut-leaved variety, is now known to grow wild in Kansu, China, a spot far removed from the homes of both parent plants named by Schneider. Moench (Meth. PL 431, 1791) cites as type of his Lilac minor the S. persica of Linnaeus, as does R. A. Salisbury (Prodr. Stirp. 14, 1796) for his Syringa Angustifolia. As synonyms of the Lilac Persica Ligustrina which Mirbel (Nouv. Duhamel, 11. 207, 1804) mentions as the first variety of his Lilac persica, he cites the Syringa caerulea (Bleu [sic] Persian Lilac) and the Syringa alba (Withe [sic] Persian Lilac) of William Aiton (Hort. Kew. 1. 15, 1789). Aiton's varieties appear SYRINGA PERSICA 439 as Syringa persica a caerulea (Blue Persian Lilac) and Syringa persica /3 alba (White Persian Lilac) and he is therefore not correctly quoted. The Lilac sterilis of Lavy (Etat. Gen. Veg. 12, 1830) which is mentioned by De Candolle as a synonym of S. persica a integrifolia is here given as a synonym of S. vulgaris and for reasons noted under that species. Spach (Hist. Nat. Veg. vni. 283, 1839) in writing of the hybrid 5. chinensis includes as a synonym the Lilac persico-ligustrina [= Lilac Persica Ligustrina] of Mirbel (Nouv. Duhamel, n. 207, t. 62 [labelled Lilac persica], 1804). This is clearly an error for Mirbel is without question referring to the Persian Lilac when he writes: "Cette variete" [Lilac Persica Ligustrina] nomm6e vulgairement Jasmin de Perse, a les feuilles entieres en fer de lance et absolument semblables a celles de notre Troene. Elles se subdivisent en deux autres varices; Tune a fleurs bleues, et l'autre a fleurs presque blanches." The S. persica Ligustrumifolia of Dauvesse (Cat. no. 24, 42, 1859) also records the resemblance of the foliage of the Persian Lilac to that of the Ligustrum, called in the French Troene. The Comte de Jaubert (Invent. Cult. Trianon, 25, 1876) considers the Persian to be merely a variety of the Common Lilac and calls it S. vulgaris var. persica. For the synonym Syringa lilac cited with a question by Thellung in the Bulletin of the "Herbier Boissier," see S. vulgaris. Color descriptions are difficult of interpretation and as a rule are of little help for purposes of identification; the statement attributed to Whistler that "mauve is just pink trying to be purple" frequently comes to mind when one attempts to determine precisely what color the author of a description had in mind, — the adjectives blue, lavender, lilac, purple and others being capable of various inter- pretations according to the proportion of blue or of red pigment that is understood to be present. In tone the color of the Persian Lilac is pale, or at darkest, inter- mediate between dark and pale. The plant in the Arnold Arboretum and indeed all plants of S. persica which have been observed by me, have flowers which, generally speaking, are pinkish rather than bluish in color. Duhamel de Monceau (Trait6 Arb. Arbust. 1. 362, 1755) writes of the color of the Persian Lilac which he calls Lilac Ligustri folio: "Les uns, dont les feuilles sont entieres comme celles du Troene, ont les fleurs blanches [=S. persica var. alba] ou tirant un peu sur le rouge" and he differentiates as bluer the color of the cut- leaved variety which he calls Lilac laciniato folio: "La fleur de cette espece tire plus sur le bleu que celle de l'espece prec6dente." Schmidt (Oesterr. Baumz. n. 28, t. 78, 1794) makes the same distinction and in his colored plates it is clearly apparent. He describes the flowers of S. persica var. laciniata, figured in t. 79 under the name Syringa pers[ica] fol[iis] laciniatis, as "Kleinere, mehr in das Blaue fallende." The colored plate of the Lilac persica given by Mirbel (Nouv. Duhamel, n. 207, t. 62, 1804) also shows flowers which are decidedly pink rather than blue in color. Medikus (Beytrage Gartenk. 344, 1782) notes of the flowers: "aber von Farbe ausnehmend schon lila oder erhabener Fleischfarbe ist." In the work com- monly called "Suite Buffon" (Hist. Nat. PI. xv. 147, 148, 1805-1806) Mirbel states 440 THE LILAC that the flowers of S. persica are "d'un rose pale." Other authors who describe the flowers of the type as pinkish are Decaisne and Naudin (Man. Amateur Jard. ni. 89, 1862-1866) who write: "La couleur des fleurs est le rose carmin de diff6rents tons, quelquefois le blanc, suivant les varietes," — the white variety of the Persian Lilac is included in the description. K. Koch (Dendr. n. pt. 1. 269, 1872) also, "Ihre Bliithen. . . haben aber eine schone fleisch-oder rosenrothe Farbe"; this description is virtually copied by Hartwig and Riimpler (Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 562, 1875): "Bliithen rosenroth oder fleischroth." Hemsley (Handb. Hardy Trees, 296, 1877) writes: "The flowers vary in colour from rosy carmine to white." L. Henry (Jardin, vin. 200, 1894) who shows more interest than anyone else in deter- mining the precise color of the flowers of the type goes into the matter in some detail: "Quel est le coloris des Lilas de Perse type? Les auteurs ne sont pas d'accord sur ce point; les uns le disent blanc ou lilas bleuatre; les autres d'un pourpre pale; d'autres encore, rose carmine. II existe une forme a fleurs roses, une autre a fleurs blanches, et une troisieme a fleurs bleuatres. Celle-ci est a feuilles laciniees et il est difficile de la considerer comme le type de l'espece. La forme rose est le mieux caracterisee ; jusqu'a preuve du contraire, nous l'admettons comme typique." Again (Jour. Hort. Soc. France, s6r. 4, 11. 741, 1901) Henry writes: "Le type du Lilas de Perse parait etre la forme a, fleurs roses et a feuilles entieres ou accidentelle- ment lobees." He calls his pink type the variety S. persica rosea and describes it thus: "Ce Lilas, assez rare dans les jardins et meme dans les collections, se distingue par sa taille peu elevee (1 m. 50 a 2 metres), ses rameaux tres greles, ses feuilles tres etroites, ses fleurs tres fines, d'un coloris rose hortensia tres frais et tres special, avec gorge bleut£e et revers argent6; ce coloris, d'un ton fort rare et meme unique dans la serie des Lilas, est d'un effet ravissant." I agree with Henry that the flowers of S. persica, the type of the species, are pinkish, and that those of the variety with laciniate leaves are ordinarily bluish; in fact I have never seen the entire-leaved Persian Lilac, except in its white variety producing flowers which varied from this color; I have on the other hand seen one plant (no. 1036-2 Arn. Arb.) of 5. persica var. laciniata with flowers which in color were pinkish like those of the type, rather than, as commonly, bluish. See S. persica var. laciniata. But all authors have not been in accord on the matter. The first colored plate which we have of 5. persica is that of Philip Miller (Fig. Beautif. PI. 11. 109, t. CLxrv. fig. 1, 1760) and there the flowers of his Lilac Ligustri folio are bluish while those of his figure 2, — Lilac laciniato folio, — are pinkish. Weston calls his S. persica 3. caerulea the Blue Persian Lilac as do W. Aiton and W. T. Aiton in the two editions of the "Hortus Kewensis"; Curtis (Bot. Mag. xiv. t. 486, 1800) calls the flowers "blue" despite the fact that they are pinkish rather than bluish in his illustration; Prince (Short Treatise Hort. 122, 1828) refers to the color as "purple"; Bosse (Handb. Blumengartn. m. 460, 1842), including the white variety, says they are "hellroth, lillafarbig oder weiss"; De Candolle (Prodr. vin. 283, 1838) also, "Cor. in utraque varietate infra citata aut coeruleo-lilacinae aut albae"; SYRINGA PERSICA 441 Kirchner (Arb. Muscav. 492, 1864) notes the color as "hell-violett" ; Lauche (Deutsch. Dendr. 170, 1880) as "blaulila oder weiss"; Nicholson (111. Diet. Gard. m. 536, 1887) as "Bluish-purple or white;" Dippel (Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 114, 1889) as "Hell-lila, im Schlunde blauviolett," which description Hartwig (111. Geholzb. 379, 1892) exactly copies. The foregoing descriptions are all brief and carry little weight as far as determining the precise color is concerned, since with different persons the adjectives blue, lilac, etc. are open to an interpretation suffi- ciently varied to cover the distinction between the pink of the Persian Lilac and the blue of its cut-leaved variety. The S. persica a lilacina of Sweet (Hort. Brit. 272, 1827) which he calls merely the Pale-flowered Persian Lilac is here considered to be a synonym of S. persica; as is also the 5. persica a. purpurascens of Stokes (Bot. Comment. 32, 1830) for as type of his plant the author cites the S. persica of the "Botanical Magazine" (xrv. t. 486, 1800). W. J. Bean (Garden, Lin. 276, 1898) tells us that the Persian Lilac "has long been cultivated in the country to which it owes its name — since the year 1200, say some authorities." The references for this statement are not given, but K. Koch (Dendr. 11. pt. 1. 269, 1872) had written, "Wild ist er bis jetzt weder in und bei Damaskus, noch sonst in Syrien, beobachtet worden, er wurde sogar erst um das Jahr 1200 daselbst bekannt. Das Wort Lilac kommt wenigstens in arabischen Schriften nicht fruher vor. Es stammt aus dem Persischen, wo es Lilah heisst." That this species was native to Persia was rarely questioned by the early writers; yet even in 1794 Franz Schmidt (Oesterr. Baumz. II. 28, 1794) came extraor- dinarily close to what we now believe to be the truth of its origin when he wrote : "... vielleicht auch aus China iiber Persien nach Constantinopel gebrachten Blumenstrauch um ein Jahrhundert spater als [S. vulgaris] . . . ;" and A. Dietrich (Sp. PI. 1. 248, 1831) indicated that he considered the matter uncertain when he wrote: "Habitat in Persia?" Decaisne (Bull. Soc. Bot. France, vn. 27, i860) wrote to Alexander von Bunge in November, 1857, asking him when visiting western Asia to try and find out the origin of the "Lilas de Perse"; later (Bull. Soc. Bot. France, xx. 236, 1873) he tells us that he has been informed by Bunge that he only saw it as a cultivated plant in Persia and by Boissier that he has no wild specimen; Decaisne considers its native country to be unknown. K. Koch (1. c.) does not believe it to be wild in Persia: "Aber auch im Persien ist, so viel mir wenigstens bekannt ist, weder Syringa vulgaris, noch S. persica, wild beobachtet worden. . ." Bean (Garden, 1. c.) also states: "It has never been found truly wild in Persia." Nicholson, however, in 1887 still mentions Persia as its home, as does Voss in 1896, but proof is lacking of its existence there except as a garden plant. From time to time it has been reported as growing spontaneously in other local- ities. In 1879 Major J. E. T. Aitchison, collecting in the Kurrum Valley in Afghan- istan, found a Lilac growing on the "low and outer hills near Shalizan up to nearly 442 THE LILAC 7500 feet." This plant was identified (Jour. Linn. Soc. xviii. 78, 1881) as S. persica and the classification generally accepted until Camillo Schneider (Wien. 111. Gart.-Zeit. xxviii. 105, 1903) determined it as a new species, — S. afghanica. As already noted Schneider considered S. persica to be a hybrid of this S. afghanica and the Common Lilac. There is no doubt that Aitchison's plant is a distinct species and the characters which distinguish it from the Persian Lilac are noted in detail elsewhere but chief among these are its subcoriaceous, fascicled leaves, its shorter and denser flower clusters and its ovoid or ovoid-oblong fruit. Bean (Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, 11. 751, 1914) cites S. afghanica as a synonym and as the wild type of the Persian Lilac. Silva Tarouca and Schneider (Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 404, 1922) mention it as the wild type. Sir Dietrich Brandis (Forest Fl. N. W. Centr. India, 306, 1874) writes of another plant of S. persica which, judging from the locality, is probably the same S. afghanica: "Found (apparently wild with entire leaves) by Dr. Stewart near Kanigorum the chief village of Waziristan, on the eastern flank of the Suliman range at 8000 ft. Believed to be indigenous to Persia. . ."; and again (Indian Trees, 445, 1906) Brandis notes that it is "indigenous in Persia, Afghanistan and Waziristan, culti- vated in Kashmir and at Lahore." C. B. Clarke (Hooker, Fl. Brit. India, m. 604, 1882) mentions it as growing in "West Kashmir: alt. 8000 ft. possibly wild, frequently cultivated] in India. Distribution] Persia." Clarke cites no specimen, but here again, if wild, the plant may well have been S. afghanica, or if identical with S. persica, an escaped plant. The cultivated plants mentioned by Brandis and by Clarke are undoubtedly the true 5. persica. Lingelsheim (Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. i-n. 90, 1920) gives as examples of his S. persica var. a typica a speci- men of Schlagintweit's (no. 4595) from Kashmir in the western Himalayas, which I have not seen, and which he says is wild; he mentions also the plant from Waziris- tan noted by Brandis. As an example of S. afghanica he cites Aitchison's speci- men from Afghanistan but he does not agree with Schneider as to the pos- sibility of S. persica being of hybrid origin. The Syringa Persica alba, odorata, spontanea mentioned by the German natural- ist J. J. Lerche (App. Nov. Act. Phys. Med. v. 184, 1773) which is given here as a pre-Linnean synonym of S. persica var. alba, is said by the author to grow "in Hircania sponte et in hortis urbis Reschtsch." Hyrcania is now the Persian province of Astrabad and it was there that the Parthian kings had their summer residence (Lippincott, Gazetteer, 1883), while Resht is one of the principal cities of western Persia; it is not therefore improbable that the plant was an escape from some garden. E. Boissier (Fl. Orient, rv. 38, 1879) cites, while he also notes this reference of Lerche, the Caucasus and Daghestan as a possible home of the Persian Lilac: "Hab. incerta, in Daghestania, Caucasica (ex Lerche . . .) ex Persia absque loco (Dederian in Herb. Hort. Petrop! an sponte?)"; but he apparently is doubtful both of the plant from Daghestan and of that from Persia for which no precise SYRINGA PERSICA 443 locality is given. G. Radde (Engler and Drude, Veg. Erde, in. 92, 422, 1899) mentions the Persian Lilac as growing on a hill at "Geok-tepe," but he lists with it other cultivated plants such as the Fig, the Pomegranate and the Almond, and there is no reason to suppose that he considers it to be spontaneous; he mentions it a second time as growing in the botanic garden at Tiflis. Spach (Hist. Nat. Veg. vhi. 285, 1839) says that this species is indigenous in Persia and in Georgia [in the southern Caucasus]; Dippel (Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 114, 1889) writes: "Im ostlichen Kaukasus und zwar in der Landschaft Dagestan heimischer" but he mentions no specimen; Koehne (Deutsch. Dendr. 500, 1893) gives the range as "Kaukasus bis Afghanistan], Siebenburg[en]?." Siebenbiirgen is the German name for Transylvania and it is certain that there such a plant could only be an escape. Rehder (Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xrv. 206, 1899) wrote that it is found wild in the eastern Caucasus and in Afghanistan but he now tells me that he no longer believes this to be the case. Mr. E. H. Wilson when in London in 1922 visited the Kew, the British Museum and the Linnean Herbariums and wrote to Professor C. S. Sargent (Litt. ined., June 20, 1922) that he "found no authenicated wild specimens [of S. persica] in any of them." He states: "In the Kew Herb, are several sheets and in every instance, except the following, they are marked 'cult.' (1) A fragment in flower with entire leaves. Persia, Dederian ex Herb. Hort. Petrop. rec'd. 12/1885 [this is the specimen which Boissier had noted as doubtful since it bore no precise locality]. (2) In a cover marked 'cult.' a leafy shoot bearing entire and pinnatifid leaves. Yarhand Exped. 1872. Comm. Dr. Henderson [here again no locality is given]. (3) No. 3908 coll. and determined by J. Bornmuller (Iter Persico- turcicum 1892-93). 'Persiae austro-orient, prov. Kerman: in hortis; in montibus versus 'Bam' spontaneam esse dicunt.' " Lingelsheim makes note of this specimen in writing of his S. persica var. a typica. A sheet bearing the same number is in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum and represents the cut-leaved variety. Mr. Wilson's letter also refers to the Aitchison specimens at Kew which, as already noted, are here classified as S. afghanica and he continues: "In the British Museum Herbarium there are no localised wild specimens, and indeed, nothing to indicate that they are not all from cultivated plants. . . In the Sloane Herbarium are several specimens but none are localised and I think all are from cultivated plants. . . In the Linnean Herbarium are three sheets: — (1) A fragment of a leafy shoot bearing young and scarcely fully grown entire leaves. (2) A flowering shoot showing no leaves at all. (3) Two leafy shoots (small) with several pinnatifid and very few entire ones. No locality and indication of origin given. However, the Persian and Common Lilac were cultivated in the Academic Garden at Upsala when Linnaeus was praefect." In the herbarium of the Museum of Natural History, Paris, is a specimen collected by Bonvalot and Prince Henri d'Orleans which is marked "Thibet, dans le voisinage de Lhassa, 15 avril." A. Franchet, who, with Bureau, determined the 444 THE LILAC specimens collected by these travelers in 1890 writes (Rev. Hort. 1891, 332): "Le S. persica a 6te aussi observe en 1890, par le prince Henri d'Orleans dans le voyage qu'il a fait a travers l'Asie avec M. Bonvalot; la plante croit spontanement dans le Thibet meridional, sur les hautes montagnes qui s'etendent de Lhassa a Batang." In his book "De Paris au Tonkin a travers le Tibet inconnu" (504, 1892), Gabriel Bonvalot outlines the route over which he and Prince Henri journeyed. They left Namtso which lies northeast of Lhassa in Tibet and traveled eastward to Batang in Szechuan. On April 15, 1890, the date (p. 474) on which the specimen was collected, they spent a day at So in Tibet. This town is in the mountains, somewhat over one hundred miles northwest of Chiamdo, or Tsiamdo, and about seven hundred miles, according to Bretschneider's map, from Kingchow in Kansu, where, as noted under S. persica var. laciniata, Meyer in 191 5 found the cut- leaved variety of the Persian Lilac growing spontaneously. Many mountain ranges intervene between the two localities. On my behalf in June, 1927, Mr. C. K. Schneider visited Paris and examined this specimen collected by Prince Henri. He forwarded a sketch and the following notes (there were evidently two specimens on the sheet): "Both specimens are identical; the last [route de Lhassa a Batang, 14 mai] is rather poor. [The plant was evidently collected upon two separate occasions, on April 15, and on May 14. According to the itinerary of these travellers, on the latter date, they made the "traversed du Satchou"; this spot is not shown on their map but it was probably somewhat more than halfway between So, where the first plant was found, and Batang, or considerably further east.] It seems to me that those flowering branches belong to the same species as the fruiting specimen in Herb. Hers no. 2405, 20 Juil. 1922, Kansu, Tsingchow, which I believe is also in Herb. Am. Arb. I am by no means convinced that this plant is really identical with Syringa persica laciniata. Our S. persica typica is certainly a hybrid. [See S. afghanica]. If var. laciniata is the wild type I do not know. It is said to be spontaneous in Persia, 'in mon- tibus versus Bam.' (Bornmuller, 3908). There is also Syringa ajghanica C. S[chneider], and there may be another species in northwestern China (Kansu- Thibet). In Bonvalot's plant the young shoots and the rhachis of the inflor. are minutissima pilosa; and so are the first young leaves and the petioles. All the leaves are quite entire and show no trace of laciniation. Hers no. 2405 has old glabrous leaves rather different in their blunt shape from those of 5. persica laciniata. The fruits are rather acuminate (subito breviter acuminata) which seems not to be the case in S. persica as I know it." The specimen in the Arnold Arboretum collected by Hers (no. 2405) to which Schneider refers, shows two branches, one of which has only entire, the other both entire and laciniate leaves. Evidently the specimen of this number examined by Schneider showed only entire foliage. The Bonvalot specimen may have repre- sented such a branch. It appears to me to be still uncertain whether the plant SYRINGA PERSICA 445 from which Bonvalot's specimen was taken represented the entire-leaved type. Mr. Schneider has, so far as I know, never seen a plant of the cut-leaved Persian Lilac raised from seed collected from the wild plant. As noted under S. persica var. laciniata the plant growing in the Arnold Arboretum, raised from seed (S. P. I. no. 40,709; Meyer no. 2234 a) leaves no doubt that the Kansu plant is identical with the cut-leaved variety long known in cultivation. If Mr. Schneider's identi- fication of the Bonvalot plant with that of Hers is correct the specimen represents the most westerly occurrence of this species as a wild plant of which we have any record. Moreover it would mean that Meyer's discovery was antedated by twenty- five years. There still appears to be no conclusive evidence that the plant with entire leaves is known except as a garden plant. See 5. persica var. laciniata. Among cultivated specimens of the typical form in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum are the following: one from the Botanic Garden at Vienna showing winter buds (ex herb. C. K. Schneider); one (no. 2205) of flowers collected by A. Rehder at the Botanic Garden, Gottingen; and another, also of flowers, collected by H. Zabel at Buddenhagen, district of Greifswald. Back and forth over the old trade routes from China to Persia and to countries further west were carried various plants; to China from the Caspian region went the Walnut (Juglans regia Linnaeus), and from the same section or possibly from central Asia went also the Grape (Vitis vinifera Linnaeus); while in the opposite direction or from China to Babylonia went "Napoleon's Willow" (Salix babylonica Linnaeus) ; to Armenia went the Apricot (Prunus armeniaca Linnaeus) and to Persia the Peach {Prunus persica Siebold and Zuccarini). Just as in the case of the last- named plant, the cut-leaved Persian Lilac was undoubtedly brought from China to Persia. Possibly the type with entire leaves may have originated in some Persian garden as a sport or seedling of S. persica var. laciniata, or it may have been the result of the propagation of a shoot bearing entire leaves, for such are not uncommon on the cut-leaved plant. M. O. Debeaux (Florule de Shang-hai, 43, 1875) notes the Persian Lilac as cultivated at Shanghai: "On cultive aussi dans les jardins plusieurs especes arbo- rescentes, soit comme plantes d'ornement, soit a cause de l'odeur suave de leurs fleurs. J'ai remarque" entre autres les Syringa vulgaris [= S. oblata] et le S. persica.'1 Willkomm (Engler and Drude, Veg. Erde, 1. 338, 1896) in his "Aenderungen der Vegetation der iberischen Halbinsel durch Kultur und Verkehr. Kultur- und Adventivpflanzen" also mentions it as planted in the "Garten Ost- und Sudspaniens und Nord-Portugals." Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 25, 1883) mentions S. persica as "Ziemlich harter Strauch im Norden des Gebiets, aber hier noch nicht geniigend verbreitet; dagegen urn Riga haufig und vollkommen winterhart." He mentions S. persica a. integrifolia Vahl, hort. as "am haufigsten." 446 THE LILAC The Persian Lilac appears as follows in French nursery catalogues of early date: as S. persica or Lilas de Perse (Audibert, 1817, 23; 1831-1832, 51; Baumann, 1838- 1839, 8; Oudin, 1841, 22; A. Leroy, 1868, 99); as 5. Persica a. Lanceolata = S. ligustrina = Lilas a feuilles de Troene (Audibert, 181 7, 23); as S. persica integri- folia, Lilas de Perse a feuilles de Troene (Audibert 1831-1832, 51; Oudin, 1841, 22; Sen6clauze, 1846-1847, 11; Dauvesse, no. 23, 31, 1858); as Lilas de Perse (Oudin, 1839-1840, 1; as Lilas de Perse a feuilles entieres (Oudin, 184 5-1846, 6); as L[ilas] de Perse a feuilles de Troene (Dauvesse, no. 20, 24, 1855) ; as S. Persica Ligustrumi- folia (Dauvesse, no. 24, 42, 1859). Early English catalogues list it as follows: as The Privet-leav'd Lilac, Persian Jasmine with purple flowers (Burchell, 1764, 20); as S. [no.] 7, Blue Persian Lilac (Shiells, 1773, 12); as S. Persica, Blue Persian Lilac (Mackie, 1812, 54; Backhouse, 1816, 46; Miller (Bristol Nursery), 1826, 14; Fulham Nursery, [cir. 1817], 26; Loddiges, 1820, 39; 1823, 35; 1826, 59; 1836, 66; Colvill, 1821, 30). Peter Collinson grew the Persian Lilac and also its white and cut-leaved varieties (Hort. Collinson. 1843)- In the catalogue of Wiegers (1809, 119) of Malines, Belgium, it appears as Syringa Persica flore caeruleo. In catalogues of the United States we find it: as S. persica, Persian Lilac (Bartram's Botanic Garden, 1814, 44; Landreth, 1824, 27); as S. persica, Purple Persian Lilac (William Prince, 1823, 42; Prince, 183 1, 55; William R. Prince, 1841-1842, 40; Ellwanger and Barry, 1845-1846, 26); as S. persica purp., Per- sian purple Lilac (Winter, 1843-1844, 62); as S. persica (Parsons, 1846, 38; Hovey, 1 846-1 847, n). It is listed in nursery catalogues at the present time but is frequently confused with the hybrid S. chinensis. Together with S. chinensis and S. vulgaris the Persian Lilac was cultivated in the Elgin Botanic Garden near the city of New York, which was established in 1801 (D. Hosack, Hort. Elgin. 181 1). W. P. G. Barton (Fl. Phila. Prodr. 13, 1815) mentions it among plants collected within ten miles of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; his flora lists indigenous plants and others "either naturalised or so commonly cultivated among us, that it has been deemed expedient to introduce them into this Prodromus." It is named by W. D. Peck among the plants growing in the Botanic Garden at Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1818 (Cat. Amer. For. PI. Bot. Gard. Cambridge, Mass., 1, 1818). In discussing the introduction of the Common Lilac, S. vulgaris, to the United States, reference is made to the biography of Sir Charles Henry Frankland written by the Rev. Elias Nason. In that same biography it is stated (p. in, 1865): "the avenue formed by Persian Lilacs, now grown into noble trees. . . still remains." Frankland is said to have planted the Common Lilac about 1751, but no verification of this has been found. No trace of the Persian Lilas was to be found upon a visit in 1926 to what was once the Frankland place at Hopkinton, Massachusetts. It seems doubtful whether the Persian Lilac, even at its best, has ever assumed the form or the proportion of "noble trees." SYRINGA PERSICA 447 There is no record that the type of the Persian Lilac has been known to bear seed. Roemer and Schultes (Syst. Veg. I. 77, 1817) notes that "0[ = S. persica var. laciniata] sola fert semina, a [= S. persica a integrifolia = S. persica] sterilis est." There is a reference in "The Gardener's Monthly" (xrv. 279, 1877) signed by the editor [Meehan] which quotes a statement from one of the magazine's subscribers to the effect that a plant of the Persian Lilac in his possession has "born seed for several years"; he is probably writing of the variety laciniata but he makes no comment as to the character of the foliage. It is not unusual for the cut-leaved variety to fruit abundantly. Varin sowed seed of this variety year after year in the botanic garden at Rouen. See S. chinensis for Charles Darwin's explanation of the sterility of that hybrid and of S. persica. Its suitability for various horticultural purposes has been noted. Lamarck (Encycl. M6th. Bot. m. 513, 1791) mentions it as cultivated in Europe "dans les jardins d'agrement." He continues: "II convient de l'employer dans la composition des bosquets du printemps, en la placant relativement a sa grandeur. Comme les arbrisseaux qu'elle constitue souffrent tres-bien le ciseau, on en peut former de jolies palissades, & en tapisser les murs, prenant soin de les tailler. On peut aussi en faire de jolis buissons qui serviront a decorer les plattes-bandes des grands parterres." Dumont de Courset (Bot. Cult. 1. 710, 1802) speaks of the necessity of careful pruning: "Le lilas de Perse et sa vari£t6s [sic] a, feuilles decoupees, taillSs avec circonspection apres la fleur, en deviennent plus beaux et plus reguliers." Curtis (Bot. Mag. xrv. t. 486, 1800) notes: "As this shrub bears forcing extremely well, it is one of those principally used for decorating windows, etc. in the spring of the year." Loudon (Arb. Brit. n. 121 1, 1838) states: "It is frequently planted in pots, and forced so as to come into flower at Christmas, for the purpose of orna- menting rooms; and it is remarkable, that, though the flowers are very fragrant when they expand naturally in the open air, yet in the hot-house they are quite scentless; doubtless from the want of sufficient light to elaborate the volatile oil, which is the cause of the odour. In Paris, it is said, they retard the Persian lilacs, by placing them in a icehouse in December, and keeping them there till the Septem- ber or October following, when they will come into bloom without the aid of artificial heat about Christmas, so as to be ready for the bouquets given as presents on New Year's Day." In regard to its susceptibility to fungus it is stated in "Notes" (Garden and Forest, n. 492, 1889): "The Chinese and Persian Lilacs are as liable to the fungus as are the varieties of S. vulgaris, and, by the way, different varieties standing side by side are very unequally affected." Like other Lilac species the plant occasionally blooms at an abnormal season. Henncq (Horticulteur Francais, 1857, 237) writes of a plant of S. persica flowering on All-Saints' day, — "Toussaint." Dandridge (Garden and Forest, v. 544, 1892) writes from West Virginia on November 16, 1892 : "On my study table this morning 448 THE LILAC is a strange bouquet. It consists of white Chrysanthemums, true November blossoms, and a large spray of purple Persian Lilac. . . forced into bloom by the warm sunny days of the past month." For teratology see M. T. Masters, "Vege- table Teratology" (1869) and O. Penzig, "Pflanzen-Teratologie" (11. 144, 1894). Some of the early descriptions of the Persian Lilac are of interest. P. Miller (Gard. Diet. 1731) writes: "The Privet-leav'd Lilacs are of humbler growth than those before-mention'd [S. vulgaris and varieties], seldom rising above six or seven feet high, but are very great Ornaments in small Wilderness-Quarters of flowering Shrubs, where being intermix'd with other Shrubs of the same Growth, they afford an agreeable Prospect." Again (Gard. Diet. ed. 8, 1768) he writes: "The second sort grows naturally in Persia, but has been long cultivated in the English gardens, where it is best known among the gardeners by the title of Persian Jasmine. This is a shrub of much lower growth than the former [S. vulgaris], seldom rising more than five or six feet high. The stalks of this shrub are woody, covered with a smooth brown bark; the branches are slender, pliable, and extend wide on every side; these frequently bend downward where they are not supported ; they are garnished with narrow spear-shaped leaves placed opposite, which are about two inches and a half long, and three fourths of an inch broad, of a deep green colour, ending in acute points. The flowers are produced in large panicles at the end of the former year's shoots, in like manner as the former; they are of a pale purple colour, and have a very agreeable odour. These appear the latter end of May, soon after those of the common sort, and continue longer in beauty, but these do not perfect their seeds in England." The color notes of the flowers of S. persica, given in the botanical description, were taken from the plant (no. 17,358 Arn. Arb.) growing in the Arnold Arboretum; it was received as a plant from Holm Lea, Brookline, Massachusetts, in April, 1907, but its earlier history is unknown. It is a round-topped shrub about eight feet tall and of equal breadth, of more delicate appearance than the Common Lilac, and shows no tendency to produce suckers. The flowers are small, pale, and fragrant, and are produced in clusters about three inches long; these appear from a great number of lateral buds on the same branchlet, — frequently from as many as fifteen pairs, — and these clusters combined are so heavy that the branch which bears them droops gracefully under their weight. The plant when in bloom is one of the showiest of all the Lilac species. The foliage is small and appears somewhat late in the spring. The plant in the Arnold Arboretum is not known to have fruited. A great number of common names have been applied to S. persica Linnaeus; they are here arranged chronologically, the author's name following the date of the work in which the name appears; unless the name of the book is given in full it may be found in the bibliography of the species. 1672; Munting: welriekende Jasmyn van Persien met ongekerfde bladeren. 1683; Sutherland: The blew Persian Jasmine with uncut-leaves. 1689; Commelin: Persiaense Syringa met ongesnede bladeren (Belgian). SYRINGA PERSICA 449 1696; Munting: welriekende Jasmijn van Perzien met ongekerfde breede Bladeren en een bleekblauwe Bloem. 1702; Munting: Persiaanse Syringe met ongesnede bladeren (Belgian). 1730; Miller: Persian Lilac with Privet Leaves falsely call'd The Persian Jasmine. 1731; Miller: Lilac, with Privet Leaves falsely call'd The Persian Jasmine. 1748; Weinmann: Persiaansche Syringeboom, of het Lilac der Persianen. 1755; Duhamel de Monceau (Traite Arb. Arbust. 1. 362, 1755): Lilas de Perse a feuilles de Troene et a fieur pourpre. 1764; Burchell (Cat. 1764, 20): The Privet leav'd Lilac or Persian Jasmine with Purple flowers. 1768; Miller: Lilac with a Privet leaf, commonly called Persian Jasmine; Syringa with spear-shaped leaves; Persian Jasmine. 1770; Weston: Blue Persian Lilac; Common Persian Lilac. 1772; Duroi: Der Spanische Rainweidenblattrige Hollunder. 1778; Houttuyn: Der persische Flieder oder persische Syringe; der kleine spanische Hollunder; der kleine turkische Hollunder; der falsche blaue Jasmin; persischer Jasmin. 1782; Medikus: Die Persische Syringe. 1790; Baumgarten (Sert. Lips.): Spanischer Rainweidenblatteriger Hollunder; Persian Jasmine or Common Persian Lilac; (Fl. Lips.): Persischer Flieder mit Rain- weidenblattern. 1 791; Lamarck: Lilas de Perse; Lilas de Perse a feuilles de Troene. 1 791; Schkuhr: blauer falscher Jasmin; Persischer oder morgenlandischer schmalblat- terichter Lilac, mit lanzenformigen oder Rheinweiden blattern. 1796; Marter: Persischer Flieder oder Lilac. 1800; Curtis: Persian Lilac. 1804; Mirbel: Bleu [misspelling for blue] Persian Lilac; L[ilas] a feuilles simples; Jasmin de Perse. 1809; F. G. Dietrich: Silberbliithe. 181 7; Audibert: Lilas a feuilles de Troene. 1823; Prince (Cat. 1823, 42): Purple Persian Lilac. 1827; Sweet: Pale-flowered Persian Lilac. 1845-1846; Oudin (Cat. 1845-1846, 6): Lilas de Perse a. feuilles entieres. 1874; Brandis: Hiasmln (Kashmir). 1911; Gerth van Wijk (Diet. PI; Names, 1. 1307, 1911): lilak; persischer lilak; spanischer holunder; syrene; syringe; syringsblume; tiirkischer holunder; zwergflieder (German) (this is also cited by Wilhelm Ulrich, Internationales Worterbuch der Pflanzennamen, 230, 1872.); englesche sering; fijne sering; fransche sering; laage syring; perzische syring; spaansche sering; spaansche syring (Dutch). Gerth van Wijk also cites the following on the authority of other writers: (Ph. A. Nemnich, Allgemeines Polyglotten-Lexicon der Naturgeschichte, 1793- 1795): kleiner tiirkischer flieder; kleiner pfeifenstrauch; persische syringa; (J. F. Serrurier, Fruitkundig Woordenboek, 1805-1806): persiaansche jasmijn; persiaansche siringe. The Nemnich and Serrurier references I have not seen. In these vernacular names, as in the strictly botanical ones, we find the Persian Lilac confused with the Jasmine, while in the use of the English word Privet, the French^Troene and the German Rainweide and Rheinweide the foliage is often 450 THE LILAC compared to that of the Ligustrum. The various generic names, which in different combinations and spellings have been applied to this plant, are similar to those used for S. vulgaris and have been discussed under that species. Three varieties of S. persica follow. The first is: Syringa persica var. laciniata (Miller) Weston, Bot. Univ. I. 289 (1770). — W. Aiton, Hort. Kew. 1. 15 (1789). — Vahl, Enum. PI. 1. 38 (1805). — Mirbel, Hist. Nat. PI. xv. 148 (1805-1806). — Salisbury, Cat. London Bot. Gard. pt. 1. 1 (1809). — Roemer and Schultes, Syst. Veg. 1. 77 (1817). — Hayne, Dendr. Fl. 2 (1822). — Loddiges, Bot. Cab. xii. t. 1107 (1826). — Richard, Diet. Class. 401 (1826). — Sweet Hort. Brit. 272 (1827). — Desfontaines, Cat. Hort. Reg. Paris, ed. 3, 87 (1829). — Stokes, Bot. Comment. 32 (1830). —A. Dietrich, Sp. PI. 1. 248 (1831). — G. Don, Gen. Syst. iv. 51 (1838). — Loudon, Arb. Brit. 11. 12 14, fig. 1040 (1838). — Spach, Hist. Nat. Veg. vra. 285 (1839). — Bosse, Vollst. Handb. Blumengartn. in. 461 (1842). — De Candolle, Prodr. viii. 283 (1844). — Bunge in Mem. Sav. Etr. Acad. Sci. St. Petersb. vn. 391 (1854). — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 492 (1864). — Jager, Ziergeholze, 530 (1865). — O. Kuntze, Taschen-Fl. Leipzig, 82 (1867). — Pasquale, Cat. Orto Bot. Napoli, 100 (1867). — Regel, Russ. Dendr. 207 (1870). — K. Koch, Dendr. 11. pt. 1. 269 (1872). — Hartwig and Riimpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 563 (1875). — Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1878, 217, 454, figs. 94, 96 (as Agent Lilag), 97 (as Agem Lilag); 1883, 79, figs. 18, 19. — Decaisne in Nouv. Arch. Mus. Paris, ser. 2, 11. 42 (1879). — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. 111. 536, fig. 564 (1887); Suppl. 696 (1900). — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 115 (1889). — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 379 (1892). — Mouillefert, Traite Arb. Arbris. 11. 999 (1892- 1898). — L. Henry in Jardin, viii. 200 (1894); in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 742 (1901); in Rev. Hort. 1901, 39, figs. 9, 10; 72, fig. 25; 258. — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 653 (1896). — Bean in Garden, tin. 276 (1898); Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, 11. 571, fig. (1914). — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xrv. 207 (1899); in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 756 (1927). — E. Lemoine in Rev. Hort. 1900, 373; in Jour. Hort. Soc. London, xxiv. 299, fig. 114 (1900). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 414 (1903), as a form. — Schneider in Wien. 111. Gartenz. xxviii. 100 (1903); 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 775, fig. 485 o-s, fig. 486 q (191 1); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 20, 229 (191 1); in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 361 (1913). — H. L. Spath, Johan- nistrieb, 37, fig. 10 (1912). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxm. 154 (1916); Aristocrats of the Garden, 221 (1917). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. n. s. ix. 19 (1923). — G. Hegi, 111. Fl. Mittel-Eur. v. pt. 111. 191 1 (1927). Syringa persica /3 Linnaeus, Sp. PI. 1. 9 (1753). — Schmidt, Oesterr. Baumz. n. 28, t. 79 (1794) (t. as Syringa pers[ica] fol[iis] laciniatis). — Willdenow, Berlin. Baumz. 379 (1796); Sp. PI. 1. 48 (1797). — Spach, Hist. Nat. Veg. vra. 285 (1839). Syringa Laciniata Miller, Diet. Gard. ed. 8, (1768). — Duroi, Harbk. Baumz. 11. 447 (1772). — Baumgarten, Sert. Lips. 45 (1790). — Schkuhr, Bot. Handb. 1. 8 (1791). — Gmelin, Fl. Badens. 1. 14 (1805). — F. G. Dietrich, Vollst. Lex. Gartn. Bot. rx. 591 (1809). — Lauche, Deutsch. Dendr. 170 (1880). — Nuttall, Beautiful Flowering Shrubs, 107 (1923). SYRINGA PERSICA 451 Syringa capitata Gmelin, Reise durch Russl. in. 304, t. xxxi. fig. 1 (1774). Lilac persica /3 Lamarck, Encycl. Meth. Bot. 111. 513 (1791). — Dumont de Courset, Bot. Cult. 1. 709 (1802). L[ilac] Persica laciniata Dumont de Courset, Bot. Cult. 1. 709 (1802), as a synonym. — Mirbel in Nouv. Duhamel, 11. 208 (1804). — Lamarck and De Candolle, Fl. Fran- caise, ed. 3, 111. 495 (1805). — Jacques and Herincq, Man. Gen. PL 111. 54 (1847- i857). Liliacum laciniata Renault, Fl. Dept. Orne, 100 (1804). Siringa persica laciniata Thiriart, Cat. PI. Arb. Jard. Bot. Cologne, ser. 3, 1 (1806). Lilac persica Jaume Saint-Hilaire, PI. France, vii. t. 614 (t. as Lilas de Perse a feuilles laciniees) (1820). Syringa persica 7 pteridifolia Bosse, Handb. Blumengartn. 111. 461 (1842). — Jager, Ziergeholze, 530 (1865). — Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 168 (1877). — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 414 (1903), as a form. Syringa Persica var. Pinnata Jacques in Ann. Fl. Pomone, ser. 2, 1. 274, t. (1843). — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 379 (1892). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 653 (1896), as a form. — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 414 (1903), as a form. Syringa apiifolia Oudin, Cat. 1 846-1 847, 17, name only. L[ilac] Persica var. pinnata Jacques according to Jacques and Herincq, Man. Gen. PI. in. 54 (1847-1857). Syringa mimosafolia Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. 1848-1849, 32. Syringa pinnata Hovey, Cat. 1850-1851, 12. — Ellwanger and Barry, Cat. 1855-1856, 9. S[yringa] persica nana pinnata A. Leroy, Cat. 1851, 48. — Baudriller, Cat. no. 43, 141 (1880). Syringa Persica Mimosafolia Dauvesse, Cat. no. 24, 42 (1859). S\yringa] p[ersica] mimosaefolia Hort. according to Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 492 (1864), as a synonym. — Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1878, 454, fig. 95. — Nicholson, 111. Diet. Gard. Suppl. v. 696 (1900). — L. Henry in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 742 (1901). Syringa persica var. filicijolia Hort. according to Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 563 (1875), as a synonym. Syringa pteridifolia [K. Koch] in Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xn. 43 (1869). S[yringa] P[ersica] laciniata, subvar. mimosaefolia Mouillefert, Traite Arb. Arbris. 11. 999 (1892-1898). Syringa persica heterophylla L. Henry in Jardin, viii. 200 (1894), as a synonym. Syringa filicifolia Bean in Garden, liii. 276 (1898), as a synonym. Syringa persica var. a typica f. pteridifolia Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. i-ii. 91 (1920). Syringa persica var. a typica f. pinnata Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. i-ii. 91 (1920). Pre-Linnean synonyms: Ligustrum foliis laciniatis G. Bauhin, Prodr. 158 (1620); Pinax, 476 (1623). Syringa laciniatis foliis G. Bauhin, Prodr. 158 (1620), as a synonym. Ligustrum nigrum G. Bauhin, Prodr. 158 (1620), as a synonym. — Alpinus, De Plantis Exot., Bk. 11. Chap. 11. 179, fig. (1627). Lilac laciniatis foliis Parkinson, Paradisi, 408 (1629), as Lilac lacimiatis [sic] foliis. Agem Lilag Persarum sive Lilac inciso folio Cornuti, Canadens. PI., Chap. lxxi. 188, t. (1635)- 452 THE LILAC Syringa Persica sive Lilac Persicum incisis joliis Jasminum Persicum dictum Parkinson, Theatr. Bot. 1468, fig. 3 (1640). — Ray, Hist. PL 11. Bk. xxxi. 1763 (1686-1704); Stirp. Orient. 19 (1694). — Plukenet, Opera Omnia Bot. iv. Almagest. Bot. 359 (1696). — Zwinger, Theatr. Bot. 256, fig. (1744). Jasminum caeruleum Parkinson, Theatr. Bot. 1468 (1640), as a synonym. — Bobart, Cat. Hort. Bot. Oxoniens. 83 (1658). [Jasminum] Persicum joliis dissectis Munting, Waare Oeffening PL 174, 177 (1672). Jasminum Persicum joliis laciniatis Sutherland, Hort. Med. Edinburg. 169 (1683). Syringha Persica joliis laciniatis Hermann, Hort. Acad. Lugduno-Bat. 586 (1687). Syringa Persica joliis laciniatis Commelin, Cat. PL Hort. Med. Amstelodam. 341 (1689). [Jasminum] Persicum tenuijolium coeruleum sive joliis dissectis Munting, Naauwkeurige Beschr. Aardgew. 223, t. 226 (t. as Jasminum coeruleum Persicum tenuijolium) (1696). Lilac incisis joliis P. Magnol, Hort. Reg. Monspeliensis, 118 (1697). Lilac laciniato jolio Tournefort, Instit. 1. 601 (1700). — Boerhaave, Index Alter PL 221 (1720). — Miller in Cat. PL 45 (1730); Gard. Diet. (1731); Fig. Beautif. PL 11. no, t. clxiv. fig. 2 (1760). — Duhamel de Monceau, Traite Arb. Arbust. 1. 362 (i755)- Jasminum Caeruleum Persicum tenuijolium Munting, Phytograph. 13, t. 56 (1702). Syringa; Persica joliis laciniatis Ligustri Boerhaave, Index PL 252 (1710). Lilac caerulea, laciniatis joliis Barrelier, PL Gall. Hisp. Obs. 124, fig. 903 (17 14). Syringa joliis lanceolatis integris ac dissectis Linnaeus, Hort. Cliff. 6 (1737). — Royen, Fl. Leydens. 397 (1740). — Zinn, Cat. PL Gotting. 275 (1757). Syringa laciniato jolio Ruppius, Fl. Jenensis, 24 (1745). Syringa joliis lanceolatis integris laciniatisque Linnaeus, Hort. Upsal. 1. 6 (1748). Differs from the type in the color of its flowers which are in bud Argyle Purple (xxxvu.); when expanded same turning to Pale Lobelia Violet tinged with Argyle Purple without, Ageratum Violet turning to Hay's Lilac (xxxvu.) with eye of Lavender- Violet (xxv.) within; in its foliage which is pinnately lobed or pinnatifid, only occasionally entire; and in the fact that it produces fruit capsules and fertile seed. The capsule is smooth, 7/i6 in. long, with acute or rounded apex, each valve sometimes ending in a short tip. (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant growing in the garden of Professor E. C. Moore, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Its origin is unknown.) See Plates cxl., cxli., cxlil, cxliil, cxliv., cxlv., cxlvii. Habitat: China: province of Kansu. The first mention of this variety of the Persian Lilac is found in the "Prodromus" of Gaspard Bauhin, a French naturalist and anatomist, published in 1620. He calls it Ligustrum joliis laciniatis and says that he received it as Ligustrum nigrum from the Venetian Senator Mori, in whose garden at the Villa Carbonara it was cultivated and as Syringa laciniatis joliis from another Venetian Senator, Contareni: "Hoc primum Ligustri nigri nomine, ex horto 111. Mori Senatoris Veneti, quem in villa Carbonara colit: dein, pro Syringa laciniatis joliis, ex horto 111. Contareni Sen. Veneti accepimus." In his "Pinax" published in 1623 he repeats this statement very closely: " Ligustri joliis laciniatis, quod 2. in Prodromo, Ligustri nigri ex SYRINGA PERSICA 453 horto Nobil. Contareni habemus." In an earlier work (Phytopinax, 585, 1596) Bauhin mentions the Ligustrum nigrum of Columella as a synonym of his Con- volvulus caeruleus haederaceo foliis. He makes no mention of his Ligustrum foliis laciniatis. The reference is to "Libri de Re Rustica" (Bk. x. 1535) written by Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella in the first half of the first century and reads : Fer calathis Violam, et nigro permista Ligustro Balsama cum Casia nectens cro- ceosque corymbos, Sparge mero Bacchi: nam Bacchus condit odores." The reasons for considering this Ligustrum nigrum to be the "Liseron violet" or Convolvulus is discussed at some length by J.-B. Du Molin (Flore Poetique Ancienne, 53, 1857). Although the name Ligustrum nigrum, as noted, was first published as a synonym in 1620, it had been used in describing this plant by Prosper Alpinus (or Alpin), an Italian botanist and physician, as early probably as 16 14, at which date the preface to his "De Plantis Exoticis libri duo" was written according to Haller (Bibliotheca Botanica, 1.376, 1771). Alpinus died in 161 7 and it was not till 162 7 that the manuscript was published in which the name appears. Alpinus gives a picture of the plant; the foliage is evidently that of the cut-leaved Persian Lilac but the flowers are temiinal and suggest those of the Privet rather than those of a Lilac. He attributes its introduction to Jerome Capelli who sent it to Venice: "Hieronimi Capelli qui cum ibi oratorem pro Serenissima Veneta Republica ad Turcarum Imperatorem ageret, hanc Venetias misit." Since Capelli was evidently an ambassa- dor to the Sultan it is probable that, as was the case with S. vulgaris, this cut-leaved variety of the Persian Lilac was introduced into Europe by way of Constantinople. The English botanist John Parkinson states in his "Paradisi in Sole," pub- lished in 1629, that he has not seen the plant. He calls it Lilac lacimatis [sic] foliis and writes: "This Pipe tree should not differ from the first in any other thing than in the leaves which are said to be cut on the edges into severall parts, as the relation is given a viris fide dignis; for as yet I never saw any such; but I am bold to set it downe, to induce and provoke some lover of plants to obtaine it for his pleasure, and others also." In 1635 Jacques Philippe Cornuti (or Cornut), a French physician and botanist, gives the second illustration of this plant which is better than that of Alpinus for the individual flowers resemble those of the Lilac and the clusters appear from lateral as well as from terminal buds. He is the first to mention Persia as the home of the plant: "Quod arbustum ex Perside nuper allatum Gelseminum appellant, mihi omnino Lilac aut syringae species esse videtur ;" he calls it Agem Lilag Persarum sive Lilac inciso folio, and writes that the natives call it Agem Lilag, meaning flower of Persia, — the word Agem signifying Persia and Lilag a flower: "Postremo Agem lilag ab incolis audio vocitari, quasi ipsi nominarent florem Persicum, per anthonomasiam, Agem enim Persidem significat ut Lilag florem." Franchet (Garden, XL. 173, 1891) says that Cornuti's illustration was probably taken from a specimen growing in the grounds of Vespasien or Jean Robin who supplied that writer with many of his subjects. Cornuti, as noted under S. persica, does not 454 THE LILAC mention the Persian Lilac, the type with entire leaves, although various later writers cite him as doing so. In the second edition of "The Herball," enlarged and amended by Thomas Johnson (893, 1833) John Gerard notes, but without name, under the section "Of Jasmine or Gelsemine," the following: "There is likewise another sort that difTereth not from the former in any respect but in the colour of the floure; for this plant hath floures of a blew colour, and the others not so, wherein consisteth the difference;" the reference is to the cut-leaved Persian Lilac and it is to this plant of Gerard's that Bobart (Cat. Hort. Bot. Oxon. 83, 1658) refers his Jasminum caeruleum which W. Aiton (Hort. Kew, 1. 15, 1789) cites as type of his S. persica var. laciniata. In 1640, when Parkinson published his "Theatrum Botanicum", the plant was growing in England: "The third is very like to come first out of Persia, as the name importeth, it is now to be seene with Master Tradescant, at South Lambeth." His description of the plant which he has "often seene. . . both in and out of flower" is excellent. He calls it Syringa Persica sive Lilac Persicum incisis foliis Jasminum Persicum dictum: "This Persian Jasmine (or Persian Lilac whether you will) is a shrub or shrubby plant, never rising into a tree like the former [Lilac sive Syringa flore lacteo sive argenteo = S. vulgaris var. alba], yeelding many twigges, or stems and suckers from the roote, whose wood is soft having a pith in the middle, as the other, seldome rising above a man's height, having a smooth blackish greene barke, with sundry winged leaves thereon, on all sides, some whereof as well those below as above, will be whole without any division therein, resembling a Privet leafe, others will be cut in on the one side or the other, or both, and divers will be halfe like or wholly like the posture, and divisions of the Catalonian Jasmine resembling it so neerely that thereby it came to be called a Jasmine: at the toppes of the sprigs and branches stand many tufts of flowers, in a long spike, or foure leaves a peece, so like unto the former Lilac, that at the first view of them you may truely, define it to be a Lilac, the colour onely excepted, which in this is more purplish, and of as sweete a sent or rather stronger: after the flowers are past, follow the like small long blackish seede, inclosed in somewhat long and pointed huskes like the former but lesser. This doth in every part, except the growth and leaves come neerest to our ordinary Lilac, and doth in nothing but the leaves resemble a Jasmine; for both the wood is white and pithy and the flowers grow in tufts or spikes, and appeare in May when no Jasmine doth, but the Lilac. . . This assuredly is the Jasmine caeruleum of Serapio, whereof formerly there was great doubt among Herbarists whether there were such a thing in rerum natura, very many denying it, because they either never saw this or never considered it." Cesalpinus (De Plantis, Bk. in. Chap. xlhi. 120, 1583) had already referred to Serapion's plant which he called Jeseminum caeruleum Arabum and thought synon- ymous with his Ligustrum Orientale [= S. vulgaris]. This Jasmine of Serapion's is a doubtful plant and is discussed under S. vulgaris. SYRINGA PERSICA 455 The English botanists John Ray (or Wray) and Leonard Plukenet adopt Parkinson's name for this variety. Abraham Munting in 1672 calls it Jasminum Persicum foliis dissectis; in his "Phytographia" published in 1702 he gives an excellent picture of the plant. James Sutherland also classifies it as a Jasmine. Linnaeus in his "Hortus Upsaliensis," as noted under S. persica, erroneously gives as a synonym for his Syringa foliis lanceolatis integris the Agent Lilac persarum Cornut; for Cornuti makes no mention of the entire-leaved Persian Lilac and his Agem Lilag Persarum sive Lilac inciso folio is a synonym of S. persica var. laciniata. Philip Miller adopts Tournefort's name Lilac laciniato folio in the "Catalogus Plantarum," in the first edition of "The Gardeners Dictionary," as well as, after 1753, in his "Figures of the most beautiful, useful and uncommon plants. . ." (n. no, t. clxiv. fig. 2, 1760) ; his is the first colored plate of the cut-leaved Persian Lilac. Duhamel de Monceau in 1755 also uses Tournefort's name (Traite Arb. Arbust. 1. 362, 1755), while Zinn (Cat. PI. Gottingensis, 275, 1757), following Linnaeus (Hort. Cliff. 6, 1737) calls it Syringa foliis lanceolatis integris ac dissectis. Weston, who first uses the combination S. persica var. laciniata, merely describes it as Syringa persica, fol. lanceolatis integris dissectisque laciniata, flore purpureo. While it is true that occasional lobed or laciniate leaves occur on the entire- leaved type S. persica and also on S. chinensis (a hybrid of 5. persica and S. vulgaris) and on its forms, yet in these plants such leaves are the exceptional rather than the prevailing sort; while on S. persica var. laciniata, which only occasionally produces entire leaves, they are such a conspicuous character as to leave little doubt where synonyms are in question, of the plant which the author had in mind. Dr. H. L. Spath (Johannistrieb, 1. c.) states that the cut-leaved variety develops entire leaves on summer shoots and then reverts to the typical form. The only other Lilac species with foliage which might possibly be confused with that of the cut-leaved Persian Lilac is S. pinnatifolia and in this plant the leaves are virtually compound, — only rarely, and then usually near the top of the leaf, are the leaflets prolonged along the main stalk, — while in S. per- sica var. laciniata they are with few exceptions decurrent; the petiole also of 5. pinnatifolia is much longer than that of the Persian Lilac and its varieties; the two plants, in general appearance of flower and flower-cluster, of winter buds, fruit, and bark, are entirely distinct. That the S. capitata, described as a species by S. G. Gmelin, is identical with the cut-leaved Persian Lilac cannot be questioned, for he gives an excellent figure of the plant and the foliage is not to be mistaken. Kirchner writes: "Ein Flieder, den wir als S\yringa] p[ersica] capitata erhielten, hat hier zwar noch nicht gebluht, scheint jedoch gar nicht zu dieser, sondern zur folgenden Species [S. rothomagensis = S. chinensis] zu gehoren." The name here is undoubtedly an amplifica- tion of Gmelin's Syringa capitata. The plant was evidently young, since it had not yet bloomed, and while it is possible that the name may have been wrongly attached to a plant of S. chinensis yet it is also possible that Kirchner may have 456 THE LILAC been mistaken in his classification, for, as already noted the species and the hybrid were often confused. At various times varieties of the Persian Lilac with leaves which were con- sidered to resemble those of other genera have been put on the market; such is the S. persica var. pteridifolia, "Mit flugelfarrnahnlichen Blattern" mentioned in 1842 by Bosse who cites it as appearing in Booth's catalogue for 1841; here the foliage is thought to resemble the leaf of the fern. Jager in 1865 keeps this as a distinct variety and Beissner, Schelle and Zabel as a form; Lingelsheim considers it a form of his S. persica var. a typica. But most writers, among them Kirchner, Hartwig and Rumpler, Dippel, and Rehder give it as a synonym of S. persica var. laciniata and from such meager descriptions as are to be found there is no reason to think it a distinct form. [K. Koch] (Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xn. 43, 1869) writes: "Eigenthumlich ist es, dass die Abart mit geschlitzten Blattern, welche in den Garten auch als Syringa pteridifolia vorkommt, fast friiher in den Garten gewesen zu sein scheint, als die Hauptart mit ganzen Blattern." Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 25, 1883) cites S. persica pteridifolia Hort., as cultivated at Jaggowall according to von Brewern, at Dorpat at the Botanic Garden, 1847, received from Wagner. The names, S. persica var. filicifolia Hort. cited by Hartwig and Rumpler and the S. filicifolia of Bean, both mentioned by these authors as synonyms of the cut-leaved Persian Lilac, also refer to the fern-like appearance of the leaf and were probably used interchangeably for the name pteridifolia. Jacques (Ann. Fl. Pomone, 1. c.) describes his Lilas de Perse a, feuilles pennees, Syringa Persica var. Pinnata, as follows: "Arbrisseau ne paraissant pas devoir s'61ever a plus de 3 a 6 decimetres, a rameaux greles, assez diffus, d'un brun noir, glabres; feuilles nombreuses opposees, petiolees, longues de 2 a 3 centimetres, glabres et d'un beau vert, tres-profondement laciniees, ou plutot pinnees, a deux a, trois paires de folioles opposees, sessiles, a base decurrente sur le petiole, ce qui le rend un peu aile\ entieres, longues de 8 a. 12 millimetres; fleurs terminales en petits thyrses, peu nombreuses, petites, d'un lilace gris de lin; l'odeur m'en a paru tres-faible." Jacques states that it was raised from seed of S. persica var. laciniata sown about 1839, and adds: "il parait qu'il peut se produire assez facilement par les graines de cet arbrisseau, car notre collegue M. Camuzet a dans ce moment un semis de deux ans ou il s'en trouve quelques individus." He adds that it is for sale at a Mons. Verdier's, where the plant first flowered in April, 1843. Jacques and Herincq mention this plant as L[ilac] Persica var. pinnata Jacques. Pepin (Rev. Hort. 1846, 123) notes that from seed of S. persica var. laciniata two varieties have been produced by Jacques and Billiard, — one dwarf, the other with pinnat- ifid leaves; and "Le Bon Jardinier" (1849, 737) writes of this L[ilas] a feuilles pennees Jacq[ues]: "Variete" obtenue de graine du 5. persica en 1839. II a fleuri pour la premiere fois en 1843. Plus petit dans toutes ses parties que celui dont il provient." Hartwig mentions a S. persica var. pinnata Hort., as do both Voss, and SYRINGA PERSICA 457 Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, though they consider it to be merely a form; while Rehder gives the name as a synonym of S. persica var. laciniata. It is probable that the S[yringa] persica nana pinnata or Pinnated dwarf Lilac, listed by A. Leroy and by Baudriller is the same; the latter calls it also the Lilas de Perse nain, a feuilles pennees. George Ellwanger (Horticulturist, 89, 1875), under "Varieties of Dwarfish growth, cut-leaved," mentions various forms of the Persian Lilac, among them one which he calls "Dwarf (nana)" and describes as follows: "Flowers dark reddish purple; spikes very large and compact." This is presumably the same although in this article Ellwanger is confused, classifying under the same heading Philemon, which is a garden form of the Common Lilac. See the form of S. vulgaris, Nana. L. Henry (Jardin, vm. 200, 1894) mentions without botanical name a Lilas de Perse nain a feuilles laciniees. As the cut-leaved Persian Lilac is as a rule a small plant, the dwarf character here mentioned does not seem to be of distinguishing importance. The S. mimosafolia of Ellwanger and Barry, the S. Persica Mimosafolia of Dauvesse, and the S. persica var. mimosaefolia of Kirchner, were thought to have leaves resembling those of the Acacia. The plant also appears in 1849, without botanical name, as Lilas de Perse dite a feuilles de Mimosa in Oudin's catalogue (1849-1850, 6). Thirty years later Carriere (Rev. Hort. 1878, 454, fig. 95) de- scribes under the same name a plant of his own raising : "Arbuste nain, tres-compact, tres-ramine" des la base. Feuilles imparipennees, a quatre, plus rarement trois paires de pinnules foliaires tres-etroites, d'un beau vert, l'impaire un peu plus larges, etroitement ovale. Issue d'un semis que nous avons fait de graines du S. persica laciniata, cette vari6te" dont nous n'avons pas encore vu la fleur nous a presente des sa levee un aspect particulier. Peu de temps apres le developpement des cotyledons apparaissaient les premieres feuilles qui, d£ja, 6taient tres-laciniees, et depuis, jamais nous ne lui avons vu donner de feuilles entieres. Elle ramifie beaucoup, et ses feuilles nombreuses, longtemps persistantes, donnent a l'ensemble un aspect tout particulier qui forme un buisson compact tres-ornemental, different de tout ce que nous connaissons." L. Henry attributes S. persica var. mimosae- folia to Carriere but since the latter in 1878 writes that his plant has not yet flowered it is obvious that the earlier plant of the same name must have been of different origin. Carriere's figure of his plant shows no characters which are not found in the cut-leaved Persian Lilac; indeed Kirchner, Hartwig and Rumpler, and others consider it identical with S. persica var. laciniata; Mouillefert mentions it as a subvariety. It is possible that the earlier plant may have been identical with the 5. Persica var. pinnata of Jacques for Ellwanger and Barry (Cat. no. 2, 9, 1855-1856) give as common name for their S. pinnata, — Mimosa leaved Lilac. The name S. persica var. heterophylla, mentioned by L. Henry as a synonym, is merely descriptive of the two types of leaves, entire and lobed, which as a rule occur on this plant. 458 THE LILAC Weston in 1770 cites no authority for his 5. per ska 4. laciniata, but he describes it in the words used by Linnaeus (Sp. PL 1. 9, 1753) in writing of his S. persica 0: "Syringa foliis lanceolatis integris dissectisque laciniata;" in addition Weston notes the color of the flowers as purple. W. Aiton in the first edition of the "Hortus Kewensis" refers his variety laciniata to Bobart's Jasminum caeruleum (Cat. Hort. Bot. Oxoniensis, 83, 1658) which has already been mentioned here and states that it is native to Persia and cultivated [in England] in 1658. Classified with the type S. persica, the variety's Persian origin was rarely ques- tioned. F. N. Meyer, collecting for the United States Department of Agriculture in 1 01 5, found S. persica var. laciniata growing wild at Kingchow in Kansu, China. Kingchow is at the extreme east of Kansu, slightly south of its north and south center and not far from the border of Kansu and Shensi. It is south of the King River a branch of the Wei which further east runs into the Huang ho, and it is north of the Tsin ling Range. There appears to be no doubt that it is indigenous there and like other plants of Chinese origin found its way from that country into Persian gardens where, commonly cultivated, it soon came to be regarded as native to the country of its adoption. It is interesting that the type S. persica, which is only known as a garden plant, was not mentioned till some fifty years after its cut-leaved variety which is now known to occur as a wild plant. Possibly the entire-leaved plant may, in the future, be also found growing spontaneously but with such facts as we now have it seems not improbable that it originated in cultivation and as a seedling or sport from S. persica var. laciniata. Meyer's field note (U. S. Dept. Agric. Bureau PI. Industry, Invent, seeds and plants imported, no. 43, 70, 1918) reads: "No. 40,709- Syringa sp. Oleaceae. (no. 2234 a. Near Palitang, near Kingchow, Kansu, China. January 17, 191 5). A small lilac, growing from 3 to 5 feet in height, having small leaves and apparently very floriferous. Found covering whole loess hill slopes in company with Amygdalus davidiana at an altitude of 3500 feet. Of value as a hardy flowering shrub for the dry and cool sections of the United States." A plant (no. 18,063 Arn. Arb.) raised from Meyer's seed (S. P. I. no. 40,709; Meyer no. 2234 a) was received at the Arnold Arboretum on April 1, 191 7, and first flowered in 1923. The flowers are larger than those of S. persica or of any of its varieties and bear a curious resemblance to those of the hybrid S. chinensis not only in their size, but also in the somewhat curled or twisted corolla-lobe which is noticeable after the flowers have been expanded for a short time. Except for this the plant in every respect resembles the bluish flowered S. persica var. laciniata. The clusters are often produced from as many as thirteen pairs of buds on the same branchlet. Notes on the color of its flowers show them to be as follows : in bud Argyle Purple (xxxvu.); when expanded Argyle Purple to Pale Lobelia Violet tinged with Argyle Purple or Purplish Lilac without, Ageratum Violet turning to Hay's Lilac or Purplish Lilac (xxxvu.) with markings of Lavender- SYRINGA PERSICA 459 Violet (xxv.) at throat within. The fruit, which was produced in a small quantity in 1926, is the same as that of the old garden plant of 5. persica var. laciniata. After seeing a photograph of the flowers of this plant, Mr. E. Lemoine wrote me on July 1, 1925: "Le S. persica du Kansu me parait identique au 5. persica laciniata, qui, a mon avis, est un type specifique, le seul fertile, tandis que les S. persica et persica alba, toujours steriles, sont des Lilas hybrides ou Varins [S. chinensis]; les Varins etant egalement steriles." As noted under the entire-leaved type 5. persica, it seems possible to me that the plant discovered by Bonvalot and Prince Henri d' Orleans on their travels between Lhassa and Batang in Tibet may have represented the same cut-leaved variety found in Kansu by Meyer and by Hers. Mr. C. K. Schneider who ex- amined this specimen on my behalf, reports that it is identical with the Hers plant no. 2405 (to which reference is here later made) but he notes the absence of laciniate leaves. Branchlets with entire leaves only are not uncommon on the cut-leaved variety. If the plant is correctly identified by Mr. Schneider Bonvalot's discovery carries the range of the species considerably further west and antedates that of Meyer by twenty-five years. A. Kanitz, in an account of the Bela Szechenyi Central Asiatic Expedition, mentions without description Syringa persica among the plants found in Kansu, China (Ertek. termesz. korebol. Magyar Tudom. Akad. Class m. vol. xv. no. 2, 8, 1885). In the enumeration of the plants collected (Szechenyi, Keletazs. Utjan. Tudom. Ered. 11. 824, 1891) he lists: "Syringa persica Linnaeus. . . Kan-szu n. 175c. Czing-csou vin. 29. 1879. verisim. cult." In the German translation of this enumeration (Szechenyi, Wissensch. Ergeb. Reise Ostas. 11. 715, 1898) the name Czing-csou is spelt Tsing-tschou. A more modern spelling is Tsin chow. Knapp (Oester. Bot. Zeitsch. 430, 1889) writes that Kanitz found it among the plants collected by Ludwig Loczy on this expedition but that his assumption that the specimens were probably or certainly cultivated needs verification. Loczy, the botanist of the Szechenyi expedition, was, according to Bretschneider (Hist. Europ. Bot. Discov. China, 951, 1898) on August 10, 1879, at Si-ning; from there the party travelled southeast through Nien po to Lan-chou, or Lan chou fu, to Kung chang, Fu kiang, Tsin chou, — where on August 29 the plant of S. persica was collected, — and arrived at Chengtu in Szechuan on September 24, 1879. Tsin chou, also spelt Tsin chow, is on the north side of the Tsing ling Range, only about 100 miles, according to Bretschneider's map, southwest of Kingchow where Meyer in 191 5 collected S. persica var. laciniata. Were the specimen correctly identified it would have meant that Loczy antedated Meyer by thirty years in the discovery of the native home of the Persian Lilac. Through the courtesy of Dr. Filarszky, director of the botanical section of the Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum at Budapest this specimen was sent to the Arnold Arboretum for examination. A label shows that Lingelsheim, in addition to Kanitz, determined the plant as S. persica. Al- though the flowers grow on a leafy shoot, appearing therefore to belong to the 460 THE LILAC group of the Villosae, yet this sometimes occurs, abnormally, on plants of the Vulgates. This specimen was collected on August 29, 1879, and represents there- fore a second blooming. Mr. Rehder determined it as S. microphylla and his notation reads: "Syringa microphylla Diels. Inrlorescentia anormalis, ut saepius in plantis cultis hujus speciei per aestatem et autumnum occurrit." In his "Liste des Essences ligneuses observers dans le Honan septentrional" (31, 1922) J. Hers cites as Chinese name for S. persica var. laciniata "hua yeh ting siang." Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 25, 1883) mentions S. persica c. laciniata Vahl, hort., as cultivated at Reval according to Brandt and at Riga ac- cording to Wagner's catalogue, 1876, and according to Buhse. This cut-leaved variety of the Persian Lilac appears as follows in English nursery catalogues of early date: as The cut-leav'd Lilac (Burchell, 1764, 20); as Cut leaved Persian Lilac (Shiells, 1773, 12); as S. Persica laciniata, Cut-leaved Persian Lilac (Mackie, 1812, 54; Backhouse, 1816, 46; Miller (Bristol Nursery), 1826, 14); as S. persica laciniata (Fulham Nursery, [cir. 181 7], 26; Loddiges, 1820, 39; 1823, 35; 1826, 59; 1836, 66; Colvill, 1821, 30). We find it in early French catalogues: as Syringa persica a feuilles decouples (Andrieux, 1771, 280); as Syringa persica b. Laciniata, Lilas de Perse, lacini6 (Audibert, 1817, 23); as S. persica laciniata, Lilas lacinie" (Audibert, 1831-1832, 51); as Lilas de Perse a feuilles laciniees (Oudin, 1839-1840, 1); as S. persica laciniata (Baumann, 1838-1839, 8; Oudin, 1841, 22; A. Leroy, Suppl. 1850, 9, and as Persian cut Leaved Lilac); as Lilas de Perse pinnatifide (Seneclauze, 1846-1847, 11); as Lilas de Perse a feuilles de persil (Dauvesse, no. 20, 24, 1855); as Lilas de Perse a feuilles de mimosa (Dauvesse, no. 23, 31, 1858); as S. Persica Mimosafolia or Mimosa leaf Lilac (Dauvesse, no. 24, 36, 1859); as S. persica laciniata, Parsley leaf Lilac (Dauvesse, no. 24, 36, 1859). The catalogue of Wiegers (1809, 119) of Malines, Belgium, lists it as 5. Persica laciniato. In catalogues of the United States it appears: as S. persica v. laciniata, cut leaved Persian Lilac (Landreth, 1824, 27; Winter, 1843-1844, 62; Parsons, 1846, 38); as S. pinnata, Pinnate leaved Lilac (Hovey, 1 850-1851, 12). Among cultivated specimens of this variety in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum are the following: the Bornmuller specimen (no. 3908) already noted under S. persica; another (no. 3907) gathered by the same collector in Persia, "prov. Farsistan, in hortis, Schirar, 15-1600 meters," December 4, 1892, on which is noted: "pi. sponte nunquam observavi;" specimen (no. H. 200) gathered by J. Hers, April 20, 192 1, at Kaifeng, Honan,which the collector notes as cultivated, with Chinese name "hua yeh ting siang;" there are also specimens from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, from the Botanic Garden, Gottingen, from Gotha and from Scheitniger Park, Breslau, as well as others from plants cultivated in the Arnold Arboretum and elsewhere in the United States. SYRINGA PERSICA 461 In the Arnold Arboretum are three spontaneous specimens which were gathered for Joseph Hers by native collectors. The first, a fruiting specimen, (no. 2398), dated July 7, 1922, came from Tsing shui hsien in the Ta lui Range at an altitude of about 4500 ft. ; the capsules are similar in every respect to those found on cul- tivated plants; the Chinese name is given as "tiao shao." According to Bretschnei- der's map Tsing shui is north of the Tsing ling Range and of the Wei River, a branch of the Huang ho, and is only about fifty miles southwest of Kingchow, where Meyer gathered S. per ska. The second (no. 2405), also of fruit, dated July 20, 1922, came from Tsin chow, Hers spells it Tsingchow, San shih li pu, at an altitude of about 4200 feet, and its Chinese name is given as "pang pang hua." The third (no. 2407) is of foliage, and was gathered on July 21, 1922, at the same locality and altitude; the Chinese name is given as "hua yel pang pang hua" and the col- lector notes that it is "very common in a wild state." It appears therefore that in the mountainous section of southeastern Kansu the plant grows spontaneously, and in abundance. As has been noted at length under the type S. persica, there was considerable difference of opinion as to the color of its flowers, some authors noting them as bluish, others as pinkish. I have never seen, on typical S. persica, flowers which were other than pinkish. Philip Miller (Fig. Beautif. PI. 11. no, t. clxiv. fig. 2, 1760) gives a colored illustration of S. persica var. laciniata, which he calls Lilac laciniato folio. Here the flowers are pinkish, and resemble in color those which I consider to be char- acteristic of the type; elsewhere they are figured as bluish. Schmidt (Oester. Baumz. 11. 28, t. 79, 1794) shows them as bluish, and he tells us that, as dis- tinguished from those of 5. persica, they are "kleinere, mehr in das Blaue fal- lende." Duhamel de Monceau (Traite" Arb. Arbust. 1. 362, 1755) writes of the cut-leaved variety which he calls Lilac laciniato folio: "La fleur de cette espece tire plus sur le bleu que celle de l'espece precedente" [Lilac Ligustri folio = S. persica]; and L. Henry (Jardin, vin. 200, 1894), who evidently went into the matter with care, writes: "II existe. . . une troisieme a fleurs bleuatres. Celle-ci est a feuilles laciniees. . ." With the exception of the plant of S. persica var. laciniata (no. 1036-2 Am. Arb.) which is growing in the Arnold Arboretum and which has pinkish flowers identical in color with those of 5. persica, I have always found the flowers of the cut-leaved variety to be bluish. As noted in the description already given of the cut-leaved plant (no. 18,063 Am- Arb.; S. P. I. no. 40,709) which was raised from seed (no. 2234 a) of a wild plant collected by F. N. Meyer in Kansu, China, its flowers are also bluish and in color precisely like those of S. persica var. laciniata as commonly grown. It would therefore seem that the plant of 5. persica var. laciniata (no. 1036-2 Arn. Arb.) is unusual. Possibly it was originally raised from a cutting taken from a branchlet of the typical form which had a preponderance of laciniate leaves. It 462 THE LILAC was propagated in the Arnold Arboretum from cuttings received in June, 1905, from Hoopes Brothers, Pennsylvania. Notes taken of its flowers show their color to be in bud Brownish Vinaceous turning to Light Purplish Vinaceous (xxxix.) to Laelia Pink (xxxviii.) ; when expanded Laelia Pink to Pale Laelia Pink without, Tourma- line Pink (xxxviii.) turning to Argyle Purple to Purplish Lilac (xxxvu.) within. The color which, in the botanical description of this variety, I have noted as typical of the cut-leaved variety I have found to be approximately the same on numerous garden plants. An interesting early description of S. persica var. laciniata is given by Philip Miller in the eighth edition of "The Gardeners Dictionary:" "The third sort differs from the second [S. persica] in having two sorts of leaves, those on the lower part of the branches are for the most part entire; these are broader and shorter than those of the second, and do not end in such sharp points. The leaves on the younger branches are cut into three or five segments like winged leaves, almost to the midrib. The branches of this sort are slenderer and weaker than those of the second; their bark is of a darker brown, and the flowers of a brighter purple colour. This was brought into Europe before the other, and came by the Persian title Agem. Both these sorts are usually propagated by suckers, which their roots send out in great plenty. . . The plants which are so propagated, are always very pro- lific in suckers, for which reason it will be a better way to raise them by laying down their young branches, which in one year will be sufficiently rooted to trans- plant. . ." The vernacular names of S. persica var. laciniata are here arranged chronologi- cally and the references, unless otherwise noted, may be found in the bibliography. 1629; Parkinson: The blew Pipe tree with cut leaves. 1640; Parkinson: The blew Persian Jasmine or Pipe tree. 1672; Munting: [Jasmyn] van Persien met gesneeden bladeren. 1683; Sutherland: The blew Persian Jasmine or Pipe- tree with cut-leaves. 1689; Commelin: Persiaense Syringa met gesnede bladeren (Belgian). 1696; Munting: Jasmijn van Perzien met teedere of gesneedene Bladeren een blauwe Bloem. 1702; Munting: Persiaense Syringe met gesnede bladeren (Belgian). 1730; Miller: Persian Lilac with cut Leaves falsely call'd The Cut-leaved Persian Jasmine. 1 731: Miller: Lilac with cut Leaves, falsely call'd The Cut-leav'd Persian Jasmine. 1755; Duhamel de Monceau: Lilas de Perse a feuilles decoupees et a fleurs bleues. 1760: Miller: Lilac, with a cut leaf. 1764; Burchell (Cat. 1764, 20): The cut-leav'd Lilac. 1768; Miller: Lilac with a cut leaf commonly called cut-leaved Persian Jasmine; Syringa with entire spear-shaped leaves and others which are cut and jagged. 1770; Weston: Cut-leaved Persian Lilac. 1772; Duroi: The cut-leaved Persian Jasmine; Lilas de Perse a feuilles decoupees; Der Spanische Petersilienblattrige Hollunder. 1772; Baumgarten: Spanischer Hollunder mit ausgeschnittenen Blattern. 1 791; Schkuhr: Petersilienblatterichter Uirkischer Lilac; Persischer Jasmin. SYRINGA PERSICA 463 1794 1802 1804 1804 1823 1841 1850 1851 1855 1858 1864 1875 1880 1892 1892 1894 1911 Schmidt: Persischer Flieder mit zerstiikten Blatt[ern]. Dumont de Courset: Lilas de Perse a feuilles pinnatifides. Renault: Lilas decoupe. Mirbel: Lilas de Perse lacinie; L[ilas] a feuilles pinnatifides; Lilas a. feuilles de persil. Prince (Cat. 1823, 42): Persian cut leaved Lilac; Chinese cut-leaved Lilac. Oudin (Cat. 1841, 22): Lilas de Perse a feuilles laciniees. Hovey (Cat. 1850-1851, 12): Pinnate Lilac. A. Leroy (Cat. 1851, 48): Pinnated dwarf Lilac. Ellwanger and Barry (Cat. 1855-1856): Mimosa Leaved Lilac. Dauvesse (Cat. no. 24, 42, 1859): Parsley leaf Lilac. Kirchner: Geschlitztblattriger persischer Flieder. Hartwig and Rumpler: Schlitzblatteriger persischer Flieder. Baudriller (Cat. no. 43, 141, 1880): Lilas de Perse nain, a feuilles pennees. Hartwig: zerfetzter P[ersischer] Fl[ieder]. Mouillefert: Jasmin de Perse. L. Henry: Lilas a feuilles de Jasmin; Lilas Persil. Gerth van Wijk (Diet. PI. Names, 1. 1307, 191 1) cites on the authority of H. van Hall (De Kruidtuin van's Rijks Hoogere Burgerschool te Middelburg, 1871): perzische jasmijn. As has been already noted in the text, the plant was evidently considered to bear a resemblance to the Jasmine. Its foliage was also compared to that of other plants such as the Parsley, — called in the Latin apium, in the German Petersilie, and in the French Persil, — and the Acacia or Mimosa. Feathered Persian has been adopted as approved common name by "Standard- ized Plant Names" (486, 1923). A variety with white flowers is: Syringa persica var. alba Weston, Bot. Univ. 1. 289 (1770). — W. Aiton, Hort. Kew. 1. 15 (1789). —J. Willmott Jr., Enum. PI. Hort. Kew. 171 (1789). — Sweet, Hort. Brit. 272 (1827). — G. Don. Gen. Syst. rv. 51 (1838). — Loudon, Arb. Brit. 11. 1211 (1838). — Kirchner in Petzold and Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 492 (1864). — Regel, Russ. Dendr. 207 (1870). — Hartwig and Rumpler, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 563 (1875). — Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 168 (1877). — Carriere in Rev. Hort. 1878, 454, fig. 93. — Dippel, Handb. Laubholzk. 1. 115 (1889), as a form, excluding synonym Syr[inga] Steencruyssii. — Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. 379 (1892). — L. Henry in Jardin, vm. 200 (1894); in Jour. Soc. Hort. France, ser. 4, 11. 741 (1901). — Voss, Vilmorin's Blumengartn. 654 (1896), as a form, excluding synonym S. Steencruyssii. — Rehder in Moller's Deutsch. Gartn.-Zeit. xrv. 207 (1899), excluding synonym 5. Steencruyssii; in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. VI. 3301 (1917), excluding synonym S. Steencruyssi; Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 756 (1927), excluding synonyn S. Steencruysii. — E. Lemoine in Rev. Hort. 1900, 373; 1901, 95, fig. 32. — Beissner, Schelle and Zabel, Handb. Laubholz-Ben. 414 (1903), as a form, excluding synonym S. Steencruyssii. — Schneider in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. 361 (1913). — Bean, Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles. 11. 571 (1914). — Schelle in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 24, 208 (1915). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxiii. 154 (191 6); Aristocrats of the Garden, 221 (1917). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922), excluding synonym S. Steencruysii. 464 THE LILAC L[ilac] Persica var. i Dumont de Courset, Bot. Cult. I. 709 (1802). Siringa persica flore albo Thiriart, Cat. PL Arb. Jard. Bot. Cologne, ser. 3, 1 (1806). — Wiegers, Cat. 1809, 118, name only. — Jager, Ziergeholze, 530 (1865). — Pasquale, Cat. Orto Bot. Napoli, 100 (1867). Syringa persica /S albida Stokes, Bot. Comment. 32 (1830). Syringa persica nivea William R. Prince, Cat. 1847, 36. Syringa persica alba cerulea William R. Prince, Cat. 1856-1857, 44. S\yringa] persica var. a typica f. alba Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt. i-n. 91 (1920), excluding synonym S. Steenkruyssii. Pre-Linnean synonyms: Lilac Ligustri folio flore albo Duhamel de Monceau, Traite Arb. Arbust. 1. 362 (1755). Syringa Persica alba, odorata, spontanea Lerche in App. Nov. Act. Phys. Med. v. 184 [i773]- Differs from the type in the color of its flowers which are in bud Light Grayish Vinaceous changing on corolla-tube to Light Purplish Vinaceous and on corolla-lobes to Pale Grayish Vinaceous tinged with Light Purplish Vinaceous (xxxix.) ; when expanded Pale Purplish Vinaceous with tube Light Purplish Vinaceous (xxxix.) without, Pale Laelia Pink tinged with Laelia Pink and turning to white tinged with Pale Laelia Pink (xxxvm.) within. The entire flower fades almost white. (The notes on the color of the flowers were taken from a plant (no. 17,359 Am. Arb.) growing in the Arnold Arboretum which was received from Holm Lea, Brookline, Massachusetts, in 1918.) Known only as a cultivated plant. In 1755 Duhamel de Monceau (Traite Arb. Arbust. 1. 362, 1755) mentions a variety of the Persian Lilac which he calls Lilac Ligustri folio flore albo or Lilas a feuilles de Troene et a fleur blanche. The flowers of S. persica var. alba are never a pure white. Philip Miller in the eighth edition of "The Gardeners Dictionary" writes: "There is a variety of this [S. persica] with almost white flowers, which has of late years been obtained, but whether it came from seeds, or was accidentally produced from suckers from the purple kind I cannot say"; Lamarck (Encycl* M6th. Bot. in. 513, 1791) describes it as ". . . une variet6 dont les fleurs sont d'une couleur lilas si pale, qu'elles paroissent presque blanches;" William Prince (Short Treatise Hort. 122, 1828) notes that "the flowers of the White variety have a blue tinge when first expanded, but which passes off by degrees;" Hartwig and Rumpler write: "Die Bluthen sind nicht eigentlich weiss, sondern nur viel heller, als die der stammart;" Carriere (Rev. Hort. 1878, 454, fig. 93) describes the flowers as "tres-legerement lilac6es, puis a peu pres blanches partout, excepte a l'int6rieur, ou la gorge porte un ceil violet bleuatre;" Hartwig calls them "weisslich- lila" and Voss "Blaulich weiss bis weiss;" L. Henry (Jardin, vni. 200, 1894) writes: "Au debut de l'epanouissement, les fleurs sont plutot d'un blanc carne nuance gris de lin que veritablement blanches; mais elles deviennent assez rapidement d'un blanc presque pur, avec gorge legerement bleutee. . ." Weston, who first uses the combination S. persica var. alba, merely describes the plant as Syringa persica, fol. lanceolatis integris, flore albo. SYRINGA PERSICA 465 Many writers mention the fact that a white variety of the Persian Lilac exists but give it no name; such are Schmidt (Oesterr. Baumz. n. 28, 1794), Curtis (Bot. Mag. xiv. t. 486, 1800), Mirbel (Nouv. Duhamel, 11. 208, 1804) who notes that it has "fleurs presque blanches", Roemer and Schultes (Syst. Veg. 1. 77, 181 7), "Le Bon Jardinier" (1817, 751), and Sargent (Garden and Forest, 1. 222, 1888) who merely states that "varieties with lilac and white flowers are common." William R. Prince (Cat. 1847, 36) lists a S. persica nivea or Persian snow white Lilac; this has not been found mentioned elsewhere and, if distinct from the ordinary white Persian Lilac, which is doubtful, can never have been widely dis- tributed and is probably no longer in cultivation. The S. persica alba cerulea of William R. Prince (Cat. 1856-185 7, 44) he also calls the Persian bluish white Lilac. There is no reason to suppose that it differed in any way from the ordinary S. persica var. alba. Beginning with Dippel in 1889, S. Steencruyssii Hort. is given by various writers, among them Voss, Rehder, Silva Tarouca and Schneider, as a synonym of S. persica var. alba, while Lingelsheim considers it to be another name for his S. persica var. typica f . alba. Before Dippel this plant had been classified as a variety of 5. chinensis and Dippel gives no reason for his change. I consider this to be a Lilac of doubtful classification. Because of the color of its flowers the Syringa Persica alba, odorata, spontanea mentioned by J. J. Lerche (App. Nov. Act. Phys. Med. v. 184, 1773) is here con- sidered to be a synonym of 5. persica var. alba. Lerche writes: "Obs. Crescit in Hircania sponte et in hortis urbis Reschtsch. Folia mytriformia, parva." As noted under S. persica, Hyrcania is now the Persian province of Astrabad and Resht one of the principal cities of western Persia. It is probable that there this plant was an escape. Knapp (Oesterr. Bot. Zeitsch. xxxix. 430, 1889) tells us that Hyrcania is now called Ghilan. Little has been written in regard to this white variety of the Persian Lilac since, apart from the color of its flowers, it does not differ from the type 5. persica. The foliage of both is the same, — while a certain number of lobed leaves appear, they are the exceptional rather than the prevailing sort. Carrier e gives a drawing (Rev. Hort. 1878, 454, fig. 93) showing foliage of a three-forked character which he states was produced for several years by "dimorphism" on branches of 5. persica var. alba: "En fixant ce caractere, on aurait une forme a laquelle on pourrait donner le qualicatif trifurca." In the "Catalogo Jeneral. . . del Criadero de Arboles de 'Santa Ines' (Nos.), Chile," (no. 5. afio xxrv. [ = 1912], 356) is listed a S. persica alba lasciniata which is described as follows: "Flores numerosas, blancas, en racimos sueltos, de olor enteramente differente a las demas lilas. Hojas pequenas divididas;" this is not found mentioned elsewhere and, while it is entirely possible that a white form of S. persica var. laciniata may have been produced it is also possible that the age of the plant may have had some bearing upon the char- acter of the foliage. 466 THE LILAC Carriere and Andre" (Rev. Hort. 1884, 243) believe that this white variety was of dimorphic origin, — in their opinion S. persica never producing seed, — and they mention the fact that, in the nursery of Baltet freres, at Troyes, France, a plant, the flowers of which were ordinarily "bleuatre rose," produced some white clusters. Reversions to the bluish color of S. persica are frequently to be found on plants of its white variety. L. Henry (Rev. Hort. 1901, 95, fig. 32) tells of raising plants from a cross be- tween the white form of the Common Lilac called Marie Legraye as seed parent and the "Lilas de Perse blanc (S. persica alba)" as pollen parent; from 19 capsules produced in 1897, 24 plants were raised, of which 18 were alive in 190 1 and in good condition. Henry notes that the reverse process was generally used in making such a cross; his figure shows the character of the foliage. Klinge (Holzgew. Est-, Liv- und Curland, 25, 1883) mentions 5. persica b. alba hort. as cultivated at Reval according to Dietrich, at Riga according to Wagner, 1876, and at Heimar. This so-called white variety of the Persian Lilac is mentioned as follows in English nursery catalogues of early date: as The Privet leav'd Lilac with white Flowers (Burchell, 1764, 20); as White Persian Lilac (Shiells, 1773, 12); as Syringa Persica alba (Mackie, 181 2, 54; Backhouse, 1816, 46; Fulham Nursery [cir. 181 7], 26; Loddiges, 1820, 39; 1823, 35; 1826, 59; 1836, 66; Colvill, 1821, 30; Miller (Bristol Nursery), 1826, 14). In early French catalogues it appears: as S. persica alba (Audibert, 1 831-183 2, 51; Oudin, 1841, 22; A. Leroy, Suppl. 1850, 9; Dauvesse, no. 24, 42, 1859); as S. persica flore albo (Baumann, 1838-1839, 8). In the catalogue of Wiegers (1809, 118) of Malines, Belgium, it appears as S. Persica flore albo. In the United States it appears in early catalogues: as S. persica alba (Landreth, 1824, 27; W. Prince and Sons, 1831, 55; William R. Prince, 1841-1842, 40; Winter, 1843-1844, 62; Ellwanger and Barry, 1845-1846, 26; Hovey, 1846-1847, 11; Parsons, 1850, 25); as S. persica flore alba (William R. Prince, 1847, 36) or as Persian Bluish white Lilac. The following common names for S. persica var. alba are here arranged chronologically: 1755 1764 1770 1802 1827 1864 Duhamel de Monceau: Lilas a feuilles de Tro6ne et a fleur blanche. Burchell: The Privet-Leav'd Lilac with white flowers. Weston: White Persian Lilac. Dumont de Courset: Lilas de Perse a fleurs blanches. Sweet: White-flowered Persian Lilac. Petzold and Kirchner: Weisser persischer Flieder. White Persian has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (488, 1923). SYRINGA PERS1CA 467 A third variety, not in cultivation, appears as: Syringa persica var. coriacea Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. rv. 243, pt. 1-11. 91 (1920). Habitat: Kashmir; Tibet. Lingelsheim mentions this as a new variety, /S coriacea, and his description reads: "Folia subcoriacea vel crasse coriacea; corollae laciniae angustae, ovato- lanceolatae. Inflorescentia depauperata." He gives its habitat as central Asia, in the western Himalayas, and cites two specimens, one collected by Schlagintweit (no. 4352) from Kashmir, the other by Hiigel (no. 11 77) from Tibet, neither of which I have seen. He notes that the variety is not in cultivation. Lingelsheim's description of the texture of the leaf of this variety at once suggests the species 5. afghanica. He notes, however, having seen the Aitchison specimens of S. afghanica as well as the specimens of this variety and presumably would have combined the two had he considered them identical. There is however nothing in his description of this variety which distinguishes the plant from S. afghanica. References to other garden forms of 5. persica have appeared. These were probably never widely distributed, since they are found mentioned but rarely, — three of them only once, — and at the present time it is doubtful if any are in culti- vation. For convenience they are arranged alphabetically. They are: Gigantea J. Willmott Jr., Enum. PL Hort. Kew. 172 (1798), name only, as S. persica var. gigantea. This appears in "An Alphabetical Enumeration of the Plants contained in the Hortus Kewensis, with additions from Dr. Coyte's Botanic Garden, and the Hortus Cantabrig- iensis"; Willmott gives it the common name of Gigantic Persian Lilac. The form of the Common Lilac called Gigantea only originated with Ellwanger and Barry in 1867 and is therefore distinct from this Willmott plant. Rubra Niemetz in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 17, 191 (1908), as S. persica rubra. — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3301 (1917). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922). Niemetz writes: "Die prachtige Sorte ist wie ich glaube von Pocharski [sic] in den Handel gegeben. Die Farbung ist noch etwas intensiver als chinensis rubra [= S. chinensis i. Saugeana]. Ein ganz reizender feiner Strauch, der sich viele Freunde erweben wird." Rehder merely notes the color as red, as do Silva Tarouca and Schneider. There is in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum a specimen from the Arboretum of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, which was collected on May 13, 1880, by George Nicholson. The specimen is much discolored and the flowers only partially developed. It bears the name S. persica sanguinea and is presumably this form. Red Persian has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (487, 1924). 468 THE LILAC Salvifolia Loddiges, Cat. 1836, 67, name only, as Syringa persica salvifolia. — Loudon, Arb. Brit. 11. 1212 (1838). Loudon notes that this is listed in Loddiges' catalogue, edition of 1836, and states that it "has the leaves somewhat hoary, like those of the common sage." G. W. Johnson (Diet. Modern Gard., ed. by David Landreth, 350, 1847), writing of the varieties of the Persian Lilac, mentions "the sage-leafed." [K. Koch] (Wochenschr. Ver. Beford. Gartenb. Preuss. xn. 43, 1869) writes: "Die behaarte Abart, welche in den Verzeichnissen von Loddiges mit der naheren Bezeichnung salviaefolia aufgefuhrt wird, haben wir nirgends gefunden." Klinge (Holzegew. Est-, Liv-und Curland, 25, 1883) mentions S. persica d. salvifolia Lodd[iges] as cultivated at Regal according to Dietrich, 1854. William Miller (Diet. English Names Plants, 77, 1884) lists, without description, 5. persica var. salvicejolia with common name of Persian Sage-leaved Lilac. It seems probable that this plant may have been wrongly classified as a Syringa. Semiplena Schelle in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 24, 208 (1915), name only, as S. persica semiplena. This is the only reference to a semi-double-flowered form of the Persian Lilac which I have found. Plate CXLIX SYRINGA PINNATIFOLIA (Arnold Arboretum no. 6860) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1925. Plate CL SYRINGA PINNATIFOLIA (Arnold Arboretum no. 6860) Expanding buds, enlarged. April 30, 1926. Plate CLI < o >. ^ DO CS •— I O ^-* O . ^s l-H r- < 2 h < ** b o < £ s — = « ~ ._ "S z. c Plate CLII o < o »-* 00 1-4 O O to o 1-1 c 5 "id Oh o < "3 c 1-1 < .>-> rt t/3 >- 1) 3 o Plate CLIII SYRINGA PINNAT1F0LIA (Arnold Arboretum no. 6860) Fruit, enlarged. Picked October, 1926. Plate CLIV i— i o p— i H < o — z 5 2 > o SYRINGA PINNATEFOLIA Syringa pinna tifolia Hemsley in Gard. Chron. ser. 3, xxxix. 68 (1906); in Fedde, Rep. Sp. Nov. iv. 365 (1907). — Rev. Hort. 1906, 102. — Beissner in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 15, 213 (1906). — Bean in Kew Bull. Miscel. Inform, xxm. 176 (1910); Trees and Shrubs Brit. Isles, 11. 571 (1914). — Schneider, 111. Handb. Laubholzk. 11. 775 (i9ii);n. 1062, fig. 628 b (1912); in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges.no. 20, 229 (1911); no. 29, 162 (1920); in Sargent, PI. Wilson. 1. 297 (191 2); in Silva Tarouca, Uns. Freiland- Laubgeh. 361 (1913); in Gartenschdnheit, vin. 142, fig. (p. 141) (1927). — Sargent in Bull. Arnold Arb. no. 19, April 25 (1912); n. s. ni. 24 (1917); vm. 23 (1922). — Gard. Chron. ser. 3, lv. 269, fig. 118 (1914). — Wilson in Gard. Mag. xxm. 154 (1916); Aristocrats of the Garden, 221 (1917). — Goeze in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. no. 25, 173 (1916). — Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. vi. 3302 (1917); Man. Cult. Trees and Shrubs, 756 (1927). — Lingelsheim in Engler, Pflanzenr. iv. 243, pt 1-11. 92, fig. 6 b (1920). — Silva Tarouca and Schneider, Uns. Freiland-Laubgeh. ed. 2, 404 (1922). — A. 0[sborn] in Garden, lxxxvii. 301 (1923). — Mottet, Arb. Arbust. Orn. 340 (1925). A spreading shrub up to 12 ft. tall, as broad as tall; branches yellow-brown, frequently quadrangular, sparingly lenticellate, with age exfoliating in thin, paper-like sheets; branchlets smooth, yellow- or olive-green, frequently quadrangular, glabrous, sparingly lenticellate. Winter-buds ovoid to globose with acute apex, flower-bud x/i in. long more or less; scales purplish, lustrous, acute or acuminate, prominently keeled, glabrous. Leaf -scar much raised, shield-shaped, inconspicuous, small; bundle-trace slightly raised and slightly curved. Leaves unequally pinnate, oblong, ^-3 in. long, ^-2 in. broad, with 4 to 6 pairs of leaflets, terminal leaflets frequently pinnatifid; rhachis occasionally narrowly winged, glabrous; leaflets opposite or subopposite, rarely alternate, sessile, ovate-lanceolate to ovate, rarely lanceolate, }/±-\}/i in. long, 76~5/u m- broad, acute or acuminate, usually mucronulate, base rounded or oblique, frequently decurrent, ciliolate, dark green, finely pubescent, rarely glabrous above, paler, glabrous beneath; petiole 1l*-7Ii2 in. long, slender, glabrous. Inflorescence from lateral buds usually at base of a terminal leafy shoot, spreading or nodding, 1-2^ in. long, %-2 in. broad; rhachis gla- brous; pedicel V24-V6 in. long, glabrous; calyx glabrous with short, acute teeth; corolla-tube slender, funnelform, ^/i'Vi in. long; corolla-lobes spreading at right angles to corolla-tube, acute or rounded, not cucullate; corolla 3/i6 in. in diameter; color in bud Clear Dull Green- Yellow to Light Chalcedony Yellow (xvn.) ; when expanded Marguerite Yellow (xxx.) to white; anthers Primrose Yellow (xxx.), inserted just below mouth of corolla- tube and visible in wide throat. Capsule oblong, 5/i2 in. long, smooth, acuminate. Habitat: China: province of Szechuan. W. Botting Hemsley who first described Syringa pinnatifolia in 1906 in an article entitled "A new Chinese Lilac with pinnate leaves" writes: "At first sight 469 470 THE LILAC this new Lilac might be taken for a variety of the Persian, as it certainly resembles Syringa persica, var. laciniata, but on closer examination it proves to be a distinct species. It differs in all the leaves being distinctly pinnate, that is divided to the midrib into separate leaflets; in the lanceolate acute leaflets of much thinner texture, and very minutely fringed on the margin; in the rounded lobes of the calyx; and in the relatively longer corolla-tube. Syringa pinnatifolia, as I propose naming it, was imported by Messrs. James Veitch & Sons, through their collector, Mr. E. H. Wilson, who discovered it in the extreme West of China, at an elevation of 9000 feet. Like many of his discoveries, it appeared to be quite rare, and no seed was collected, but a young plant was brought home safely. Mr. Wilson describes it as an elegant bush, six to eight feet high, with very slender branches and white flowers. It has not yet flowered in this country, so far as I know, but judging from the dried specimens I venture to predict that this new Lilac will prove a welcome acquisition." He mentions the fruit as unknown, — "Capsula ignota." Hemsley does not give the number of the specimen upon which he founded his description but there is in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum a flowering branchlet (no. 4082) gathered at Mupin, in the province of Szechuan, China by Wilson when collecting for the Veitch firm in May, 1904. He tells me this is a co- type specimen. The bush, growing at an altitude of 9000 ft., was 6 to 8 ft. tall, with white flowers. Seed (no. 1907) was also collected by Wilson at Mupin in 1904 and the species at that date introduced to cultivation. The same collector again found S. pinnatifolia on his Arnold Arboretum ex- peditions to western Szechuan made in 1907-1908 and in 1910-1911. On two flowering specimens (no. 2585) gathered at Mupin in June, 1908, the bushes are described as 7 to 10 ft. tall, with pink flowers, growing in thickets at an altitude of 7500 ft., rare. A specimen of leafy shoots (no. 4392) gathered in the same locality in October, 19 10, records the height as 5 to 12 ft. and the altitude at which the plant was collected as 7000-8000 ft.; it was again growing in thickets. A small number of fruit capsules are preserved with this specimen. As Syringa no. 4392, seed, collected in October, 1910, was first received at the Arnold Arboretum in February, 1911; the plant raised flowered in 191 7. An excellent photograph of a flowering branch is reproduced in "The Gardeners' Chronicle" for 1914. It was taken from a pot-plant exhibited by the Hon. Vicary Gibbs at a meeting of the Royal Horticultural Society, London, on April 7, 19 14. Wilson, as already mentioned, refers in one instance to the flowers of this species as pink; again in "Aristocrats of the Garden" he writes of their color as "pale mauve." W. J. Bean (Kew. Bull. Miscel. Inform., 1. c.) writes of them as "white with a slight tinge of lilac." For the most part the plants in cultivation have been noted as having white flowers. The firm of V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy, France (Cat. no. 197, 21, 1923-1924), list 5. pinnatifolia in the English edition of their catalogue: "A most curious species of Lilac with very distinct pinnate leaves, small white flowers in terminal SYRINGA PINNATIFOLIA 471 panicles." Because the "pinnate leaves" are mentioned it seems probable that the firm is writing of this species, but, as noted, the flower clusters are produced from lateral, not terminal, buds. From a distance the plant of S. pinnatifolia (no. 6860 Am. Arb.) growing in the Arnold Arboretum, in a general way resembles in habit and in foliage some of the Rose species, such as Rosa omeiensis Rolfe. It is a round- topped shrub, five feet tall, with stout, spreading, somewhat angular branches, and a distinctive bark which peels off in thin, paper-like layers from the old wood. The foliage unfolds early in the spring and is retained until well into the autumn and its pinnate character distinguishes it from that of all other Lilacs. The small creamy or pure white flowers, with anthers clearly visible in the wide throat, have a somewhat unpleasant fragrance. The clusters are small and inconspicuous and slightly nod- ding. They open during the first two weeks of May, — or considerably earlier than those of most of the Lilac species, — and are too small and hidden by foliage to make the plant of much value as a decorative garden shrub. It is interesting rather than ornamental and, because of its somewhat picturesque habit, might be of value as a tub plant. It has been noted (Gard. Chron. ser. 3, lx. 269, 1914) that the short flower clusters are "not unlike those of species of Ribes." S. pinnatifolia is most nearly related to S. persica, but, although at one time it was thought that this species might rival the Persian Lilac, the general resemblance of the foliage probably giving rise to this idea, it is now evident that in bloom it is far inferior to the better known species. Pinnate Lilac has been adopted as approved common name by "Standardized Plant Names" (485, 1923). Plate CLV SYRINGA AMURENSIS (Arnold Arboretum no. 1033) Winter buds, enlarged. December, 1925. Plate CLV1 SYRINGA AMURENSIS (Arnold Arboretum no. 1033) Expanding buds, enlarged. April 30, 1926. Plate CLYII o o co •— I CO S3 w s & H o < o Pi CO e 3 m CO W « CO