downloads/Killip 2.pdf - Passion Flowers

AMERICAN PASSIFLORACEAE 453
ILLUSTRATIONS: Aubl. PI. Guian. pi 825; Bot. Reg. 1: pi. 88.
DISTRIBUTION: French Guiana, but perhaps not indigenous there;
frequently cultivated.
(Y).
CALIFORNIA: Pacific Beach, Kumm in 1930 (N).
BERMUDA: Herrington Sound, cultivated, Brown & Britton 1729
St. George's, cultivated, Brown, Britton & Worthley 1782 (Y).
CUBA: Habana: Puentes Grandes, cultivated, Le6n 639 (HS, Y).
ST. THOMAS: Cultivated, Britton, Britton & Kemp 33 (Y).
FRENCH GUIANA: Cultivated in England by Kennedy & Lee
(K, type of P. glauca Ait.).
Passiflora stipulata is the earliest described member of this group,
and the name has been variously applied to a number of species.
Aublet gives a meager description of only the vegetative parts, and
no flowers, bracts, or peduncles are shown in his illustration. The
type locality was French Guiana.
Passiflora glauca, described in the Hortus Kewensis in great
detail, also was based on a French Guiana plant, and there seems no
reason to doubt that it is the same species as Aublet's. Indeed, in
the Botanical Register (1: pi. 88. 1815) P. stipulata is given as a
synonym for P. glauca. In the Flora Brasiliensis Masters separated
the two species, but cited no specimens of P. stipulata. Later
(Journ. Linn. Soc. 20: 44. 1883), in pointing out the distinguishing
characters of P. stipulata, P. glauca, P. alba (P. subpeltata), and P.
resticulata, he gave a more detailed diagnosis of P. stipulata, mentioning
certain characters that would distinguish P. stipulata from P.
glauca, and citing a specimen from British Guiana which he had
taken for P. stipulata. However, this specimen, which I saw at
Kew, is P. Garckei, so the differences noted by Masters are not
between P. glauca and P. stipulata but between P. stipulata and
P. Garckei.
The type of P. glauca, in the British Museum, is in an excellent
state of preservation, and the diagnosis given above has been drawn
mainly from it, and from cultivated specimens.
The region in which this species is native is uncertain. Aublet
states that his plant was collected in cultivated places, a fact which
suggests that it may not have been indigenous at the type locality.
Cultivated specimens of this are frequent in European herbaria,
their labels indicating that they came from plants grown in gardens
associated with the herbaria. A plant was in full flower at the