This may not be verified n the state. There has been much uncertainty about how to distinguish pubescens from eriocrpa (W; Ballard et al. 2023); see also notes under eriocarpa. V. pubescens was considered by F and others to differ from eriocarpa as follows: plants densely pubescent (versus glabrate); generally with more robust but solitary stems; basal leaves usually absent or solitary (versus often tufted with 2-3); leaves paler, thicker and rugulose, with larger average size (5-12 cm wide versus 2-10 cm) and more teeth per half (15-23 versus 8-15);; stipules ovate-oblong to semiovate (versus lanceolate to narrowly semiovate). Some previous treatments have generally indicated that typical pubescens is widespread across eastern North Americain in relatively undisturbed, mesic woods on fertile soils, but it is uncommon to rare in the lower Ohio and central Mississippi Valleys and virtually absent on the southeastern Coastal Plain (D, ML, Sm, F, W). Included here is the glabrous-fruited var. peckii House, which does not deserve recognition. In marked contrast to previous treatments of pubescens, Ballard et al. (2023) have recently provided a much narrower circumscription and range, mostly in the Great Lakes region, New England and adjacent Canada, and generally at high elevation in the Appalachians (similarly to Acer spicatum and Betula alleghaniensis). They have not included Ky. in the range, but do indicate that variaion of some characters within eriocarpa (especially pubescence) can allow confusion with pubescens. A deeper review of Ky. material is needed.