ERYTHEA A JOURNAL OF BOTANY, WEST AMERICAN AND GENERAL. EDITED BY WILLIS LINN JEPSON AND OTHERS, OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. MULUME i221, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA. 1895. Mo._Bot. Garden, 1896. CuBERY & COMPANY, PRINTEBS 587 Mission Street, San Francisco, California 1895. CON TRIEBUTORS F. T. Brouerti Watrer ©. BuasDALE Henry N. BovanpER N. L. Brirton, Ph. D. A. Davrpson, M. D. J. Burtr Davy P. Dreren, Ph. D. Aticr Eastwoop TO THIS VOLUME. Marspats A. Howr Tomas HowEtLu Wiutis L. Jepson J. G. Lemmon Franots E. Luoyp S. B. PartsH Cuarues Lovis PonnarD E. ST1zENBERGER, Ph. D. Epw. L. Greene, LL. D. W. T. Tatsevton-Dyer, F. R. 8. H. KE. Hassz, M. D. F. W. Wricut W. G. Wricat VOL. III. JANUARY, 1895. NO. I. ERYTHEA A JOURNAL OF BOTANY, WEST AMERICAN AND GENERAL. EDITED BY WILLIS LINN JEPSON AND OTHERS, OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. — CONTENTS: Chapters in the Early History of Hepaticology—I1L., Marshall A. Howe 1 Observations on the Composite—VIII, - Hdw. L. Greene Miscellaneous Notes and News, - - -.- - - 4B PAGE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA. Cox BERY & COMPANY, PRINTERS 587 Mission Street, San Francisco, Ghiitoriis ERYTHEA A MONTHLY journal of Botany, edited by members of the Depart- ment of Botany at the University of California. Devoted to every department of botanical investiga- tion and criticism. . . Historical papers, general articles on system- atic and geographic botany, and reviews of new literature, will con- tinue to be features of the journal. The subscription price is $1. 50 a year in advance; to Great Brit- ain and the continent of Europe, 7 shillings. Single copies 25 cents. No discount to dealers. Address WILLIS L. JEPSON, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA. University of California. 1 CHAPTERS IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF HEPATICOLOGY.—III. By MarsHatt A. Howe. The Ex¢pacis! of Fabius Columna is a work of some impor- tance in the History of Hepaticology, inasmuch as we here find the beginning of the written history of three species, representing as many genera, namely, Conocephalus conicus, Targionia hypophylla, and a Pellia which Lindberg refers to endivicefolia rather than to epiphylla. One page is given to good figures of the plant described, rendering the deter- minations doubly sure. Columna describes Conocephalus in this manner: ’ “Tt arises on wet, shady rocks, especially those facing the north, and adheres by very fine silky roots, which are abun- dant under the leaves. The latter are a finger’s breadth in width and twice that or more in length, green above ora little yellowish, sealy like the skin of a serpent or of a snail [Limax], a small elevated point being visible in the middle of each scale. It does not produce a flower so far as we have been able to observe unless it is identical with the fruit. It bears from the slightly cleft, sinuous, lunulate extremity of the leaf, a white, smooth, firm, juicy, diaphanous stem, of the thickness of a rush and four inches long, above which rests a small pileus like that of a fungus, divided below into five parts, under which the fruit is contained. The pileus is at first green, a little inclining to yellow, afterwards becomes yellow, and ends with being reddish; these lower divided parts bursting asunder show the black fruit and when opened the frnit falls as a black-purple dust, though it has hitherto been juicy and green. This sooty dust we have learned to consider as seed. It sends up its 1Minus cognitarum rariorumque nostro celo orientium stirpium Ex¢pacrs; Rome, 1616. I am indebted to the courtesy of Mr. C. H. Wright of the Royal Gardens at Kew for a transcript of Columna’s treat- ment of “Lichen” and to the Director, Dr. W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, by whose kind permission the extract was sent. Exytura, Vol. IIL, No. 1, [2 January, 1895.] 2 ERYTHEA. stalk in the month of March and is mature in April.” This, it hardly needs to be remarked, much excels any description of Hepaticse that we have seen up to thistime. The allusions to the areolz and pores of the thallus and to the spore-dust are especially noteworthy. The paragraph has the heading “Lichen Plinii primus,” to which title Colamna adds the word “ pileatus.” The Pellia, supposed by Lindberg to be endiviefolia, is described under the heading “ Lichen alter minor caule cal- ceato brodedeuevw.” It is said that “ this delights in the same places and arises in a similar manner, but is smaller in every part, on account of which difference we have called it ‘the less.’ The stem is irodcdenevo, that is tosay, calceate. It has a more delicate and smaller leaf, very thin, translucent, so that it is indistinctly seen in the shade; when it is older, it passes from purple to blackish. It is smooth and not’ squamous, but from the back something almost like a scab- bard or calceus, with a fimbriate mouth, arises a little, from which at the Ides of March there springs forth a smooth, blackish-green little ball of the size of the chick-pea [ Orobus]. This afterwards leaps upward, supported by a stem four fingers high; it is now a little lutescent and dehisces into a yellow flower of four leaflets, containing within a great quan- tity of very fine impalpable threads. The stem which was round, smooth, naked, juicy, diaphanous, white, and easily injured by the touch, falls to the ground on drying. The roots are silky-villous—none more delicate can be found. This plant is smaller by a fourth part than the one described above.” Targionia hypophylla is saluted as the “Lichen alter acaulis tropvAAoxapros” and is described in words which we translate as follows: ‘This delights in a habitat like those of the former species and is met with at the same time in mossy places and others such as have been mentioned above. This kind is the smallest, for its leaves rarely equal in mag- nitude the nail of the little finger. It is green and is 2Op. cit., p. 332. CHAPTERS IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF HEPATICOLOGY. 3 sprinkled over with whitish elevated points, so that it seems rough. In place of a flower preceding the fruit, it has on the lower part of the leaf, while it is yet small, cartilages on either side, purple, then black, set opposite to each other after the manner of ribs or valves. These you can raise with the edge of a knife; they differ from the leaf in that the latter is green. When, however, it is larger, the entire leaf grows from purple to black, swells at the extremity, and sends forth fruit of the same color, like that of Orobus in size, soft and filled with a watery whitish juice; afterwards it sends out something saffron-colored, the result of greater maturity. The black cortex being ruptured, a pericarp, as it were, contains the fruit, covered within by a yellow pellicle. This contains a yellow dust; yet the fruit is juicy if rubbed, and, this moisture being immediately dissipated by the heat of the finger, the infected finger is recognized by the yellow dust. The leaves adhere by very delicate and extremely short white fibrils.” In the “‘Prodromus Theatri Botanici’ of Caspar Bauhin is a paragraph on Muscus fontanus or Hepatica aquatica, in which the author states that these terms are applied in a triple sense. To the “greater and less” of Lobelius, Taber- neemontanus, and others, he adds a third called the “‘ Muscus fontanus with racemose capitula.” He describes it as hav- ing “far smaller leaves, pale green and somewhat hirsute, joined in the manner of scales, among which are brought forth very many naked capillary two-inch pedicels, each of which bears a small capitulum, compact like a raceme and rufescent,” so far as he can conclude from a dry specimen sent by a correspondent whom he names. This plant is identified with Preissia by Lindberg. In the “ Pinax” of C. Bauhin, published three years later, under the chapter- heading, ‘‘Muscus Saxatilis vel Lichen” are listed nine supposed species of which the first seven are hepatic forms. = 1620. The copy consulted was of the second edition (1671), p. 4Pinax Theatri Botanici; Basel, 1623. Page 362 in edition seen (1671). 4 ERYTHEA. The first three, Lichen petreus latifolius sive Hepatica fon- tana, Lichen petreus stellatus, and Lichen petreus wmbel- latus, all belong to Marchantia polymorpha. The others are the Preissia first described in the Prodromus and the three of Columna—Conocephalus, Pellia, and Targionia. C. Bauhin’s list of five species is the most complete that we have met with up to this point. John Parkinson in his “Theatrum Botanicum”™ gives nearly two large quarto pages to descriptions and figures of “ Liverwort.” He recognized seven species, but, as the first two may be reduced to M. polymorpha and as the seventh is a lichen used for making purple dye, we have left but the five of C. Bauhin. Parkinson repeats Gerard’s error of accompanying his first description of Marchantia with the figure of a Sticta. In his description of the smaller form of Marchantia—Hepatica minor stellaris-—he says that “ there is also another sort that beareth not divided leaves and the small stalks have round heads, not differing in any other thing from the last,’ which recalls Johnson’s treatment of the male and female forms in the revision of Gerard’s Herball. But, on figuring these forms, Parkinson trans- poses the names, calling the one with rays Hepatica minor umbellatus (apparently disregardful of grammatical endings) and that with “round heads” Hepatica minor stellaris— evidently a blunder of inadvertence, especially as others of a like nature occur in the work. He states that three of his hepatics are taken from Columna and a fourth from Bauhin, leaving Marchantia alone of which he had personal knowl- edge. Figures of Conocephalus and Pellia are subjoined, in addition to those of Marchantia alluded to above. In Tomus III of the “ Historia Plantarum Universalis” of Johann Bauhin and Johann Heinrich Cherler, a page is given up to “ Lichen sive Hepatica fontana.’ The authors indulge in a discussion of the Lichen of various predecessors, 5London, 1640; pp. 1314-1316. 6Embrun, 1651; p. 750, Tomus III. CHAPTERS IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF HEPATICOLOGY. 65 especially as the word was understood and applied by Platearius, Brunfels, Tragus, Lobel, and C. Bauhin, with no reference to the plants of Columna. They observe that Lobel and Tabernemontanus give three figures but fail to show in what respect these forms differ. They make an advance in being inclined to reduce these three forms to a single species, without, however, giving any definite reason for so duing. A single figure of a fruiting Marchantia, resembling that of Fuchsius is appended. Why the Lichens of Columna are passed over in silence in a “ Historia Uni- versalis” is not clear. The authors could not have been ignorant of the work of Columna, for his hepatics or “lichens,” as we have seen, find a place in the Pinax of ©. Bauhin, which they quote. In the years intervening between the brothers Bauhin and John Ray, there appeared three scientific works of varying degrees of importance, to each of which Lindberg traces the first description of a single hepatic. I have not had access to these three works and am thus indebted to Lindberg for my knowledge of their treatment of the Hepatice. The first of these was the “ Pinax Rerum Naturalium Brittani- carum ” of Chr. Merritt (London, 1667) in which is described a Lichen capillaceus identified by Lindberg as Anthoceros punctatus. In the historically well-known “ Anatome Plan- tarum ”? of Malpighi are figures and description of Lunularia vulgaris, and, according to Lindberg, there may be found also in the second volume of Sibbald’s “Scotia Illustrata” (Edinburgh, 1684) a figure and short diagnosis of Plagio- chila asplenoides. During this century the compound microscope had come into use, and we have now entered upon an era of more exact knowledge of the structure and affinities of the lower plants. This advance becomes very evident in the works of that botanist and philosopher, John Ray. Book third of the first volume of his “ Historia Plantarum ”® is “about herbs with very minute seeds, flower either none or imper- 7TLondon; vol. IT, 1679. 8London; vol. I, 1686. 6 ERYTHEA. fect.’ “We divide this book,” he says, “ into two parts. The first will be concerned with stem-bearing herbs of this kind, the second with those wanting a stem and having hypophyllous seeds. These, moreover, are deservedly placed next to the preceding [fungi, alge, sterile mosses, etc.], which are imperfect and destitute of seed, because these plants themselves were considered sterile and seedless not so long ago—before their seeds came into view by the assistance of the microscope.” In the introduction to Part I., “concerning stem-bearing plants,” he remarks: “Some species of Lichens do not produce caulicles, but their seeds arise in the leaves themselves, now in a lower, now in an upper part, which, nevertheless, we have thought ought not to be separ- ated from the rest on this account, inasmuch as they agree in all the other known characters.” OBSERVATIONS ON THE COMPOSIT#.— VILL. By Epwarp L. GREENE. The discussion of “Aplopappus,” now for some months interrupted, may be conveniently resumed after the record- ing of some observations upon certain types that were never referred to that genus. In maritime subtropical North America, and to be more definite, on opposite shores of the Gulf of Mexico, grow two species of shrubby or suffrutescent plants, both of which have been referred by many botanists to Solidago. The one inhabiting the northerly and continental shore is Solidago pauciflosculosa, Michx. That of the opposite and insular stations is S. Domingensis, Spreng. The two are so much alike in general appearance that almost.!any botanist, even @ specialist in the field of the Composite, if he were to trust his eyesight unaided by a lens, would quite possibly pro- OBSERVATIONS ON THE COMPOSITZ. 7 nounce the hebarium specimens of them to be all of a single species. But a lens reveals a marked difference in the superficial anatomy of the leaves, and a slight difference in the achenes, but this is all. That they are two excellent species of one genus, is likely to be the opinion of as many botanists as may be able to consider the question with unbiased mind; unless, perchance, a time shall come when histological characters, such as the inner structure of leaves, shall be deemed sufficient for the distinguishing of genera in default of any difference in flower or fruit. I enter this proviso here, because the venulation of the leaf-surfaces in these two plants is remarkably different, though neither in habit or peculiarities of floral structure, or character of fruit can anything more than specific differences be found. These two subtropic maritime shrubs were, I think, never received as very welcome accessions to Solidago; and each of them has in turn been made the type of a distinct genus; and both the men who have thus dealt with one or both the plants were botanists of note and something of specialists in the Composite. Nuttall, who founded CHurysoma on the first species, did not know the second. Asa Gray, who knew both, suppressed CHRysoMA by remanding its type to Solidago, and then elevated the second to the rank of a new genus under the name of Gundlachia! And this is not the worst of it. There is rather a classic sheet of herbarium specimens of “ Gundlachia” which, both at the time of his publishing that synonym, and afterwards in the Synoptical Flora, he mistook for the other species, that is, for Solidago pauciflosculosa. It will be seen, by reference to the Synop- tical Flora, that S. pauciflosculosa is credited to the Bahama Islands; but the sheet of specimens which furnished the author with his only basis for this statement is surely a sheet of “Gundlachia.” I shall speak of these specimens again. As I have intimated in an earlier article, Solidago must stand upon its habit and inflorescence. If these be not 1ERYTHEA, i. 56. 8 ERYTHEA. deemed sufficient to sustain it in generic rank, then it must go—as Dr. Kuntze says it must anyhow go—into Aster. No shrubs with cymose-corymbose inflorescence—probably no plants of any mode of growth with flat-topped inflorescence —are to be received into Solidago. Indeed, there are genera in plenty, belonging to other orders, which are distinguished by all botanists, on the ground of inflorescence alone. And these two shrubs of the Asteroidex, so far out of harmony with the great body of Solidago species, must be admitted as the type of a genus, the name of which, by undisputed right of priority is Curysoma; and the most genuine species are those now to be indicated. 1. C. pauciflosculosa. Solidago pauciflosculosa, Michx. Fl. ii. 116 (1803); Torr. & Gray, Fl. ii. 225; Gray, Syn. Fl. 161, in part, excluding the plant of the Bahamas. Chrysoma solidaginoides, Nutt. Journ. Philad. Acad. vii. 67 (1834) and Trans. Am. Phil. Soe. vii. 325. Aster pauciflosculosus, O. Ktze. Rey. Gen. 318 (1891). The most pronounced char- acter of this species, as compared with the next, is the remarkable almost favose reticulation of the surface of the leaves. The only suggestions of an approach to this reticula- tion I find in some species of another set of maritime or subsaline shrubs, the Isocomas; but Isocoma is remarkably distinct from Chrysoma in the form of its corollas, and the characters of its achene and pappus. But the two genera must surely be looked upon as nearly related. 2. €. Domingensis. Solidago Domingensis, Spreng. Syst. iii. 369 (1826). Gundlachia Domingensis, Gray. Proc. Am. Acad. xvi. 100 (1880). More decidedly shrubby than the preceding; leaves acute, devoid of reticulation: rays white: achenes with little pubescence. Var. obtusifolia. Apparently only suffrutescent: leaves narrowly oblanceolate, obtuse. Plant of the Bahama Islands. From the genus Solidago as he limited it, these West Indian plants that make Asa Gray’s Gundlachia are in no wise to be distinguished. They have, indeed, white rays; but OBSERVATIONS ON THE COMPOSITZ. 9 so has S. bicolor, which he did not remove from Solidago. And yet, the white rays were what he seemed to emphasize as the generic character. But he also mentions the shrubby habit and subcorymbose inflorescence as distinguishing marks; and. in these respects, as I have said, Gundlachia is quite like one of the species that he left in Solidago; so very like it that, without a lens, he could not, in the herbarium, distinguish it from that species of ‘‘ Solidago.” But it is here worth recording that very early in his botanical career he did perceive and admit that the West Indian plant is con- generic with CarysomMa. Ona sheet of specimens which, in 1840, he saw in the herbarium of Sir William Hooker—the sheet that is typical for my var. obtusifolia—he wrote: “This belongs to the section Chrysoma and is very nearly allied to S. pauciflosculosa, Michx. Is it not the S. Doming- ensis, Spreng.?—A.G.” Doubtless in that early day when he had a reputation to make, he had examined his plant, and had perceived that it was not actually S. pauezflosculosa. But more than forty years afterwards, and one year subse- quently to the proposing of Gundlachia, he wrote upon the same herbarium sheet, under his former note: “It is S. (Chrysoma, Nutt.) pauciflosculosa, Michx.—A. Gray, 1881,” thus reversing his earlier and right judgment upon these specimens. I can only suppose that in 1881 he looked at them but casually, and without a lens, and that so he was deceived by the mere general aspect and the outline of the leaves, which outline in these Bahama specimens is precisely that of C. pauciflosculosa, though they bear not the faintest suggestion of that remarkable reticulation which marks so distinctly every part of the leaf in this species of the United States mainland. The shrubs thus brought into juxtaposition under the name Chrysoma have their nearest relatives on the Pacific side of the continent, and these are partly maritime and partly montane in their distribution. Only one of them has been named asa Solidago by any author. Two others are id ERYTHEA. near of kin to Euthamia, but are shrubby plants, with no ligulate corollas. They have entire punctate leaves, also the inflorescence of Chrysoma, and substantially the same invol- uere, achenes and pappus. I doubt not that they are naturally of this genus, and I here so place them. 3. C€. diffusa. Ericameria diffusa, Benth. Bot. Sulph. 23 (1844). Solidago diffusa, Gray, Proc. Am. Acad. v. 159 (1861). Aster Sonoriensis, O. Ktze. 1. ¢. 317 (1891). This plant is Mexican, inhabiting the territory adjacent to, and on both sides of, the Gulf of California. Its inflorescence is rather too flat-topped for a typical Chrysoma, and its ray- flowers more numerous, though few. Were it not shrubby, its place would be with Euthamia. But the two shrubs next following are at almost perfect agreement with the Chrysoma type in habit and inflorescence, though in them the proper ray-flowers are imperfectly or not at all developed. 4. (. arborescens. Linosyris arborescens, Gray, Bot. Mex. Bound. 79 (1859). Bigelovia arborescens, Gray, Proce. . Am. Acad. viii. 640 (1873). Aster arborescens, O. Ktze. 1. ¢. 315 (1891). Hricameria arborescens, Greene, Man. 175 (1894). Middle California, at low altitudes in both the Coast Range and Sierra Nevada. Achenes shorter and more pubescent than in C. pauciflosculosa, but not turbinate. 5. C. Parishii. Bigelovia Parishii, Greene, Bull. Torr. Club, ix. 62 (1882); Gray, Syn. Fl. 141 (1886). Aster Parishii, O. Ktze. 1. ce. 318. Decidedly glutinous as well as punctate, and with ampler foliage than the last, but other- wise most near it.—Confined to low mountains of southeastern California. Into line with the last two fall several rather diminutive montane shrubs, some with radiate, others with discoid heads, namely: 6. C. nana. Hricameria nana, Nutt., Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. vii. 319 (1840). Aplopappus nanus, D. 0. Eaton, Bot. King Exp. 159. Gray, Syn. Fl. 134, excl. var. cervinus. Like OBSERVATIONS ON THE COMPOSIT2. ll Professors Eaton and Gray, I fail to distinguish from this the EH. resinosa of Nuttall. The species is of the western part of the Great Basin, and is seldom collected. According to Nuttall the rays are not always well developed as ligules, and are ochroleucous rather than yellow, this last a point of affinity, as far as it has value, with the West Indian species. 7. (C. laricifolia. Aplopappus laricifolius, Gray, Pl. Wright. ii. 80 (1852). Aster laricifolius, O. Ktze. 1. ¢. 318. Plant of the southwestern interior, inhabiting rocky hills and low mountains; ligules both well developed and rather numerous. 8. C. euneata. Aplopappus cuneatus, Gray, Proc. Am. Acad. viii. 635 (1873). Aster cuneatus, O. Ktze. 1. ¢. 317. Middle and southern Sierra Nevada of Callfornia. Heads radiate. Var. spathulata. Bigelovia spathulata, Gray, Proc. Am. Acad. xi. 74 (1876); B. rupestris, Greene, Bot. Gaz. vi. 183 (1881). More dwarf and compact than the type, and destitute of rays. Lower California, Arizona, etc. The concluding series of species have a linear heath-like foliage, which gives them a rather peculiar appearance. Number 9 is the type of Nuttall’s Hricamera, a genus main- tained by Bentham and Hooker and some others; but I can can not separate this from those next preceding it in these pages, nor those from the typical Chrysoma. Numbers 9, 10 and 11 were ranged by A. Gray under his Aplopappus for the reason that they have ligules. The others were placed in his Bigelovia because rays were wanting. That they are most strictly congeneric does not seem likely to be called in question. 9. C. ericoides. Diplopappus ericoides, Less, Linnea, vi. 117 (1831). Aplopappus ericoides, Hook. & Arn. Bot. Beech. 146 (1833). Ericameria microphylla, Nutt. Trans. Am. Phil. Soe. vii. 329 (1840). Aster ericinus, O, Ktze. 1. ¢, 313. Shrub of seacoast sandhills in middle California; the leaves slightly pubescent. 12 ERYTHEA. 10. C. pinifolia. Aplopappus pinifolius, Gray, Proc. Am. Acad. viii. 636 (1873). Aster pityphyllus, O. Ktze. 1. ¢. 316. Taller than the last, and of the interior of southern California. 11. C. Palmeri. Aplopappus palmeri, Gray, 1. c. xi. 74 (1876). Aster Nevinii, O. Ktze. 1.c. Habitat of the pre- ceding. 12. (. teretifolia. Linosyris teretifolia, Dur. & Hilg. Pac. R. Rep. v. 9. t. 7 (1855). Bigelovia teretifolia, Gray, l. c. viii. 644 (1873). Aster Durandit, O. Ktze. 1. c. 316. Region of the Mohave Desert, in the mountains. 13. ©. paniculata. Bigelovia paniculata, Gray, 1. c. (1873). Aster Ase, O. Ktze. 1. c. 315. Of southern Cali- fornia and eastward. 14. ©. Cooperi. Bigelovia Cooperi, Gray, 1. ¢. 640. Aster Cooperi, O. Ktze. 1. c. 317. Providence Mountains, in the Mohave Desert, California. 15. C. brachylepis. Bigelovia brachylepis, Gray, Bot. Calif. State Survey, i. 614 (1876). Aster brachylepis, O. Ktze. 1. ¢. Mountains west of the Colorado Desert, Cali- fornia. A somewhat recently discovered solidagineous herb of Mexico, a plant not far removed in nature from Solidago rigida, but with coroniform rather than capillary pappus, on account of a mere analogy of its pappus, has been published under the wrong genus. This, even though a monotype, should form a genus, and may be called Stephanodoria tomentella. Xanthocephalum tomentel- lum, Robinson, Proc. Am. Acad. xxvii. 172 (1892). Typical Xanthocephalum has no pappus at all, but a turgid annulus instead; and the genus should be limited to those species, apparently. But neither the habit, the inflorescence, the involuere nor even the compressed achenes of this plant are at agreement with Xanthocephalum or any of its near allies. OBSERVATIONS ON THE COMPOSITA. 18 An interesting far western plant which can ill be associated with the species of any recognized genus I name Petradoria pumila. Chrysoma pumila, Nutt. Trans. Am. Phil. Soe. vii. 325 (1840). Solidago pumila, Torr. & Gray. Fl. ii. 210 (1842). Aster pumilus, O. Ktze. 1. c. 319. Genus distinguished from Huthamia by its woody caudex and cylindric glabrous distinctly 10-striate achenes; and from Chrysoma by the same characters and by its flat-topped corymbose inflorescence. The species is strictly montane in its habitat, and occupies apparently a narrow belt running almost diagonally across the western part of the North American continent, from Texas to Oregon. It is found only in very stony ground or on bleak ledges. The Greek word for a rock combines with Doria, an early name for the Goldenrod, to designate suitably the genus. There is a very natural group of species belonging to the mountains of Mexico and Central America, of which DeCandolle’s Aplopappus? stoloniferus is the type, which wear so exactly the appearance of Hrigeron, especially of the Japanese H. Thunbergi and the Californian L. glaucus, that I not long since published one of them under the name of EH. Heleniastrum. But having now been privileged to examine at Kew, a good series of specimens, I find it neces- sary to abandon that opinion; not because the typical species looks less like true Hrigeron, but because all exhibit certain characters of receptacle and achenes which are at variance with those of that genus as hitherto accepted. The achenes are apparently terete, quite pronouncedly silky, and are sur- mounted by a pappus rather too firm and too copious for Erigeron; and the receptacle is deeply alveolate. On these three or four technical characters, along with the external marks of Hrigeron with yellow rays, these plants must needs be separated from that genus and from Aplopappus; and I assign the group the generic name 14 ERYTHEA. OSBERTIA.’ 1. 0. stolonifera. Aplopappus? stoloniferus, DC. Prodr. y. 349 (1836). Aster stolonifer, O. Ktze. Rev. Gen. 318 (1891). Slender herb, with long monocephalous scape, and equally long and slender leafy prostrate stolons: the whole plant hirsute, the leaves and involucres more particu- larly so, and almost hispid: radical leaves narrowed to a short and broad winged petiole. _ ©. Heleniastrum. Zrigeron Heleniastrum, Greene, Eryth. i. 150 (1893). Plant stouter, not as tall, less stolon- iferous, without hirsute pubescence, the involucre excepted: leaves ampler, thinner, tapering to a long and wingless petiole. Var. glabrata. Aplopappus stoloniferous. var. glabre- tus, Coult. Bot. Gaz. xvi. 98. Stout, low, scarcely st>louifer- ous, almost glabrous; leaves of firmer texture. Var.? scabrella. Of firm texture, scabrous and hirsutu- lous, dwarf and without stolons: bracts of the involucre broader, almost subulate, only hirsutulous: stout scapes barely 2 inches high. This is n. 3697 of J. Donnell Smiths’ distribution of Guatemalan plants; probably a distinct species. In a former article I concluded my observations on Hrio- carpum by stating that certain species, presumably of that enus, were at that time too little known by me. I, may therefore introduce them here. E. blephariphyllum. Aplopappus blepheriphyllus, Gray, Pl. Wright. i. 97 (1852). Having now seen specimens enough of Charles Wright’s plant on which this species was founded, I am unable to comprehend what reason could be seen for combining it with Aster gymnocephalus. In aspect the two are most unlike each other; and the present plant has more the foliage, the habit and the inflorescence of Grindelia inuloides. I can not doubt that it is a most dis- tinct species. 1 In commemoration of the high services rendered to Mexican botany by Mr. Osperr Satvrn. MISCELLANEOUS NOTES AND NEWS. 15 E. rubiginosum. OCTOBER, 1895. NO. 10. HRYTHEA A JOURNAL OF BOTANY, WEST AMERICAN AND GENERAL. EDITED BY WILLIS LINN JEPSON AND OTHERS, OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. CONTENTS: PAGE Notes on the Genus Nemophila, wi aoe, D Bepete- 190 Pacific Slope Plants in English Gardens, - J. Burtt Davy 148 Open Letters, . - ee Pe ee 147 Miscellaneous Notes and Rewk - - = - 148 BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA. UBERY & COMPANY, PRINTERS 587 Mission Street, San Francisco, California ERYTHEA A MONTHLY journal of Botany, edited by members of the Depart- ment of Botany at the University of California. Devoted to every department of botanical investiga- tion and criticism. . . Historical papers, general articles on system- atic and geographic botany, and miscellaneous notes and news, will continue to be features of the journal. The subscription price is $1.50 a year in advance; to Great Brit- ain and the continent of Europe, 7 shillings. Single copies 25 cents. No discount to dealers. Address WILLIS £. JEPSON, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA. University of California. 139 NOTES ON THE GENUS NEMOPHILA. By F. T. Brouertt. Among the most noticeable of Californian annuals are the showy Nemophilas of the Menziesii group. About half a dozen species have been described by various authors, namely, Douglas, Bentham, Hooker and Arnott, Fischer and Meyer. These in Gray’s Flora of North America were reduced to two, Nemophila insignis, Dougl., and N. Menziesii, H. & A. WN. pedunculata, Benth., a species which properly belongs to this group, although the flowers are minute, has been recognised by Prof. Greene in the “Manual of the Botany of the Bay Region.” Most of the species originally described were known to their authors in the fresh state, while the uniting of species has been done principally by those who have studied the plants as dried specimens. The characters which have been chiefly used in the differ- entiation of species in this group, such as the size and pubes- cence of the plant, the form of the leaves, the color and markings of the corolla are extremely variable. Plants un- questionably of the same species from different localities, and even plants growing side by side, show great diversity in leaf outline and pubescence. The calyx and ovary pre- sent some good characters but the calyx appendages vary greatly in size and shape, being occasionally completely absent. The small flowered Nemophila (N. pedunculata, Benth. ?) growing on the San Francisco sand hills is often without calyx appendages and I have found N. atomaria with only one or two, the others not having developed. As Bentham first pointed out, the inter-staminal scales, or appendages, of the corolla are fairly constant in form in the same species. In the present grouping of the species the form of these scales has alone been considered of primary, and the vegetative characters of only secondary specific value. The corolla appendages are ten in number and occur in pairs at the base of each filament. Fischer and Meyer, in their Eryruaza, Vol. IIL, No. 10 [1 October, 1895]. 140 ERYTHEA. excellent paper on this genus, distinguish three kinds of corolla appendages: (a) scales with free tips; (b) scales adnate their whole length; and (c) hairy lines. Of the three species described in this paper, two have appendages of the first kind, with distinctly free tips. The other species has very narrow and very hairy scales and was probably included by Fischer and Meyer in the last class. Hither of the original descriptions of Nemophila Menziesii and of N. insignis would apply equally well to either of our two common large, blue Nemophilas. Hooker and Arnott who considered N. insignis a variety of N. Menziesii note no difference but the relative size of corolla and calyx. Now the form with reduced or abortive anthers has almost con- stantly flowers of about half the sizo of those of the perfect form. Is it not possible that Hooker and Arnott had these two forms before them when they united the species? How- ever this may be, the descriptions proper are practically identical and can, therefore, be applied but to one plant. In a note Hooker and Arnott state that the leaves of N. Men- zesu are exactly those of N. parviflora, which if constantly true, would exclude the name from use for either of the two plants to which it has been applied in recent works. It seems impossible to determine which plant received the name of N. Menziesii on account of the meagreness of the description. The type specimen is of little use, as Prof. Greene, who has lately seen it, states that it is without flowers and, therefore, impossible of determination. N. in- signis, on the contrary, was figured in the Botanical Register in 1834, undoubtedly from the same plants from which Bentham drew up his description. From this there can be little doubt to which species this name was applied, though the form of the corolla scales is not very clearly brought out. A somewhat incomplete specimen of a large, blue-flowered Nemophila collected by Mr. Burtt Davy on Loma Prieta has leaves very closely resembling those of what seems to be the type of N. parviflora. The flowers are very hairy at the base of the corolla and apparently without scales. NOTES ON THE GENUS NEMOPHILA. 141 This may be the original N. Menzies, but more complete material would be necessary before hazarding an opinion. All that at present seems certain regarding the name N. Menziesii is that it was applied to some member of this group and that it was the first so applied. The original de- scription covers very well the whole group and this taken in conjunction with the close resemblance of the different mem- bers seems to render it advisable to use the name N. Men- ziesii, H. & A., to designate the whole group and to consider the divisions of the group as sub-species. We can thus ap- ply thenames N. insignis, Dougl., and N. atomaria, F. &. M., to the plants which originally received those names. The common plant of the counties north of the Bay has never been properly segregated and is thus left without a name, a lack which I have supplied below. N. intermedia. From 6 to 12 inches long, with ascending branches from the base, more or less hairy, leaves pinnately parted into 5 to 9 entire, or 2- to 5-lobed, divisions, petioles somewhat widened at the base and ciliate, the upper all oppo- site; corolla .75 to 1 inch wide, bright blue to white, distinctly blue-veined, more or less punctate with dull purple dots; inter-staminal scales extending nearly to the sinuses, long, narrow, hairy and with expanded tips; ovary rounded, ovules 12 to 24 This plant is included with several others under the name of N. Menziesii, H. & A., by Gray in the Flora of North America, ii, 156; it is part of N. insignis as defined in the “Botany of the Bay Region.” Living plants have been examined from the counties of San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Lake, Alameda and Contra Costa. The range of this plant is more northerly and westerly than that of N. in- signis which prefers hot localities and especially sandy soils. N. instanis, Doug]. In habit very like the above but less succulent and generally more hairy, leaves somewhat more divided; calyx with broader ovate-lanceolate divisions and shorter and broader appendages, shining and distinctly veined; corolla one inch or more broad or the imperfect 142 ERYTHEA. flowers half that size, from light to deep purplish blue, not distinctly blue-veined, the circular white center more or less punctate; inter-staminal scales short, wide and short hairy; ovary longer than in N. intermedia and with 20 to 32 ovules, Benth. Linn. Trans. XVII, 275, (1833) and Trans. Hort. Soc. I, 479; Gray, Flora of N. A. I, 155; Greene, Bot. Bay Region 252 in part. N. Menziesii, var., H. & A. Bot. Beech. 372. Living plants of this species have been examined from the counties of San Francisco, Alameda (cultivated), Contra Costa, Amador, Tulare and Los Angeles. N. atomarta, F.& M. With the habit of N. intermedia but less hairy and growing only in springy places among the hills; corolla less than one inch wide, white with a slight tinge of violet on the outside of the tube, closely dark-spotted nearly to the edge, densely hairy within the tube; inter-stam- inal scales narrow and long-hairy; ovary rounded and less hairy than that of the two foregoing species, ovules about 16. Ind. Sem. Hort. Petrop. (1835). Bot. Reg. t. 1940 The figure of the scale is drawn from a plant from Caza- dero, Sonoma Co. The color of the flowers is variable in the first two species, but NV. insignis is generally more deeply colored, of a less pure blue and with a white center of more distinct circular outline. The spots are very variable in both species. At Lake Merced, San Francisco and at Pomona the corolla of N. insignis is almost destitute of spots, while specimens of the same species from Tulare are more densely spotted than any specimens of N. intermedia that I have seen; but in neither species do the spots extend to near the edge of the corolla as in N. atomaria. EXPLANATION OF PLATE. I. Nemophila insignis, Douglas, corolla scale. IL, Nemophila intermedia, Bioletti, corolla scale. III. Nemophila atomaria, F. & M., corolla scale. Each of the figures is magnified twenty diameters. Erytuea, Vou. III Puate 2. | toh G ue ah f Hy ai RY) a eo a sete gis ee Ae cy RZeON Rats $ is A f h ce Ree Oy V } i SRS R NIL SUH « Wy See Grd ee ary ey =A M Ny Sere ee Se, Baa Sse eR Sen Te: Pah VS) ON Sa De EON ae ag SENS be Seth a oo Sead Be oS coe SSse rs pees hss a ae CoROLLA SCALES OF NEMOPHILA. 143 PACIFIC SLOPE PLANTS IN ENGLISH GARDENS. By J. Burrt Davy. Tue Englishman’s delight in his garden is proverbial. As with other things, this hobby of his is subject to the vicissitudes of fashion, both as regards the nature of the plants or the particular order or genus which receives his special attention, and as regards the method of laying out of the ground and the grouping of its occupants. Within the last few years a re-action has been observed in English gardens against the stiffness and formality incident to “ carpet-bedding”’ and “ color-massing,” and a desire has been manifest to produce as much diversity of form and coloring in a small space, as good effect would permit. This has resulted in the revival of the more natural and by no means new arrangements known as the “herbaceous-border,” and the “rock-garden.” The former is frequently met with in the form of a long flower-bed under a wall, or dividing a lawn or gravel walk from a live-hedge or shrubbery, having tall and showy herbaceous plants, such as Dahlias, Asters, Chrysanthemums, etc., for a background with shorter plants in front, and a border composed of Lobelia Erinus or some other dwarf species: the individual plants are relatively placed so that a succession of flowers is produced all through the season, no one part being entirely without blossoms or ornamental foliage at any time. The rock-garden is the result of an attempt to reproduce the conditions best adapted to the growth of Alpine plants and ferns, a bog-garden being often combined with the rockery. In order to provide material for, and to maintain an interest in, these two forms of garden—usually met with in the same grounds—it is necessary for the nurseryman to go to more trouble and expense than he would to simply procure new forms, or variations in size and color, of one favorite species such as the ordinary garden Rose, the Pansy or the Chrysanthemum, for instance. He must provide “new garden plants,” 7. e. species which have never hitherto been 144 ERYTHEA. under cultivation or if once grown have since been lost to horticulture, in order to meet the demand for variety and novelty. For herbaceous-border work these plants should come from regions within the temperate zone, or if from the tropics then from comparatively high altitudes; his choice of locality is therefore restricted. Among countries affording the necessary qualifications California is one of the richest fields for the collector, the remarkable variations in climate, soil and altitude found within the borders of the State producing a very great variety in its flora. Earlier in the century, when Englishmen were willing to pay more for rare plants than now, and nurserymen were therefore able to send collectors to all parts of the habitable globe, California yielded no small proportion of the plants newly introduced to a flower-loving public. Latterly, little has been done in this line, but within the last year or two the interest in bulb culture and in the “mixed flower-border,” has resulted in the introduction of several West-American novelties, mainly through the efforts of resident collectors. The bulb catalogue of a London (England) firm of nurserymen, lately issued, offers among other things the following Pacific-coast plants :— Bloomeria aurea, Brodica coccinea, B. congesta, B. grandiflora, B. Hendersoni, B. Howellii and BR. volubilis, Calliprora flava, Calochortus ameenus, C. Kennedyi, C. luteus, C. Lyoni, C. pulchellus, C. splendens, C. venustus, C. v. citrinus, C. v. purpureus, C. v. roseus and C. v. Vesta, Camassia esculenta, C. Fraseri and C. Leichtlini, Erythro- nium giganteum, E. grandifiorum and E. Hendersoni, Fritillaria lanceolata and F. pudica, Milla laxa, and M. biflora. The prices at which these are offered in London are an interesting item: the following are some of the quotations :— Brodica grandiflora 7/6 per 100 or 1/3 per doz.; B. coccinea, Calochortus luteus, and others 4/6 per doz. or 6d. each; Calochortus amoenus, C. venustus Vesta, Camassia Fraseri, Erythronium Hartwegi, and others 7/6 per doz. PACIFIC SLOPE PLANTS IN ENGLISH GARDENS. 145 or 9d. each; Brodiwa Hendersoni, B. Howelliit and B. volubilis 1/ each; Calochortus Lyoni 1/6 each; C. Kennedy 1/9 each; and Camassia Leichtlini 3/6 each. The love of flower-culture has directly benefited the botanist in more than one way. To it, entirely, may be attributed the sending out of James Bowie, Allan Cunning- ham, David Douglas, and other collectors, on those expeditions which did so much to advance systematic botany. It has further resulted in the publication of plant-portraits such as those of the Botanical Magazine, Botanical Register, Gardeners’ Chronicle, and Gartenflora, which have been of Such service in the accurate delimitation of types. It will be of interest to West-American botanists to see that Lilium Parry has recently been figured in the Gardeners’ Chronicle, (Aug. 24th; 3 ser., xviii, 209) the drawing having been made from a specimen recently flowered, for the first time (?), under cultivation in England, and exhibited as a novelty at a meeting of the Royal Horticultural Society by Messrs. Wallace, Nurserymen, of Colchester. The figure is accompanied by the following extract from Dr. Parry’s account of the plant as given by Elwes in his Monograph of the genus Lilium (1880):— “Tn one of my last botanical excursions in the vicinity of San Bernardino in July, 1876, I accepted an oft-repeated invitation to visit the intelligent brothers J. F. and F. M. Ring in their mountain retreat near San Gorgonio Pass. Leaving the broad and picturesque basin of the Santa Ana Valley near the emergence of the stream from the rugged mountain-wall of the San Bernardino range, our route, after crossing Mill Creek, hugged the foothills bordering the Upper Yucaipa Valley; thence by a more rapid ascent in a nearly direct easterly course, we reached an elevated bench scattered with Pine and Oak groves, overlooking the broad sweep of the San Gorgonio Pass, now traversed by the eastern exten- sion of the South Pacific Railroad. In one of these mountain nooks the Messrs. Ring have located a potato ranch, the elevation of over 4000 feet giving a sufficiently cool, moist 146 ; ERYTHEA. climate, while the adjoining mountain-slopes afford an extensive summer cattle-range long after the herbage of the lowlands has dried up. In scattered groves of Pinus Coulteri, the ground was strewn with the massive cones of this peculiar species, its dense scales armed with formidable hooked spines. Many o the cones were fully 6 inches in diameter, with a length of 9 inches. The few perennial watercourses here met with are mostly confined within deep and inaccessible ravines; but more frequently scanty springs ooze out from beneath deep layers of porous strata, and spread out into boggy marshes, generally choked up with rank Willow and Alder growths, and occa- sionally expand into small meadows of coarse grass and sedges. On all the steep gravelly slopes adjoining, there was the usual display of Californian evergreen shrubbery, including the Heath-like Adenostoma (which under the name of ‘chamisal,’ is largely used for fuel), the Holly-leaved Cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) exhaling a strong odor of bitter almonds, the Heteromeles arbutifolia, with glossy varnished leaves, and a prevalent form of ‘California Lilac’ (Ceanothus crassifolius), with thick leathery foliage. The dull green hue which everywhere characterises the moorish growth, is at this time of the year partly relieved by brilliant scarlet festoons of Pentstemon cordifolius trailing over adjoining bushes, or the less showy blossoms of P. ternatus. But what soon attracted more exclusive attention. was a conspicuous yellow Lily growing abundantly on the boggy ground adjoining Messrs. Rings’ house, and sharing with the potato-patch the care and attention of the undisputed possessors of the soil. Though not so showy as some other members of the Lily family in this region, there is a grace displayed in its large drooping flowers, surmounting a slender stem beset with narrow scattered leaves, which are occasion- ally crowded at the base into a distinct whor!.” OPEN LETTERS. 147 There remain many remarkable and handsome novelties indigenous to the Pacific Slope, which would greatly enrich the herbaceous-border, rock-garden or temperate-house of European lovers of plants, and which only await the fore- sight and capital of enterprising nurserymen to be made available. Travelling is still very expensive in this region (3 cents a mile and upwards, by railroad) and the area included in the coast States very great, much greater evidently, than Europeans and even dwellers in the eastern States realize; nevertheless the rapid increase of population and consequent increase in facilities for travel renders the work of exploration, collection and transport comparatively easy, and far less costly than in many other countries, especially if resident collectors, well acquainted with western life, are employed. While annuals form a large proportion of the showy spring flowers of the coast plains, there is also a rich abundance of perennial species. OPEN LETTERS. The following letter is in answer to an inquiry respecting the folk-name “gietta grass” and the identification of the plant to which it is applied. San BERNARDINO, CALIFoRNIA, Sept. 15, 1895. Your favor inquiring about the desert grass called gietta grass is received. The name as given in Bot. Calif. (ii. 293) is Pleuraphis rigida, but later it has been named by Haeckel Hilaria rigida. It is true desert grass, never growing elsewhere. It is excellent fodder, not only “mules” but horses and cattle preferring it to any other wild or culti- vated plant, I believe. It is the grass often spoken of by desert men as being “cut with a hoe,” as it is s0 woody (apparently) and brittle that a hoe is the ordinary tool used in gathering it. Teams coming in from the desert often have 148 ERYTHEA. a bundle of it on their wagon, as a precautionary provision for the animals. The orthography of the word, [gietta], is various; I judge it to be an Indian word, a true “native word” as well as being a native plant; it is sounded as if spelled gy-i-ett’-a, almost in four syllables,—-(g — hard, i= short e), though the i is very short and slurred over, approaching gy-ett’a. _ The only other desert grass of eminent value for forage is the “grama grass”, Bouteloua spp. of Bot. Calif., which grows in similar places,—both grasses growing abundantly in their own chosen localities, but always thoroughly desert. It has been some years since I have collected many desert plants and I am not certain whether I have any specimens or not, of either, as my plants are boxed and stored; but if you need any, I can probably get them, perhaps from Mr.— , if not from my boxes. Yours truly, . G. WRIGHT. Miss Auicz Eastwoop, California Academy of Sciences. MISCELLANEOUS NOTES AND NEWS. THE vacancy in the professorship of botany in the University of California has been filled by the election thereto of Dr. W. A. Setchell, Instructor in Botany in the Sheffield Scientific School, Yale University. He graduated from Yale in 1887 where he was a student of Eaton and continued his work as a graduate student under Dr. Farlow at Harvard where he received his doctor’s degree in 1891. Professor Setchell is largely interested in the marine algae. As a result of his work in this field he has contributed to the Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences two articles: “Concerning the Structure and Development of Tuomeya fluviatilis, Harv.” (xxv., 53, May, 1890) and “Concerning the Life-History of Saccorhiza dermatodea, MISCELLANEOUS NOTES AND NEWS. 149 (De la Pyl.) J. Ag.” (xxvi, 177, September, 1891). These articles were accompanied by plates illustrating gross and minute structure. A paper entitled “On the Classification and Geographical Distribution of the Laminariaceae,” may be found in the Transactions of the Connecticut Academy, (ix., 333, 1893). These papers will give an idea of the character and purpose of the research work of the new head of the Department of Botany at California. We believe they represent thus far the totality of his published contributions to the knowledge of the marine algae. In the Botanical Gazette for May, 1894, appeared ‘ Notes on the Ustilagineae.” Professor Setchell there describes a new species of Doassansia, viz. D. intermedia and, also, describes and figures the germination of several other species. One of his latest papers is a biographical sketch of Professor Eaton. This was published in the Bulletin of the Torrey Club for August, 1895. The summer botanical work at Woods Holl, it may be noted, is under his direction. It is hardly necessary to say that Professor Setchell is versed in modern laboratory methods. He has the reputation of being a careful and thorough worker and possesses the very large advantage of being a young man. Dr Maxwext T. Masters, has renamed the Guadeloupe Island Cypress as Cupressus macrocarpa var. guade- loupensis, in the Gardeners’ Chronicle for July 20 (3 ser., xviii. 62). In connection with this change he remarks:— “The late Prof. Sereno Watson described, (Proc. Am. Acad. xiv. 300, 1879), this fine Cypress as a distinct species, under the name of C. guadeloupensis, and perhaps rightly. Itmay also, and, as we think, more correctly, be considered as a form of C. macrocarpa. The latter, known as the Monterey Cypress, has a very limited range of distribution on the Californian coast, and, to our thinking, the present is but an insular variety of the species, differing from the type more especially in its glaucous color. It is true there is a consid- erable distance between Monterey in lat. 36° 4’, and 150 ERYTHEA. Guadeloupe, an island in 29° N. L., 200 miles from the ma n- land, with deep sea all around, but it is possible that inter- mediate localities may be found. At any rate, the presence of distinct characters is a common feature of plants growing on isolated islands, * * *,” In his Handbook of West-American Oone Bearers, (July, 1895) Mr. Lemmon gives as an additional locality for this tree, “Coast of San Diego County, California.” Dr. Masters’ article is accompanied by a figure of Cup- ressus macrocarpa var. guadeloupensis with foliage and male flowers magnified, cones rather reduced, and, for sake of comparison, a figure of C. Arizonica, Greene, with a transverse section of the leaves of that species, and also of those of C. macrocarpa, Hartweg. J. B.D. THE sum of $250,000 has been subscibed for the proposed New York Botanic Garden. A number of wealthy citizens have each subscribed $25,000 and others lesser amounts. The sum so obtained, and as much more as can be secured, is designed solely for an endowment. The city of New York is expected to provide two hundred and fifty acres of land and a half-million dollars for buildings. The plans of this bot- anical establishment as outlined contemplates that pro- vision will be made for nearly all lines of botanical work. The success of the undertaking thus far is large] y due to Dr. N. L. Britton. VOL. Ill. * NOVEMBER, 1895. NO. II. ERY PHEA A JOURNAL OF BOTANY, WEST AMERICAN AND GENERAL. EDITED BY WILLIS LINN JEPSON AND OTHERS, OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. ¥ CONTENTS: PAGE Observations on the Habits of Nemophila, Alice Eastwood 151 Botanical Excursion to Antelope Valley, Dr. A. Davidson 158 Nomenclature at the Springfield Meeting, Charles Louis Pollard 158 — Miscellaneous Notes and News, - - - - 161 BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA. UBERY & COMPANY, PRINTERS 587 Mission Street, San Francisco, California 189 a ERYTHEA A MONTHLY journal of Botany, edited by Witiis Linn Jepson and others of the Department of Botany at the University of Calli- fornia. The subscription price is $1.50 a year in advance; to Great Brit- ain and the continent of Europe, ” shillings. Single copies 25 cents. No discount to dealers. Address Publisher of ERYTHEA, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA. University of California. 151 OBSERVATIONS ON THE HABITS OF NEMOPHILA. By Atrtoz Eastwoop. The Nemophilz comprised provisionally under the name of Nemophila Menziesii in a previous article! are un- doubtedly adapted for pollination through the agency of insects. The lines and dots of the petals, the honey glands and protective hairs, and, above all, the arrangement of the essential organs indicate it plainly. In Nemophila insignis and intermedia (?) there are two distinct kinds of plants, those with pistillate flowers only and those whose flowers are all hermaphrodite. This may also be the case in N. atom- aria; but so far all plants seen have only hermaphrodite flowers. The hermaphrodite flowers of the group are proterandrous. Soon after the flower expands the stamens begin to discharge their pollen; the stigmas are immature and non-receptive and the two branches of the style are almost side by side as shown in figures A and C, the papillae on the surface of the stigma being undeveloped though perceptible. The stamens are extrorse and discharge the pollen among the hairs of the corolla appendages and of the ovary. The honey glands are quite large and are protected by the surrounding hairs. As the anthers grow old, shrivel and lose their pollen, the branches of the style begin to spread apart and grow longer, even curving downwards as if to reach the insects seek- ing the honey below at the base of the ovary; the stig- mas become bulbous and the papillae which were smooth and round develope almost into tubercles. Figures C and D show the difference between the mature and immature stigmas. In the pistillate flower (fig. B) the opening corolla shows quite a different condition. The stamens are, of course, ster- ile, mere ghosts of stamens with the outlines of filaments and anthers but without that which gives the anthers life. The pistil, however, is conspicuous, the branches of the style fully Eryruma, Vol. IIL., No. 11 [1 November, 1895]. 1 Supra p. 139. 152 ERYTHEA. expanded and the stigmas receptive from the first. Figs. E and F' show the relative size of the fertile and sterile anthers. The honey glands of the pistillate flowers are somewhat larger than those of the hermaphrodite flowers and the corollas are usually smaller. Wherever a patch of Nemo- phila insignis is seen the female plants can be easily distin- guished by a more robust habit of growth and smaller deep blue flowers. The plants with perfect flowers are more abundant and with their more showy corollas almost banish their specialized companions into obscurity. An investigation of many plants of Nemophila insignis collected when the first fruits were ripe and flowers still pres- ent did not show, as expected, that the fruits of the pistillate flowers contained more or larger seeds or indeed any struc- tural superiority. If there is any, the evidence is in favor of the hermaphrodite flowers. An unlooked-for, but easily ex- plained difference, however, became evident. It was found that the pistillate flowers ripened fruit earlier. The reason of this will be understood when it is re- membered that the pistillate flowers have receptive stigmas from the first and so get the start of the hermaphrodite flowers. This habit of the plant may have arisen from the necessity for ripening the fruit before the dry season. Nemophila is one of the earliest annuals and without quali- ties for resisting drought. It comes up early in the spring, flourishes awhile in great profusion and, except in some favored spots, is entirely gone before the hills turn brown. The following table shows the results of the examination of the fruits. Besides the hermaphrodite flowers in the table, a great many were examined that had fruit too young to be sure of the number of seeds. Of these I kept no account. Very few plants with pistillate flowers were found that had not some pods with well formed seeds. Each group of figures enclosed in parentheses represents the number of seeds found in the almost ripe capsules of a single plant, each fig- ure representing a single capsule. ErytHeEa, Vou. III. NEMOPHILA INSIGNIS, Dougl. BOTANICAL EXCURSION TO ANTELOPE VALLEY. 153 PLANTS WITH HERMAPHRODITE FLOWERS. (14,8) (16) (12, 13, 8,9,10) (9,11,15) (20, 18, 18, 16, 19) (14, 6, 8, 6) (16, 12) (20, 23, 26) (18, 19) (14, 25, 19, 23, 14) (18, 17) (8) (7) (6) PLANTS WITH PISTILLATE FLOWERS. (13, 14) (10,9, 6, 10) (19, 16, 13, 22) (14, I8, 21, 16) (8, 7, 11) (3, 4) (8, 6, 5, 6, 3) (7, 9,9) (9) (7, 9, 8) (3) (10, 6) (13, 5, 9, 11, 12) (18, 8, 10) (15, 16) (22, 20, 19, 17, 16, 17) (14, 18, 20) These tables are interesting as showing the variable num- ber of seeds ripening, and also that the two kinds of plants are equally variable in this respect. EXPLANATION OF PLATE. A. Perfect flower; a, honey gland; b, anther discharging pollen. B. Pistillate flower; a, honey gland; b, anther discharging pollen. C. Immature stigma. D. Receptive stigma. E. Sterile stamen. F. Fertile anther. BOTANICAL EXCURSION TO ANTELOPE VALLEY. By Dr. A. Davipson. On the first day of May my companion and I arrived at Lancaster, Los Angeles Co., on a botanical excursion, and early the following morning took our seats in the mail stage for Gorman Station, fifty miles westwards. The dis- trict traversed, commonly known as the Antelope Valley, is practically an immense, level, triangular plain bounded by the Tehachapai Mountains on the north and the Sierra 154 ERYTHEA. Madre on the south, and at the point of junction is Gorman, a few miles on this side of the summit of the pass that lies within thirty miles of Bakersfield. The soil immediately surrounding Lancaster, and for twenty miles west thereof, is little cultivated, but beyond that point the valley, in almost its whole extent, may be considered as land fertile and fruitful. About midway on this journey is the Colony of Manzana where about three thousand acres of the land bordering the southern foothills is occupied by neatly cultivated and thriv- ing orchards of almond trees. The remainder of the valley where cultivated is sown with wheat. This year, doubtless owing to the opportune rains of winter, the wild plants all over this section have not only been more abundant than I have ever seen them but the colored species are of a deeper, richer tint. The mind may picture, to some extent, perhaps, the gorgeous effects produced by the acres on acres of wheat fields and hillsides aglow with Eschscholtzias, their petals of burnished gold and crimson reflecting the rays of the noon-day sun, while here and there large and deep blue patches of Salvia carduacea and the purple of Orthocarpus purpurascens amidst the golden Eschscholtzia heightens the beauty of the scene. Amsinckia spectabilis, F. & M., known here by the rather appropriate name of “ Woolly Breeches,” is very abundant, and in the uncultivated or neg- lected fields it seems for a season or two, with Tropidocar- pum scabriusculum, Hook., to monopolize the soil. As we continued our journey, the valley gradually nar- rowed until the terminus was reached at Gorman, where it is but a narrow pass. There we arrived at six o'clock and made our quarters in the old hostelry. The next morning the stiff breeze of the day before had increased to a gale, so we turned our faces to the southern hills, and explored the sheltered valleys on that side, As the object of this paper is to list the various plants of this district that are mostly unrecorded for the county, I shall omit all reference to the commoner species. The first BOTANICAL EXCURSION TO ANTELOPE VALLEY. 155 plant gathered, and of which we had seen specimens on the way, was Oollinsia Davidsoni, Parish. It seems to be abundant all along the foothills from Lancaster. The type specimens from the latter place possessed a smooth calyx, while some of those here, and near Manzana, were more or less hirsute, nevertheless, it proves to be a good species. The beautifully colored Astragalus Purshi, Dougl., was abundant, growing with Senecio multilobatus, T. & G.; the latter, common enough on the coast hills at an altitude of four thousand feet, I have not found further east on this range, although it extends inland on the northern mountains as far as Tehachapai. A few plants, the only ones seen, of Balsamorrhiza deltoidea, Nutt., were noticed among the scrub oak, and Ribes leptanthum, Gray, Phacelia ciliata, Benth., Streptanthus acutirostris, and Galiwm Andrewsii, Gray, were all in flower. Ina sheltered nook my first specimen of Bromus carinatus, Hook., was gathered, and on the margin of the marsh, near the station, appeared Microseris montana, Greene, and a variety of Vicia Americana with hirsute leaves. Tn the afternoon we climbed the steep slopes of the hills on the northern side of the pass, which, on account of the trespassing sheep, were nearly devoid of underbrush but copiously covered with Lupinus formosus, var. Bridgesi, Greene, L. Chamissonis, Esch., var. longifolius, Wats., L. mi- cranthus, Dougl., Layia heterotricha, H. & A. Gilia tenuiflora, Benth., and, more sparingly, G. inconspicua, Dougl., var. sinuata, Gray. In the shade of some live oaks Ellisia membranacea, Benth., was abundant. On the rocky ground grew Streptanthus heterophyllus, Nutt., Gnothera gaureflora, T. & G., and a few plants of Astragalus Antiselli, Gray. : On the next day we took the stage back to Manzana, col- lecting on the way Madia elegans, Don, Troximon hetero- phyllum, Greene, Malacothrix Coulteri, Gray, and Mirabilis multiflora, Gray, var. pubescens, Wats., the last not yet in flower. For the next three days we made Manzana our headquarters in order to explore the hilly district adjoining. 156 ERYTHEA. About three miles from Manzana is a small sheet of water, Lake Catrina, the road to which is well defined and botani- cally very interesting. As we entered the foothills the first shrub encountered was the wild almond, Prunus fasciculata, Gray. Gilia Parrye, Gray, and G. dichotoma, Benth., are here abundant. Throughout the day the latter can scarcely be observed, its convoluted tube being tightly closed, is inconspicuous; but at five in the afternoon all is changed. The plants of Gilia Parry, that all day sparkled like daisies in the sun, have closed, and in the space of ten or fifteen minutes, Gilia dichotoma has unrolled its petals and filled the air with sweet fragrance. With the appearance of the morning sun Gilia dichotoma goes to sleep again, and Gilia Parrye opens. A few specimens of Collinsia Childsii, Parry, gathered here had such congested branches as to appear new to me, but Dr. Robinson of Harvard, who examined them, informs me that the same form was gathered by the Death Valley explorers. Peucedanum dasycarpum, T. & G., and P. Parishii, C. & R., were plentiful and in the shade of the pine trees, further on, Leptotenia multifida, Nutt., was coming into flower. Chcenactis Fremonti, Gray, C. stevioides, H. & A., C. Xantiana, Gray (the two latter rare), with Viola premorsa, Dougl., and Arabis pulchra, M. Jones, were here observed. On the heights near the shore of the lake Thermopsis Cali- fornica, Wats., was growing, while around the water were a number of willows which presented a curious appearance on account of the long rootlets hanging from their branches six feet up, the result of a long continued overflow of water about six years ago. Entering a cafion south of this, and passing over a high ridge into King’s .Cafion, gave us an opportunity of seeing Some new shrubs. In the bottom of the watercourses and in King’s Cafion a few trees of Asculus Califormca, Nutt., were found; doubtless they are to be found in all the moist cations of the range. The pine trees here (alt. 3,500 ft.) are all Pinus Sabiniana, Dougl., while farther westwards P. oe. eee a ke ee - * vs ng oles =e ue Me 3 : * : : : BOTANICAL EXCURSION TO ANTELOPE VALLEY. 157 monophylla, Torr. & Frem., is more common at this altitude. The younger trees, with their large lateral and persistent cones, and long leaves, look quite handsome, but the older ones with gnarled and twisted trunks are unsymmetri- cal and ragged. A few trees of Forestiera Neo-Memi- cana, Gray, occupying a shady slope, and Ceanothus vestitus, Greene, and C. divaricatus, Nutt., the only representatives of this family, were noted. Some of the hillsides, devoid of brush and almost wholly covered with Lupinus Chamissonis, var. longifolius, Wats., presented quite a gorgeous appearance. On the richer banks along the path, Syntrichopappus Lem- moni, Gray, Troximon retrorsum, Gray, Microseris lineart- folia, Gray, with glandular peduncules, Lotus leucophyllus, Greene, and Eulophus Pringlei, C. & R., were in flower. At the head of King’s Cafion, Claytonia spathulata, Dougl., and Pentstemon ternatus, Torr., grew rather sparingly. Around Lancaster the majority of the spring plants were in bloom and the following less common species were observed and deemed worthy of record: Gilia tricolor, Benth. Astragalus acutirostris, ‘G. Matthews, Gray. Wats. G. floccosa, Gray. Lupinus Shockleyi, Wats. G. latiflora, Gray. CGinothera gaureefiora, G. inconspicua, Dougl. Malacothrix glabrata, Gray. M. sonchoides, T. & G. Glyptopleura setulosa, Gray. Anisocoma acaule, T. & G. Rafinesquia Neo-Mexicana, Gray. Aplopappus interior, Coville Streptanthus inflatus, Greene Lepidium Fremonti, Wats. Delphinium recurvatum, Greene. Canbya candida, Parry. Astragalus dispermus, Gray T. & G. (. Palmeri, Wats. Ci. caespitosa, Nutt. CZ. brevipes, Gray. CZ. dentata, Cavanilles, var. grandiflora, Wats. Coldenia brevicalyx, Wats. Pectocarya setosa, Gray. Phacelia bicolor, Torr. P. Mohavensis, Gray. Nama pusillum, Lemmon. Malva exile, Gray. Spheralcea ambigua, Gray. Lycium Cooperi, Gray. 158 ‘ERYTHEA. Castilleia plagiotoma, Gray. Chorizanthe brevicornu, C. affinis, H. & A. Eriogonum delicatulum, Oxytheca luteola, Parry. ats. Calochortus flexuosus, Wats. i. crenulatum, Parry. C. Kennedyi, Porter. E. angulosum, Benth. Salsola Kali, L. The last, the Russian Thistle, is a recent importation, having been first observed two years ago, though, from the number of plants then existing, it had probably been intro- duced two years prior to that. Be this as it may, there is no doubt of its existence now over a considerable area of the desert lands. It grows freely in the streets of Lancaster, or in any ground where the surface is occasionally disturbed and is thus more likely to prove a pest in cultivated fields than in orchards or in open ground. I observed it near Del Sur, ten miles west of Lancaster, where it was pro- bably carried by the wheels of passing teams, and it requires but a season or two more of neglect to be thus carried over all the roads in the valley. Ten miles to the south-west it is also established, and the local authorities, by way of exter- minating the pest, have destroyed all the old and already fruited plants, and have left those of this season’s growth to mature at will. NOMENCLATURE AT THE SPRINGFIELD MEETING OF THE A. A. A. 8. By Caarues Lovurs Ponnarp. The meeting of the American Association for the Advance- ment of Science, held recently at Springfield, though less fully attended than usual, was certainly a success from a social and scientific point of view. So far as attendance is con-- cerned, it is open to question whether the gatherings of ele a ae rmnat dl Tae NOMENCLATURE AT THE SPRINGFIELD MEETING. 159 various affiliated societies, held before and during the meet- ings of the Association, do not tend to diminish interest in the latter. A committee has been appointed to consider this point and to report at the Buffalo meeting next year. A very praiseworthy change has also been made in the date of assembling, and henceforth the general sessions will com- mence on Monday instead of Thursday as heretofore, allowing four days for the reading of papers, and Saturday for those who wish to take the excursions offered. Undoubtedly the chief interest of many of the botanists present centered in the proceedings of the Botanical Club. It was known that the Nomenclature Committee appointed at Rochester three years ago would render a report at this meeting, and in view of the public discussion which the sub- ject of botanical nomenclature has evoked during recent years, the report and action thereon were expected with interest. The Club was organized on Thursday by the election of Judge David F. Day as temporary Chairman, and H. C. Bolley as Secretary. On the following morning, when the Club was called to order, Dr. Britton reported for the Com- mittee that the Check List of North-eastern North American Plants had been completed in accordance with instructions, and without expense to the Club. In view of the impor- tance of the subject, action was deferred until a special meeting of the Club at four o’clock on Friday, called for the purpose of discussing the report. On Friday afternoon, accordingly, a large number of botanists and others inter- ested assembled. The chair was occupied by the President, Professor Douglas H. Campbell, who had arrived during the day. The gathering probably represented all phases of opinion, and nearly all sections of the country. The motion to accept the committee's report, which had been made at the morning session, was first taken up, and after some discussion as to the effect of its adoption, was carried unanimously. Dr. B. L. Robinson then offered some criticisms on the results of the committee’s work, directed chiefly against such corrections of spelling as Koniga for 160 ERYTHEA. the original Konig, and contended that the strict application of the law of priority should exclude all alterations of gen- eric names. In reply it was admitted that the work of the committee was not altogether free from mistakes, but that in the judgment of a majority of the members, typographical or other obvious errors in orthography (as Scoria for Hicoria) should be corrected. A mistaken impression has prevailed in some quarters that the Check List is to be regarded as infallible; it is, however, merely an illustration of the practical application of a stable and systematic code of nomenclature, requiring much careful revision and the labor of numerous specialists to bring it to the highest degree of utility. Mr. M. A. Carleton urged that no further steps be taken until an international congress could be brought to consider the whole subject of botanical nomenclature. It was observed, however, that the first attempt to bring order out of chaos in the matter of plant names originated in France only, and that British botanists were as reluctant then as now to participate in any movement of reform. In this connection Professor Britton’s notes on the last edition of the London Catalogue of British Plants, given before Section G on Friday morning, are of great interest. In this Catalogue a number of older generic names have been adopted, most of which are identical with those accepted by the authors of the Check List; thus, Castalia replaces Nym- phaea, Nymphaea supplants Nuphar, Senebiera becomes Coronopus, and so on. There are thus only 18 different generic names, with about 440 in common. 1n view of the fact that Engler and Prantl, in “Die Naturlichen Pflanzen- familien ” adopt in most cases these same names, the circum- stance affords a striking object lesson to those who would have us believe that the movement in favor of the law of priority is local in both scope and origin. Discussion at the meeting was terminated by the intro- duction of a resolution by Dr. Britton as follows: Resolved: That in view of the opinions expressed both at home and abroad, the matter be referred to the Committee MISCELLANEOUS NOTES AND NEWS. 161 for discussion, and report next year, and that the Committee be increased by the addition of Professor C. 8. Sargent and Dr. B. L. Robinson. Upon the refusal of the latter to serve, Professor L. H. Bailey was elected as a member of the Committee. The meeting then adjourned until Monday morning, when the following officers were chosen for 1896: President, Mr. Frederick V. Coville; Vice-President, Professor Conway MacMillan; Secretary and Treasurer, Mr. J. F. Cowell. The subject of botanical nomenclature then, so far as further or supplementary action by the Botanical Club is concerned, is deferred, and the principles adopted at Rochester and Madison remain unchanged. The fact that in spite of the large attendance of conservative botanists the main principles of the code were not once attacked, proves conclusively, it would seem, that its ultimate acceptance has become assured. The constantly multiplying disadvantages of a system under which it is possible to assign a dozen different names to the same plant cannot fail to impress the great majority of botanical workers in all countries. MISCELLANEOUS NOTES AND NEWS. Tue First fascicle of Vol. i, Part I, of the Synoptical Flora of North America is announced as ready. This is the first portion of the work to appear since the death of Gray, the preparation of the manuscript having been carried on . B. L. Robinson. The original plan has been followed and the treatment of the Polypetalous orders will form when completed, Vol. i, Part I. The first fascicle in- cludes seventeen orders, Ranunculacex, Orucifere, Violacez, etc. In the preparation of the manuscript for the second fascicle, which is to appear at an early date, Dr. Robinson _ will be assisted by Professors Coulter, Trelease and Bailey. Tae fourth and last part of the Index Kewensis has been issued. 162 ERYTHEA. KERNER and OLIver’s Natural History of Plants is now completed. J. G. Lemmon, familiar as a field student of western pines and firs, published in July, 1895, a small volume which he calls ‘‘ Handbook of West-American Cone-Bearers.’’ Besides the systematic arrangement of the species the author com- ments on the aspect of the pines and the impression made upon the beholder. The Handbook will undoubtedly be of good service to those who desire an easy guide to the scien- tific and common names of our coniferae. There are a number of illustrations of fruiting branches. AN annotated list entitled “Flora of Pasadena and Vicinity,” of which Professor A. J. McClatchie of the Throop Polytechnic Institute is the author, has been sent to us in the form of a reprint from a local history. The list is unique among local catalogues hitherto published in California in that plants of all orders of the vegetable king- dom are included—not excepting the most simple forms. Typographical errors are rather frequent. The author, who has worked zealously on the vegetation of his region, was not given opportunity, we judge, to make corrections. IT Is announced that Mr. B. Daydon Jackson, Secretary of the Linnean Society, so well-known as the compiler of the “ Guide to the Literature of Botany and Vegetable Techno- logy,” but especially of the “Index Kewensis,” will shortly devote his energies to the publication of a new edition of Pritzel’s famous “Thesaurus Literaturae Botanicae.”’ C. G. Luioyvp of Cincinnati, Ohio, distributed early in the year a set of three photographs of American fungi. These photographs are very creditable productions showing well the characteristic features of the plants. Another set (Nos. 4-7) has lately been issued by a photo-gravure pro- cess. It is now proposed to reissue as photo-gravures the first three plates distributed and eventually furnish text with each plate and an index to the whole when completed. VOU. 18: > DECEMBER, 1895. NO. 12. ERYTHEA A JOURNAL OF BOTANY, WEST AMERICAN AND GENERAL. EDITED BY WILLIS LINN JEPSON AND OTHERS, OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. CONTENTS: PAGE Presidential Address to the Botanical Section of the ritish Association, - W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, F. R. 8. 168 Short Articles.—Dates of Publication of Nuttall’s Sue wee a WE retostaphylos elegans, - 178 sin Open Letters, «= = = Miscellaneous Notes and News, oe BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA. BERY & Sous ius, PRIN 587 Mission Street, ay Francisco, ‘Oslitornia 89 HRYTHEA Those who desire the journal for 1896 should remit at onee the subscription price, $1.50, to WILLIS L. JEPSON, Berkeley, California. 163 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS TO THE BOTANICAL SECTION OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION! y W. T. Tutsevton-Dyrr, M. A., F. R. 8. Director of the Royal Gardens, Kew. The establishment of a new Section of the British Associa- tion, devoted to Botany, cannot but be regarded by the botanists of this country as an event of the greatest import- ance. I confess I found it a great temptation to review, however imperfectly, the history and fortunes of our subject while it belonged to Section D. [Biology]. But to have done so would have been practically to have written the history of botany in this country since the first third of the century. Yet I cannot pass over some few striking events. I think that the earliest of these must undoubtedly be regarded as the most epoch-making. I mean the formal publication by the Linnean Society, in 1833, of the first description of ‘the nucleus of the cell,’ by Robert Brown.? It seems difficult to realize that this may be within the recollection of some who are now living amongst us. It is, however, of peculiar interest to me that the first person who actually distinguished this all-important body and indicated it in a figure, was Francis Bauer, thirty years earlier, in 1802. This remarkable man, whose skill in applying the resources of art to the illustration of plant anatomy has never, i suppose, been surpassed, was resident draughtsman for fifty years to the Royal Botanic Garden at Kew. And it was at Kew, and in a tropical orchid, Phaius grandifolius, no doubt grown there, that the discovery was made. It was, I confess, with no little admiration that, on refresh- ing my memory by a reference to Robert Brown’s paper, I Eryruna, Vol. III., No. 12 [11 December, 1895]. 2 Mise. Bot. Works, i. 512. 164 ERYTHEA. read again the vivid account which he gives in a footnote of the phenomena, so painfully familiar to many of us who have been teachers, exhibited in the staminal hair of Tradescantia. Sir Joseph Hooker * has well remarked that ‘the supreme importance of this observation,....leading to undreamt-of conceptions of the fundamental phenomena of organic life, is acknowledged by all investigators.’ It is singular that so profound an observer as Robert Brown should have himself missed the significance of what he saw. The world had to wait for the discovery of protoplasm by Von Mohl till 1846, and till 1850 for its identification with the sarcode of zoolo- gists by Cohn, who is still, I am happy to say, living and at work, and to whom last year the Linnean Society did itself the honor of presenting its medal. The Edinburgh meeting of the Association, in 1834, was the occasion of the announcement of another memorable discovery of Robert Brown’s. I will content myself with quoting Hofmeister’s+ account of it. ‘Robert Brown was the discoverer of the polyembryony of the Conifer. Ina later treatise he pointed out the origin of the pro-embryo in large cells of the endosperm, to which he gave the name of corpuscula.’ The period of the forties, just half a century ago, looks in the retrospect as one of almost dazzling dis- covery. To say nothing of the formal appearance of proto- plasm on the scene, the foundations were being laid in all directions, of our modern botanical morphology. Yet its contemporaries viewed it with a very philosophical calm. Thwaites, who regarded Carpenter as his master, described at the Oxford meeting in 1847 the conjugation of the Diatomacee, and ‘distinctly indicated,’ as Carpenter ® says, ‘that conjugation is the primitive phase of sexual repro- duction.’ Berkeley informed me that the announcement fell perfectly flat. A year or two later, Suminski came to London with his splendid discovery (1848) of the archegonia of the 3 Proc. Linn. Soc., 1887-88, 65. 4 Higher Cryptogamia, 482. 5 Memorial Sketch, 140. BOTANICAL ADDRESS TO THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION. 165 fern, the antheridia having been first seen by Nageli in 1844. Carpenter 6 gave me, many years after, a curious account of its reception. ‘At the Council of the Ray Society, at which,’ he said, ‘I advocated the reproduction of Suminski’s book on the “ Ferns,” I was assured that the close resemblance of the antherozoids to spermatozoa was quite sufficient proof that they could have nothing to do with vegetable repro- duction. ‘Ido not think,’ he added—and the complaint is pathetic—‘ that the men of the present generation, who have been brought up in the light, quite apprehend (in this as in other matters) the utter darkness in which we were then groping, or fully recognise the deserts of those who helped them to what they now enjoy.’ This was in 1875, and I suppose is not likely to be less true now. The Oxford Meeting in 1860 was the scene of the memor- able debate on the origin of species, at which it is interesting to remember that Henslow presided. On that occasion Section D. reached its meridian. The battle was Homeric. However little to the taste of its author, the launching of his great theory was, at any rate, dignified with a not inconsider- able explosion. It may be that it is not given to the men of our day to ruffle the dull level of public placidity with disturbing and far-reaching ideas. But if it were, I doubt whether we have, or need now, the fierce energy which inspired then either the attack or the defence. When we met again in Oxford last year the champion of the old con- flict stood in the place of honor, acclaimed of all men, a beautiful and venerable figure. We did not know then that that was to be his farewell. The battle was not in vain. Six years afterwards, at Nottingham, Sir Joseph Hooker delivered his classical lecture on Insular Floras. It implicitly accepted the new doctrine, and applied it with admirable effect to a field which had long waited for an illuminating principle. The lecture itself has since remained one of the corner-stones of that 6 Memorial Sketch, 141. 166 ERYTHEA. rational theory of the geographical distribution of plants which may, I think, be claimed fairly as of purely English origin. HENSLow. There is one name written in the annals of our old Section which I cannot pass over—that of Henslow. Isuppose there are few men of this century who have indirectly more influenced the current of human thought. For in a great measure I think it will not be contested that we owe Darwin to him. As Romanes has told us:’ ‘His letters written to Professor Henslow during his voyage round the world over- flow with feelings of affection, veneration, and obligation to his accomplished master and dearest friend—feelings which throughout his life he retained with no diminished intensity. As he used himself to say, before he knew Professor Henslow the only objects he cared for were foxes and partridges.’ I do not wish to overstate the facts. The possession of ‘the collector’s instinct, strong in Darwin from his childhood, as is usually the case in great naturalists, to use Huxley’s ® words, would have borne its usual fruit in after life, in some shape or other, even if Darwin had not fallen into Henslow’s hands. But then the particular train of events which culminated in the great work of his life would never have been started. It appeared to me, then, that it would not be an altogether uninteresting investigation to ascertain something about Henslow himself. The result has been to provide me with several texts, which I think it may be not unprofitable to dwell upon on the present occasion. In the first place, what was the secret of his influence over Darwin? ‘My dear old master in Natural History’ (‘ Life,’ ii, 317) he calls him; and to have stood in this relation to Darwin ° is no small matter. Again, he speaks of his friend- 7 Memorial Notices, 13. 8 Proc. R. 8., xliv. vi. 9 As I shall have frequent eet to quote the Life and Letiers, I shall insert the references in the tex BOTANICAL ADDRESS TO THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION. 167 ship with him as ‘a circumstance which influenced my whole career more than any other’ (i. 52). The singular beauty of Henslow’s character, to which Darwin himself bore noble testimony, would count for something, but it would not in itself be a sufficient explanation. Nor was it that intellectual fascination which often binds pupils to the master’s feet; for, as Darwin tells us, ‘I do not suppose that anyone would say that he possessed much original genius’ (i. 52). The real attraction seems to me to be found in Henslow’s possession, in an extraordinary degree, of what may be called the Natural History spirit. This resolves itself into keen obser- vation and a lively interest in the facts observed. ‘His strongest taste was to draw conclusions from long-continued minute observations’ (i. 52). The old Natural History method, of which it seems to me that Henslow was so striking an embodiment, is now, and I think unhappily, almost a thing of the past. The modern university student of botany puts his elders to blush by his minute knowledge of some small point in vegetable histology. But he can tell“ you little of the contents of a country hedgerow; and if you put an unfamiliar plant in his hands he is pretty much at loss how to set about recognising its affinities. Disdaining the field of nature spread at his feet in his own country, he either seeks salvation in a German laboratory or hurries off to the Tropics, convinced that he will at once immortalise himself. But ‘celum non animum mutat’; he puts into ‘pickle’ the same objects as his predecessors, never to be looked at again; or perhaps writes a paper on some obvious phenomena which he could have studied with less fatigue in the Palm House at Kew. The secret of the right use of travel is the possession of the Natural History instinct, and to those who contemplate it I can only recommend a careful study of Darwin’s ‘Naturalist’s Voyage.’ Nothing that came in his way seems to have evaded him or to have seemed too inconsiderable for attention. No doubt some respectable travellers have lost themselves in a maze of observations that have led to noth- 168 : ERYTHEA. ing. But the example of Darwin, and I might add of Wallace, of Huxley and of Moseley, show that that result is the fault of the man and not of the method. The right moment comes when the fruitful opportunity arrives to him who can seize it. The first strain of the prelude with which the ‘Origin’ commences are these words: ‘ When on board H. M. S. “Beagle” as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the organic beings inhabiting South America.’ But this sort of vein is not struck at hazard or by him who has not served a tolerably long apprenticeship to the work. When one reads and re-reads the ‘ Voyage,’ it is simply amazing to see how much could be achieved with a previous training which we now should think ludicrously inadequate. Before Henslow’s time the state of the natural sciences at Cambridge was incredible. In fact, Leonard Jenyns,' his biographer, speaks of the ‘utter disregard paid to Natural History in the University previous to his taking up his resi- dence there.’ The Professor of Botany had delivered no lectures for thirty years, and though Sir James Smith, the founder of the Linnean Society, had offered his services, they were declined on the ground of his being a Noncon- formist." As to Henslow’s own scientific work, I can but rely on the judgment of those who could appreciate it in relation to its time. According to Berkeley, he was certainly one of the first, if not the very first, to see that two forms of fruit might exist in the same fungus.’ And this, as we now know, was a fundamental advance in this branch of morphology. Sir Joseph Hooker tells me that his papers were all distinctly in advance of his day. Before occupying the chair of botany, he held for some years that of mineralogy. Probably he owed this to his paper on the Isle of Anglesey, published 10 Memoir, 175, 11 [bid., 37. 12 Tbid., 56, BOTANICAL ADDRESS TO THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION. 169 when he was only twenty-six. I learn from the same authority that this to some extent anticipated, but at any rate strongly influenced, Sedgwick’s subsequent work in the same region. BotTanicaL TEACHING. Henslow’s method of teaching deserves study. Darwin says of his lectures ‘that he liked them much for their extreme clearness.’ ‘But,’ he adds, ‘I did not study botany’ (i. 48). Yet we must not take this too seriously. Darwin," when at the Galapagos, ‘indiscriminately collected every- thing in flower on the different islands, and fortunately kept my collections separate.’ Fortunately indeed; for it was the results extracted from these collections, when worked up subsequently by Sir Joseph Hooker, which determined the main work of his life. ‘It was such cases as that of the Galapagos Archipelago which chiefly led me to study the origin of species’ (iii. 159). Henslow’s actual method of teaching went some way to anticipate the practical methods of which we are all so proud ‘He was the first to introduce into the botanical examination for degrees in London the system of practical examination.’ But there was a direct simplicity about his class arrange- ments characteristic of the man. ‘A large number of specimens....were placed in baskets on a side-table in the lecture room, with a number of wooden plates and other requisites for dissecting them after a rough fashion, each student providing himself with what he wanted before taking his seat.25 I do not doubt that the results were, in their way, as efficient as we obtain now in more stately laboratories. The most interesting feature about his teaching was not, however, its academic aspect, but the use he made of botany as a general educational instrument. ‘He always held that a man of no powers of observation was quite an exception.’!® 13 Voyage, 421. 14 Memoir, 161. 15 Ibid., 39. 16 Tbid., 163 170 ERYTHEA. He thought (and I think he proved) that botany might be used ‘for strengthening the observant faculties and expand- ing the reasoning powers of children in all classes of society.” The difficulty with which those who undertake now to teach our subject have to deal is that most people ask the question, What is the use of learning botany unless one means to be a botanist? It might indeed be replied that as the vast majority of people never learn anything effectively, they might as well try botany as anything else. But Henslow looked only to the mental discipline; and it was characteristic of the man and of his belief in his methods that when he was summoned to Court to lecture to the Royal family, his lectures ‘ were, in all respects, identical with those he was in the habit of giving to his little Hitcham scholars,’ and it must be added that they were not less successful. This success naturally attracted attention. Botanical teaching in schools was taken up by the Government, and continues to receive support to the present day. But the primitive spirit has, I am afraid, evaporated. The measure- ment of results by means of examination has been fatal to its survival. The teacher has to keep steadily before his eyes the necessity of earning his grant. The educational problem retires into the background. ‘The strengthening of the observant faculties,’ and the rest of the Henslowian pro- gramme must give way to the imperious necessity of presenting to the examiner candidates equipped with at least the minimum of text-book formulas reproducible on paper. I do not speak in this matter without painful experience. The most astute examiner is defeated by the still more astute crammer. The objective basis of the study on which its whole usefulness is built up is promptly thrown aside. If you supply the apple blossom for actual descrip- tion, you are as likely as not to be furnished with a detailed account of a buttercup. The training of observation has 17 Memoir, 99. 18 [bid., 149. BOTANICAL ADDRESS TO THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION. 171 gone by the board, and the exercise of mere memory has taken its place. But a table of logarithms or a Hebrew grammar would serve this purpose equally well. Yet I do not despair of Henslow’s work still bearing fruit. The examination system will collapse from the sheer impossibility of carrying it on beyond a certain point. Freed from its trammels, the teacher will have greater scope for individu- ality, and the result of his labors will be rewarded after some intelligent system of inspection. And here I may claim support from an unexpected quarter. Mr. Gladstone has recently written to a correspondent:—‘I think that the neglect of natural history, in all its multitude of branches, was the grossest defect of our old system of training for the young; and, further, that little or nothing has been done by way of remedy for that defect in the attempts made to alter or reform that system.’ I am sure that the importance and weight of this testimony, coming as it does from one whose training and sympathies have always been literary, cannot be denied. Oxp Scuoon or Natural History. Tf the old school of natural history of which Henslow in his day was a living spirit is at present, as seems to be the case, continually losing its hold upon us, this has certainly not been due to its want of value as an educational discipline, or to its sterility in contributing new ideas to human knowl- edge. Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ may certainly be regarded as its offspring, and of this Huxley says with justice: ‘It is doubtful if any single book, except the “ Principia,” ever worked so great and rapid a revolution in science, or made so deep an impression on the general mind.’ Yet Darwin’s biographer, in that admirable Life which ranks with the few really great biographies in our language, remarks (i. 155): ‘In reading his books one is reminded of the older naturalists rather than of the modern school of writers. He was a naturalist in the old sense of the word, 19 Proc. R. S., xliv. xvii. 172 ERYTHEA. that is, a man who works at many branches of science, not merely a specialist in one.’ This is no doubt true, but does not exactly hit off the distinction between the kind of study which has gone out of fashion and that which has come in. The older workers in biology were occupied mainly with the external or, at any rate, grosser features of organisms and their relation to surrounding conditions; the modern, on the other hand, are engaged on the study of internal and inti- mate structure. Work in the laboratory, with its necessary limitations, takes the place of research in the field. One may almost, in fact, say that the use of the compound microscope divides the two classes. Asa Gray has compared Robert Brown with Darwin as the ‘two British naturalists’ who have, ‘more than any others, impressed their influence upon science in the nineteenth century.’ 2° Now it is note- worthy that Robert Brown did all his work with a simple microscope. And Francis Darwin writes of his father: ‘It strikes us nowadays as extraordinary that he should have had no compound microscope when he went his “Beagle” voyage; but in this he followed the advice of Robert Brown, who was an authority on such matters’ (i. 145). One often meets with persons, and sometimes of no small eminence, who speak as if there were some necessary antagonism between the old and the new studies. Thus I have heard a vet ees systomatist describe the maeruneope as a curse, and ano less fa herbarium having its plover place on a bonfire. To me I confess this anathematisation of the instruments of research proper to any branch of our subject is not easily intelligible. Yet in the case of Darwin himself it is certain that if his earlier work may be said to rest solely on the older methods, his later researches take their place with the work of the new school. At our last meeting Pfeffer vindicated one of his latest and most important observations. The case of Robert Brown is even more striking. He is 20 Nature, x. 80. BOTANICAL ADDRESS TO THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION. 173 equally great whether we class him with the older or the modern school. In fact, so far as botany in this country is concerned, he may be regarded as the founder of the latter. It is to him that we owe the establishment of the structure of the ovule and its development into the seed. Even more important were the discoveries to which I have already referred, which ultimately led to the establishment of the group of Gymnosperms. ‘No more important discovery,’ says Sachs,”! ‘ was ever made in the domain of comparative morphology and systematic botany. The first steps towards this result, which was clearly brought out by Hofmeister twenty-five years later, were secured by Robert Brown’s researches, and he was incidentally led to these researches by some difficulties in the construction of the seed of an Australian genus.’ Yet it may be remembered that he began his career as naturalist to Flinder’s expedition for the explor- ation of Australia. He returned to England with 4,000 ‘for the most part new species of plants.’ And these have formed the foundation of our knowledge of the flora of that continent. Brown’s chief work was done between 1820 and 1840, and, as Sachs ~ tells us, ‘was better appreciated during that time in Germany than in any other country.’ MopeEerNnN ScHOOL. The real founder of the modern teaching in this country in both branches of biology I cannot doubt was Carpenter. The first edition of his admirable ‘ Principles of Comparative Physiology’ was published in 1838, the last in 1854. All who owe, as I do, a deep debt of gratitude to that book will agree with Huxley in regarding it as ‘by far the best general survey of the whole field of life and of the broad principles of biology which had been produced up to the time of its publication. Indeed, he adds, ‘although the fourth edition is now in many respects out of date, I do not 21 History, 142. 22 Loc. cit., 189, 140. 23 Memorial Sketch, 67. 174 ERYTHEA. know its equal for breadth of view, sobriety of speculation, and accuracy of detail.’ The charm of a wide and philosophic survey of the different forms under which life presents itself could not but attract the attention of teachers. Rolleston elaborated a course of instruction in zoology at Oxford in which the structures described in the lecture-room were subsequently worked out in the laboratory. In 1872 Huxley organised the memorable course in elementary biology at South Ken- sington which has since, in its essential features, been adopted throughout the country. In the following year, during Huxley’s absence abroad through ill-health, I arranged, at his request, a course of instruction on the same lines for the Vegetable Kingdom. That the development of the new teaching was inevitable can hardly be doubted, and I for my part am not disposed to regret the share I took in it. But it was not obvious, and certainly it was not expected, that it would to so large an extent cut the ground from under the feet of the old Natural History studies. The consequences are rather serious, and I think it is worth while pointing them out. In a vast empire like our own there is a good deal of work to be done and a good many posts to be filled, for which the old Natural History training was not merely a useful but even a necessary preparation. But at the present time the universities almost entirely fail to supply men suited to the work. They neither care to collect, nor have they the skilled aptitude for observation. Then, though this country is possessed at home of incomparable stores of accumulated material, the class of competent amateurs who were mostly trained at our universities and who did such good service in working that material out is fast disappearing. It may not be easy indeed in the future to fill important posts even in this country with men possessing the necessary qualifications. But there was still another source of naturalists, even more useful, which has practically dried up. It is an interesting BOTANICAL ADDRESS TO THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION. 175 fact that the large majority of men of the last generation who have won distinction in this field have begun their career with the study of medicine. That the kind of training that Natural History studies give is of advantage to students of medicine which, rightly regarded, is itself a Natural History study, can hardly be denied. But the exigencies of the medical curriculum have crowded them out: and this, I am afraid, must be accepted as irremediable. I cannot refrain from reading you, on this point, an extract from a letter which I have received from a distinguished official lately entrusted with an important foreign mission. I should add that he had himself been trained in the old way. ‘I have had my time, and must leave to younger men the delight of working these interesting fields. Such chances never will occur again, for roads are now being made and ways cut in the jungle and forest, and you have at hand all sorts of trees level on the ground ready for study. These bring down with them orchids, ferns, and climbers of many kinds, including rattan palms, ete. But, excellent as are the officers who devote their energy to thus opening up this country, there is not one man who knows a palm from a dragon-tree, so the chance is lost. Strange to say, the medical men of the Government service know less and care less for Natural History than the military men, who at least regret they have no training or study to enable them to take an intelligent interest in what they see around them. A doctor nowadays cares for no living thing larger or more complicated than a bacterium or a bacillus.’ But there are other and even more serious grounds why the present dominance of one aspect of our subject is a matter for regret. In the concluding chapter of the ‘Origin, Darwin wrote; ‘I look with confidence to. the future—to young and rising naturalists.’ But I observe that most of the new writers on the Darwinian theory, and oddly enough, especially when they have been trained at Cambridge, generally begin by more or less rejecting it as a theory of the origin of species, and then proceed unhesita- 176 ERYTHEA. tingly to reconstruct it. The attempt rarely seems to me successful, perhaps because the limits of the laboratory are unfavorable to the accumulation of the class of observations which are suitable for the purpose. The laboratory, in fact, has not contributed much to the Darwinian theory, except the ‘ Law of Recapitulation,’ and that, I am told, is going out of fashion. The Darwinian theory, being, as I have attempted to show, the outcome of the Natural History method, rested at every point on a copious basis of fact and observation. This, more modern speculation lacks. The result is a revival of transcendentalism. Of this we have had a copious crop in this country, but it is quite put in the shade by that with which we have been supplied from America. Perhaps the most remarkable feature is the persistent. vitality of Lamarckism. As Darwin remarks: ‘ Lamarck’s one sugges- tion as to the cause of the gradual modification of species— effort excited by change of conditions-—was, on the face of it, inapplicable to the whole vegetable world’ (ii. 189). And if we fall back on the inherited direct effect of change of conditions, though Darwin admits that ‘ physical conditions have a more direct effect on plants than on animals’ (ii. 319), I have never been able to convince myself that that effect is inherited. I will give one illustration. The difference in habit of even the same species of plant when grown under mountain and lowland conditions is a matter of general observation. It would be difficult to imagine a case of ‘ acquired characters’ more likely to be ‘inherited.’ But this does not seem to be the case. The recent careful research of Gaston Bonnier only confirms the experience of cultivators. ‘The modifications acquired by the plant when transported for a definite time from the plains to the Alps, or vice versa, disappear at the end of the same period when the plant is restored to its original conditions.’ # Darwin, in an eloquent passage, which is too long for me 24 Ann. d. Sc. nat., 7° sér. xx. 355, SHORT ARTICLES. 177 to quote, has shown how enormously the interest of Natural History is enhanced ‘when we regard every production of Nature as one which has had a long history,’ and ‘when we contemplate every complex structure....as the summing up of many contrivances.’ But this can only be done, or at any rate begun, in the field and not in the laboratory. A more serious peril is the dying out amongst us of two branches of botanical study in which we have hitherto oceupied a position of no small distinction. Apart from the staffs of our official institutions, there seems to be no one who either takes any interest in, or appreciates in the smallest degree, the importance of systematic and descriptive botany. And geographical distribution is almost in a worse plight, yet Darwin calls it, ‘ that grand subject, that almost keystone of the laws of creation’ (i. 356). T am aware that it is far easier to point out an evil than to remedy it. The teaching of botany at the present day has reached a pitch of excellence and earnestness which it has never reached before. That it is somewhat one-sided cannot probably be remedied without a subdivision of the subject and an increase in the number of teachers. If it has a positive fault, it is that it is sometimes inclined to be too dogmatic and deductive. Like Darwin, at any rate in a biological matter, ‘I never feel convinced by deduction, even in the case of H. Spencer’s writings’ (iii. 168). The intellectual indolence of the student inclines him only too gladly to explain phenomena by referring them to ‘ism,’ instead of making them tell their own story. (To be Concluded) SHORT ARTICLES. Dares or PusticaTion or Nurratt’s Composit#.—The most important of all earlier contributions to the knowledge of Northwest American Composite is Nuttall’s elaborate 25 Origin, 426. 178 ERYTHEA. paper published in the Seventh Volume of the Second Series of Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. The volume bears on its title page the date 1841; and this was, until recently, always given as the date of Nuttall’s paper. But in 1891, Dr. Otto Kuntze found evidence, in some European libraries, that the document in question had been in the hands of botanists in 1840. A copy of the whole volume, now in the botanical library of the Catholic University at Washington explains the matter fully, and removes all doubt about the date, or rather, dates, of Nuttall’s Composite. The entire volume was published originally in three parts; each part being issued in a paper cover, with title, and date. Part I, issued in 1840, has a long table of contents, but nothing botanical. Part II, also issued in 1840, contains a portion of the Descriptions of New Species and Genera of Plants in the natural Order of the Composita, collected in a Tour across the Continent to the Pacific, ete., by Thomas Nuttall. Part III, issued in 1841, contains the remainder of the paper above-named. The dates, according to the paging, are as follows: Pages 283 to 356, 1840. “357 ~to 453, 1841. Epw. L. GREENE. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS ELEGANS, JEPsoN.—This form, I now decide, is to be referred to A. manzanita, Parry. I do not regard it as even worthy of a varietal name and so make record for the benefit of monographers and others. The name was published in this journal for January, 1893. (Vol. 1. p. 15). 179 OPEN LETTERS. Distribution of the Darlingtonia in Oregon. Tue Darlingtonia Californica grows plentifully in the Coast Mountains about the 42d parallel. It is to be found in all of the spring runs and swamps and along creeks—in fact in all wet places for many miles and I think this is the home of it and that the upper Sacramento localities are outlying stations. Growing with it are a number of other plants not generally known to range out of California, such as Parnassia Californica, Aster Hendersonii, Helenium Bigelovit, Rud- beckia Californica, Cypripedium Californicum, Scirpus criniger and others that I cannot now call to mind. The geological formation in the region is a peculiar kind of serpentine and, for the most part, the lower portions of the mountains are well supplied with springs that run clear water all the year. Yours, THos. HowELL. Clackamas, Oregon, 16 October, 1895. MISCELLANEOUS NOTES AND NEWS. Tur Setember number of the Bulletin de L’ Herbier Boissier contains among other articles the last installment of G. Lindau’s monograph of American Acanthaces, and “ Herborisations au Cost Rica,” by Ad. Tonduz. In Garden and Forest of April 3, 1895 (viii, 134, £. 20) Mr. T. S. Brandegee described and figured a new Mimulus, M. Clevelandi, from the south side of Cuyamaca Peak, San Diego Co. It is a perennial woody species spreading by underground roots and said to be one of the handsomest members of the genus. H. Marsaatt Warp, Professor of Botany, Royal Indian Engineering College, London, has been appointed to the professorship of Botany in Cambridge University, made vacant by the death of Prof. C. C. Babington. 180 ERYTHEA. We have received a copy of Fascicle I of the Synoptical Flora of North America, issued October 10, A review will appear in our next number. Tue Field Columbian Museum has begun a series of botanical publications. Vol. 1, part I, consists of a paper entitled “ Contribution to the Flora of Yucatan,” by Charles Frederick Millspaugh, Curator of the Museum. Tae Botanical Society of North America held its first annual meeting at Springfield, Mass., August 27 and 28. Charles E. Bessey was elected President for 1896. M.S. Bebb, Rockford, Il}.; W. A. Setchell, Berkeley; W. R. Dud- ley, Palo Alto, California; and D. P. Penhallow, Montreal, were elected members. Dr. A. W. Chapman was elected to honorary membership. THE Division of Botany has recently distributed the fol- lowing numbers of Vol. III, contributions from the U. 8. National Herbarium: No. 3, “Flora of the Sand Hills of Nebraska, by P. A. Rydberg; No. 4, “ Report upon a Col- lection of Plants made by J. H. Sandberg and assistants in Northern Idaho in 1892,” by John M. Holzinger. ERRATA. Page 5, line 21, for Brittanicarum read Britannicarum. “ ll, * 14, Callfornia read California. “11, “ 21, “ Bricamera read Ericameria. “ 14, “ 12, “ stoloniferous read stoloniferus. “ VY, “- 1, “ semicinecta read semicincta. “ 33, “ 23, “ Williamette read Willamette. “ 49, “ 11, “ Anlerson read Alderson. “ 59, “ 30, “ macrantherum read macranthum. “ 59, “ 31, “ macranthera read macrantha. “ 60, “ 24,“ §Stiveri read Stiversi. “ Ti, “ 24, “ differ read differs. ~. 91, “ I, “ far-wastern read far-western. ~ ot, “2 * Unmbellaria read Umbellularia. we, * Og * Guadeloupe read Guadelupe. * 150, “ 21, “ plans read plan. 181 - LIN: D Bx Aeolium, 44 — 80 133; Blasdaleanum, .n., 77; Tonella, ‘sp. n., Micuiak 6 Accaeatet: 24; dens leonis, sp. n., 23 Agrostis, 59 Aledtorin, 31 Allium, 60, Shockers Australasica, nom. n., 57, albiflora, nom. n., 57; inerlinbhas sp. n., 125; Nelsoni, sp. n., 48; tenuiftelaas nom. n., 57; seontibe, sp. th 320 Amelanchier, vit 57 Antelope Valley, 153 Anthoceros, Aplopappus, 6, 90, 157 Arabis, 156; secunda, sp. n., 33 Arctostaphylos elegans, 178, man- pomnaeng 155, 157; qe oF ., 76; Elmeri, sp. vt ascii. nom. n., 76; ieee: andus, n., 16; alan nom. n., 76; thermalis, nom. n 76 Bzsomyces, 30 Balsamorrhiza, 155 Berberi Beta, 60 Bigelovia, 10, 90 Bioletti, F. T., Notes on the genus Nemophila, 139. Blasdale, Walter C., Observations on Puccinia mirabilissima, 131 Boisduvalia bipartita, sp. n sere id N., A new Ery- throni 27 Bolelia Natit: sp. n., 101 Borrichia, 80 Bouteloua, 148 Braya, 60; pectinata, sp. n., 69 Brintonia, gen. n., 89; discoidea, nom. n., British Association, address to the Botanical Section, Britton, N. L., publication by sig- natures of the List of Spermato- phyta and Pteridophyta of north- eastern N. A., 50, 68 Calliprora ana sp. n., 126; var.? anilina, var. n., 126 Calochortus, 50, 158; collinus, sp. 2.) Caltha, 53 Calyptridium monospermum, sp, n., 63 Canbya, 157 Cardamine quercetorum, sp. n., 33 Carex, 59 Castilleia, 158 Ceanothus, 157 Cephalozia, 28 Chondrophora, 90; nudata, 91; vir- gata, nom. n., Chaitleantha, 158 182 Chrysoe a, 90 Chrys, ", . 90: arborescens, eata, nom. n., 11, var. spathulata, var. n., 11; diffasn: nom. n., = Domingaiais nom. = 8, Te obtusifolia, var. n. ,8; nom, n., 12; teretifolin, nom. n., 12 Chrysothamnus, 92; albidus, nom, ruminosus, nom n., 94; depressus, 107; elegans, sp. n., 94; frigidus, nom. n., 112; peels: nom. n., 108; ieee. nom, n spermus, nom. n ensis, nom. n., 113; Nevadensis, nom. n., 114; Parryi, nom. n., 113; puberulus, nom. n., 93; pul- chellus, nom. n., 107; prin: 93; speciosus, 109, var.? Arizo- “icus, var. n., 110, var. albi- caulis, 109, var. gnaphalodes, nom. n., 110, var.? latisquameus, nom. n., 110, var. ? Plattensis, var. n., 111; stenophyllus, nom. n., 94; Vaseyi, nom. n., 96; viscidi- florus, 95, var. lanceolatus, nom. n., 95, var. latifolius, nom. n., 96, var. serrulatus, nom. n., 96, var. tortifolius, nom. n., 96 Cichorium, 6% Citation, po for, 85 Cladina, 30 ERYTHEA, Cladonia, 30, 48 Cladothamnus campanulatus, sp. n., Clarkia virgata, sp. n., 123 Claytonia, 157 Oollinsi, 77, 155, 156; concolor, sp- Oastneait observatious on 6, 89, 107 Conocephalus, 1, 4, 25, 26 Cratzegus, 77 Crepis Bakeri, sp. n., 78; Modo- censis, sp. n., 48 Cryptanthe orinita. sp.n Cupressus Arizonica, 150; carpa, «ar. seinen 2 49 Darlingtonia Calitornica, eoncern- ing the distribution of in Oregon, 179 Davidson, Dr, A., Botanical excur- undescribed, 116; Transcripts of some descriptions of Californian genera and species, 136; Pacific Slope plants in English gardens, 143; Cupressus macrocarpa, var. guadeloupensis, Delphinium, 60, 157; leacopheum, Dichelostemma, 78 Dietel, P., New North American Uredinex, 77 Diplopappus, 11 Diplophyllum, 27 Distichlys, 81 Dodecatheon alpinum, sp. n., 39 conjug ens, sp. n., 40; glastifolium, sp. n., 71; Hendersonii, var. Han- seni, var.n. 71; Jeffreyi, 39; pa- tulum, var. Bernalinum, var. n., 72, var. gracile, var. n., 72; radi- INDEX. catum, sp. n., 37; tetrandrum, sp. n., 40; viviparum, nom. n., 38 Eastwood, Alice, Observations on the habits of Nemophila, 151 Ellisia, 155 Endocarpiscum, 42 Ericameria, 10, 11 Erigeron Austins, sp. n., 100; bar bellulatus, sp. n., 65; Basdale, sp. n., 124; con eosiagits p. n., 35 Coviliel sp. n., 20; slegaotnl, sp. n., 65; Marine egi, Sp. Ls oxyphyllus, sp. n., 20; nettocllia sp. n., 21 Bricoarpon blephariphyllum,nom. n., 14; pbyllocephalum, nom. n., 15; rubiginosum, nom. n,, 15 Eriogonum, 158 Eriophyllum croceum, sp. n., 124; obovatum, sp. n., Eryngium alismezefolium, sp. n., is Erysimum Californicum, sp. n Erythronium Johnsonii, sp. n., ae Eulophus, 157 Euphorbia, 61 sgn ae 10, 13, 91 Evern Fiaveaa versicolor, sp. n., 62 Gietta grass, 147 Gilia, 61, 103, 155, 156; abrotanifolia sp. n. 104; achillesefolia, 104; Chamissonis, sp. n., 105, mille- foliata, 108; maulticaulis, 103; staminea, sp. n., 105 Glyptopleura, 157 Grama grass, 148 Greene, Edw. L., Observations on the Composit, 6, 89, 107; Novi- 183 tates Occidentules, 17, 44, 62, 69, 98, 118,123; Corrections in Nom- enclature, 36, 75; Phytographic Notes and Amendments, 53, 102; Comment on ‘Rules for Citation,’ 85; Some species of Dodecatheon, 37; Sundry Propositions, 122; dates of publication of Nuttall’s, Composite, 177 Gundlachia, 7, 8 Habenaria saccata, 9 Handbook of West Sat Cone- eisinite of Tick ‘kieclia 41 Hemicarpha, 59 Hepaticology, chapters in the Early Hieracium amplum, sp. n., 101 Hilaria rigida, Horkelia Tilingi, Transcript of original description, 137 Horticulture, Pacific Slope plants in English gardens, 143 Howe, Marshall A., Chapters in the Early History of Hepatico- logy, 1, 25; review of the Warm- ing-Potter Handbook of Syste- as, New Species of Pacific Coast Plants, 32; con- cerning the distribution of Dar- lingtonia Californica in Oregon, Hymenothrix, 62 Ibervillea Lindheimeri, nom. n., 75; Sonorze, nom. n., 75; teininr- tita, nom. n., 75 Tsocoma, 8 Jepson, Willis L., concerning Arc- tostapylos elegans, 178 Juncoides comosum var. macran- thum, nom. n., Jungermannia, 29 184 | Kantia, 27 Kumlienia Cooley, 53 Layia, 155 Lecanora, 31, 42 Lecidea, 32, 48 Lemmon, J. G., A new Calochor- - tus, 49° Lepidium, 157; medium, nom. n., 36; occidentale, sp. n., ium, 42 Linanthus luteolus, sp. n., 121 montanus, sp. n., 120; neglectus, Sp. n., 24; nudatus, sp. n., 120; serrulatus, sp. D., Linosyris, List of Pteridophyta and Sperma- tophyta of Northeastern North America, 36, 50, 6 Lithophragma, 102; rupicola, sp. n., 102; scabrella, nom. n., 102; tripartita; nom. n., 102; Wil- liamsii, nom. 2 Lloyd, Francis r A new Violet, 74 x Lunularia, 5, 26, 28 Lupinus, 17, 60, 155, 157; eximius, Sp. n., 116: Jaxiflorus, var. mon- tanus, var. n., 33; Tidestromii, sp. n., 1 Lycium, 157 Madia, 155 Malacothrix, 155, 157 Malva, 157 Marchantia, 4, 25, 26, 28 Matricaria, 62 Mentsclia: Nelsonii, sp. n., 70 Metzgeria, 28 Microseris, 155, 157; intermedia, Sp. n., . Mimulus Clevelandi, ddd, marmor- ERYTHEA. atus, sp. n. 73; subreniformis, sp. n., 67 ‘Mirabilis, 155 Mitella Hallii, sp. n., 33 Montia, 60 Mylia, 29 Myrtle, White, 97; Yellow, 97 Nama, 157 Nemophila, 139, 151; atomaria, 142, 51; insignis, 141, 151; inter- media, sp. n., 141; Menziesii, 140, 151; parviflora, 140 Neosyris, gen. n., 115; fuliginea, nom. n., 115; hypoleuca, nom. n. 15 Nephroma, 31 Nomenclature at the Springfield Meeting, A. A. A. §., 1895, 158; corrections in nomenclature, 36, 75 CEnothera, et 157 Opegrapha, 32, 44 Open nes 50, 68, 147, 179 Opuntia, 61 Orthocarpus, 154 Osbertia, gen. n., 14; Heleniastrum, nom. n., 14, var. glabrata, nom. n., 14, var.? scabrella, var. n. 14; sto- lonifera, nom. n., 14 Oxalis, 60 Oxytheca, 158 Pacific Slope plants in English gar- 2 Parish, 8. B., Further Additions to the Flora of Southern California, 58 Parmelia, 31, 41 Parrasia camporum, nom, n., 75; linearifolia, nom. n., 75 Pentatemon, 61, 157 _ INDEX, Peraphyllum ramosissimum, 00 Pertusaria Petradoria, gen. n., 13, 91; pumila: 3 Peucedanum, 156 rosso 61, 155, 157; inconupidua. 24 eusialte sp. n., ae Placodium, 42 Plagiochila, 5, 27 Plantago, Plants hitherto undescribed, 116 Platysma, 3 Pieces. rigida, 147 Pleurozia, 27 ‘oa, Pollard, Charles Louis, Nomencla- ture at the Springfield ‘Meeting, A. A. A. 8., 1895, 158 Polygonum, 79 Populus, 60 Porella, 27 Potentilla nubigena, nom. n., 36; stenoloba, n pha 3, 26 Pru 156 odrnln i sp. n., 99; mon- sp. n., 80; mirabilissima, observa- tions on, 131; mirilica, sp. n., 79; Panici, sp. n., 80; Parkers, sp. n., 78; eubuitens, sp. n., 81; Wul- feaix, sp. n., 79 Pulteney, ee on the qualifications of a botan 06 Pyrrocoma ses eM sp. n, 22 Radula, 28 Raftesquis, 157 _ 185 Raillardella sserisetnta’ sp. n., 48 Ramalina, 30, 41 RS 20, 53; alceus, sp. n., 71; Austinge, sp.n., 44; Bongardi, nom. n. 54; caltheeforus, sp. n., 45; eximius, sp. n., 19; Hartwegi, nom. n., ; Missouriensis, sp. n., 20; i 55; Populago, i, 54 Ribes, 78, 155; sesapene 8p. 0., $e Wilsoniavam, sp. n., 70 Ric Ricciella, 29 Riscinsarpnd Rinodina, 43. angelica, sp. n., 43 sp. n. 46 Sanicula divaricata, sp. n., 64 Saxifraga Oregana, sp. n., 34 Scirpus, 59 Senecio, 155; admirabilis, sp. n angul- aris, var. Hanseni, ai. thes "ibe Sequoia, Setchell, Prof. W. A., 148 Silene, 77; Tilingi, transcript of original description, 136 Sisyrinchium sarmentosum, sp. n., Solanum, 61; cupuliferum, sp. n., Solidago, 6, 91 Sonuea, Spheralcea, 157; angustifolia, var. violacea, var. n., 118 Spherophoron, 30 186 Spireea arbuscula. sp. n., 63 Stephanodoria, gen. n., 12; tomen- Stizenberger, Dr. E., Notes on Western Lichens, 30 Streptanthus, 155, 157; versicolor, Sp. D., Suksdorfia violacea, 56 Tellima on nom. n., 55 Theloschistes, 4 Thermopsis, 19, a argentata, sp, i , 19 ddress to the Botanical Section of the Brit- ish Association, 163 Tissa sparsiflora, sp. n.,46 Transcripts of some descriptions of Californian genera and species 136 ERYTH#A. Trichocolea, 29 Trifolium, 60; Arizonicum, sp. n., 18; Hanseni, sp. n., 17; Morley- anum, sp. 7 Triglochin concinna, sp. n., 117 Umbellularia, 97 Umbilicaria, 42 Urceolaria, 48 Uromyces, 77, 78; aterrimus, sp. n., 78; Suksdorfii, sp. n., 77 Usnea, 41 Verrnearia, 44; plumbaria, sp. n., 44 Vicia, 155; semicincta, sp. n., 17 Viola, 61, 74, 82, 156; Macloskeyi, sp.n., 74 Wright, W. G., Gietta grass, 147 Wright, F. W., Oregonian forms of Umbellularia, 97 Wulfenia, 79