* cs LO Fs Be SP2eLoGcrCAlL J OR AAS. VOL. I, JULY, 1890 eae 5. FLORA OF THE CALIFORNIAN ISLANDS. BY T. S. BRANDEGEE. The flora of these islands is of much interest to botanists on account of the variations from mainland forms, largely due of course to isolation and the effect of insular climate. There are some plants upon them that in the present state of our knowl- edge appear to be endemic, but their numbey has been much exaggerated and will doubtless be continually lessened by the collection of fuller material and by future exploration of the south- ern mainland, much of which is still almost unknown. A difference in the specific names of plants does not necessarily mean a great difference between the plants themselves. It may mean great variation in structure and it may mean almost or quite none at all. It has been suggested that these islands are the remnants of a western ‘“ Atlantis.’’ The -botanical arguments in favor of the theory are drawn principally from the flora of Santa Cruz Island and consist mainly of: numerous new species; absence of Plata-— nus, Spirea, Fragaria, Potentilla, Geum ; the rarity of Delphinium, Ranunculus, Ribes, Trifolium, Rubus, Lonicera, etc. _ The absence of the sycamore is easily accounted for—it loves the rich alluvial lands bordering slow flowing streams, and the — cafions of the islands sloping steeply to the sea offer no such habitat. Spirea, Fragaria, Potentilla and Geum are plants of cooler regions, comparatively rare on the adjacent mainland and to the -south—the last, indeed, one would hardly expect to see mentioned _ in connection with the islands. Ranunculus, Delphinium and Tri- _ folium are about as abundant, in the proper season, as at any) _ place on the southern mainland. Rives fruiting freely and Lont- cera are fairly abundant and Rudus on ‘the. .south side is oe a ae sin luxuriant, often completely sii small oaks. 7 130 Flora of the Californian Islands. [ZOE The islands have a long coast line in proportion to their area and in consequence their flora is a coast one or “ Pacific American.” Those not found on the islands are mainly those lacking on the mainland near the coast. The plants from the south growing upon the islands should be regarded as stragglers from those regions in a climate more even* than that of the adjacent mainland, rather than as spreading from them to the south. Many of the species of widest distribution and embracing the greatest number of indivi- duals are southern, and their predominance gives to vegetation an appearance very different from that of the nearest mainland. The appended table has been drawn from Lyon’s list} of the plants of Santa Cruz and San Clemente, from E. L. Greene’s list © of Santa Cruz t and San Miguel § and those of the writer of Santa Cruz ||, Santa Rosa || and Santa Catalina {], together with a few names derived from other sources, So far as time has admitted, the original specimens have been examined, and the changes made, in all cases unless otherwise stated, have been based on these re-examinations. Many errors The list contains about 512 species and the number will, of course, be somewhat increased by future collections. Twenty-six *Zoe i, 109, : § Pittonia i, 74. ae t Bot. Gaz. xi, 107 and 330, | Proc. Cal. Acad. sér.2, i, 208. f Bull. Cal, Acad. ii, 377. I Zoe i, ro7. oa VOB. F.] Flora of the Californian Islands. 131 The small islands with their few species of plants have not been given a column in the list, nothing different having been found on them. No attempt has been made to separate the introduced from the indigenous plants and all have been noted as “ common” when widespread, or extending nearly the same distance north or south of the islands, ‘‘southern”’ when the center of distribution is south and “ northern” when north (seldom) of the insular habitat. To Dr. Sereno Watson, Mr. W. S. Lyon, Rev. J. C. Nevin and Mr. H. C. Ford, the writer is under many obligations for specimens and notes concerning them. cn| wal wal | nl Sle|p|e|s PIB)/BI EIB &|S|5 SPECIES. Bll alal 2 oi S|e/2/8 eials|s B BP S| Be . 4 * er. “4% =| o Clematis ligusticifolia Nutt................. *| ) "|. \Oommon, Clematis pauciiora Nutt. ......... 5.2.5.5: z Southern. Ranunculus Californicus* Benth............ ee Common. Ranunculus hebecarpus H. & A............- *| |Common. Denim Larrys GIAY. 6b. ee ee *| *) *| */ Adjacent maini’d. PIUP UOT AAU HIRE 066 cc cess 5c. se She 3 . Common. Crossosoma Californicum} Nutt ............ *| |Southern. *Mr. Greene in Bull. Cal. Acad. ii, 389, and Bull. Torr. Club, xiv, 118, takes up the name of R. Deppei Nutt. for this species. It is mentioned in Torr. & Gray Fl. under var. § of R. acris apparently as an explanation of a MS. name for specimens. It is there mentioned only to disclaim it, and if Mr. Greene is correct in attributing to Nuttall and not to Torrey & Gray the real authorship (Pitt. i, 240) of the notes and descriptions of his western plants, the disclaimer is by Nuttall himself. If a manuscript name cannot even be mentioned, without involving questions of priority, a new and most annoying element will be added to the already sufficiently great confusion. Another statement made in connection with the above shows the need of care in bibliographical details. Mr. Greene claims that R. Deppei antedates R. Californicus by ‘‘not much less than twenty years” and gives the date of the latter as ‘Benth. Pl. Hartw. 295, A. D. 1857.” It is difficult to under- stand how he can have overlooked on the title page of that work, the figures ‘© 1839 —1857,” or failed to see that the signature in which the description occurs, as well as the following one, is dated ‘‘ Dec. 1848.” +Whatever it be called it seems impossible to separate the forms found on : the different islands from each other or from those on the adjacent mainland. tToo near the mainland forms to be considered peculiar to the islands. — Zoe i, 27. po A ee * 132 Flora of the Californian Islands. _[ZoE | aS BIiSiBiBiB ee] et! et = Sle p Q SPECIES. mel bd} Oo} O] = WMiol#|= Slajeal}s]B O;F|N/i lo Pir]: [EVE -s 1° >!|o Platystemon Californicus Benth ............ eo) Bd hed ts * Common. Platystigma Californicum* B.& H.....| | . \Common. Meconopsis heterophylla Benth..........___ * *! * Common. endromecon rigidiumt Benth..........___ “| *) *! |Common. Eschscholtzia Californica t Cham........___ " * * * “Common. Cardamine paucisecta Benth.............. is Common. Cheiranthus asper Ch. & Schl............... 2 Common. Arabis filifolia§ Greene................... e Arabis perfoliata Lam........ Clas d taihat : bs Common. Arabe arcdtte Gray... .... *| | |Common. Thelypodium laciniatum? Endl....... 1" *| |Mainland. Erysimum asperum DC........._. Reece sas . Common. ysimum insulare Greene................. 3 By Sisymbrium canescens Nutt........... || od * *| |Common. Sisymbrium officinale Seon) c..., Soaps gare * Common. Sisymbrium reflexum Nutt.............. 1. " * *! * "Common. Brassica campestrisL....................., ss) *| *|. |Common. Pramica were Bolus :.(.00. “| *! |Common. Nasturtium officinale R. Br..........0 011" “| *) Common. Capsella Bursa-Pastoris Merk, *| * |Common, Capsella divaricata yh. 2 ae nd Bd Hd Southern. Lepidium lasiocarpum|\| Nutt......... vekees if Soe *| |Southern. Lepidium Menziesii DO..........1. ind Southern. Lepidium nitidum Nutt...........1. 01177 *) *| *'Common. Thysanocarpus laciniatus** Nutt... ek y as * * |Common. Thysanocarpus conchuliferust+ Greene.......| ‘g *P. denticulatum Greene, Bull. Torr. Club. xiii. 218. tD. Harfordii Kell. D. Jlexile Greene. Zoe i, 46. tH. glauca, maritima, elegans & ramosa Greene. Whether or not any of these ever receive final recognition as species they have been too nearly matched on the mainland to be classified as peculiar to the islands. 4 §Compared by Mr. Greene, Pitt. i, 288, to his A. pectinata from Lower California, but the latter is apparently much nearer A. longirostris Watson, which has been collected by Pringle “‘in sandy plains near the Gulf of California.” ee ee ||By misprint ZL. lasiophyllum in the writer’s Santa Rosa list. This and — the succeeding species are very doubtfully distinct. oe Ons na “* Thysanocarpus ramosus, Greene, Bull. Cal. Acad. ii, 390, ttMr. Greene finds the species, as Torrey & Gray, Flora of North Amer. i, _ — L17, found the genus, quite near Tauscheria. It is, however, doubtfully dis- tinct as a species approaching very near forms of Jacinatus and even of VOL. I } Flora of the Californian Islands. 133 Biggie ge BIBI Bl ele 3/3151 6) SPECIES. = ae al ei Geis) u aAla2ials =a RPP) S) eB eal Thysanocarpus pusillus Hook.............. sd ‘Common. Isomeris arborea Nutt..... er te cas ak . *| |Southern. Pee ecuncwiald 2. Gok ee i eek enka . * \Common. Oligomeris subulata Boiss.............0. 000 r * * */Southern. Helanthemum scoparium Nutt............. * “| * |Common, _ Helianthemum occidentale Greene .......... : Frankenia grandifolia Ch. & Schl.......... “om Ot Common, Bient amlirrhing Aa. oi. heck oe ek cask cnn cas *| | *| *| (Common. Silene multjnervia* Watson ined............ *| * |Adjacent mainl’d. Ree RII Bde ss ay ops Gk Se “ *) * * =jCommon. Ralene 1ACmiIGIaY Oa 6 igids 5 2 eo oy *| *| Common. POT AG PAE Da i sow ev seu * *| * j|Common. PECELECT EM TAEOMA INGE es oS i os Ces cs = Common. Cr enaria Dougie 2. Or Oe os oes * *| jCommon. Sagina occidentalis Watson................. *| *| *| (Common, Tissa, macrotheca Britton. 26... . 5... ees ass 9) *| & SiOommon. MN PROPER rst ies 655k eee *) |Common. Polycarpon depressum Nutt. .............. *| \Southern. Pentacena ramosissima H. & A............. a Common. Calandrinia Breweri Watson. .............. ie Common, Calandrinia caulescens var. Menziesii........ *) * jCommon. Calandrinia maritima Nutt................ os Southern. - Claytonia perfoliata Donn.............. tes *) “| * *\Common. MR DOPORT WOLIDE, 665 oi oe ea nk cs "1 *) *) * “Common, > mamosirum Taurberi Gray. oo. ss cis vcs *| *| jSouthern, PRUPOGMITUSN CREE TATBY 60s oe oe nn ck z Southern, Sidalcea malueflora Gray............2..0.+ "| * |, |;Common, _Lavatera assurgentiflorat Kell.............. al Edad il ded a - Geranium Carolinianum L...... 2... 00.52... *| * jCommon. Hrodium cicutarium L’'Her...-............. 7M, Common... 5. Erodium moschatum L’Her................. * - * Common. _ Erodium macrophyllum H. & A............ *| | \Common. : “eurvipes. ‘The boat-shaped curving of the wing is largely produced by the : lack of continuity, and similar effects are found in all the ee forms s though not to so great an extent. : *Proc. Cal. Acad. ser. 4 be 202; ceed i, 113. a. staitriewinera t and s. conoidea of lists. | eo ~ tSilene simulans Greene, Pitt. i i, 63. Pros. Cal. poor g ser. Yy i, 907. a ne sae a. : : species of Silene with ample calyx, it is not unusual for the slender clawed petals to group themselves in various positions. Such apparent bilabiates _ oe “have been observed i in S. Bolanderi, 8. laciniata and 8. pectinata. oe Zoe i, 109, It is claimed that this plant was introduced from Spain by ioe the Franciscan friars —y * seeobarsaane | of California. oe es . | col gal aol aol on JE/BIEIE/8 . | al S| é | Ble SPECIES. |= Es fe) g | [Sj mle} eB PAP S| Ee pte er ae Oxalis Wrightii OR ee * Common. Rhamnus crocea* Nutt ............. 1707 i" * : Common. Ceanothus crassifolius..........1. 1/1111" | of ee @ Southern. Ceanothus arboreust me " ig Fae Vitis Californica Benth.........||1 11 "1°" "” | *| |Common. Acer macrophyllum Pursh........./ 1111) *| Common. Rhus diversiloba T. &G......... |“) “| "| *| |Common. Rhus integrifolia Ss eee Big: Sa od Foy Southern. eee ee ee ‘Southern. eee ee Wat | *| *| “Southern. Pickeringia montana Nutt......../01 11117" " Common. Lupinus arboreus Sims ....... 111117177" pote Common. Lupinus Chamissonis PROM A [ *) *! *!-*| |Common. Lupinus affinis Ree oe | “ *\Common., re da “d Common. upinus micranthust cole Enya aie *) * *! (Common. Lupinus truncatus hag a nee ae al | *| *| |Southern. Lupinus hirsutissimus PAR aye eS * *| |Southern. Lupinus concinnus AQh. oe meee aa gis ee. * “| |Southern. pinus microcarpus Sims..........-/ 11)” " Common. Trifolium Cataline§ Watson ined...... ||” | “| |Pt. Reyes. rifolium ciliatum PO id Common, Trifolium gracilentum||T.& G........0 11 r*] Common. Trifolium Palmeri RON gS / *! *\Guadalupe Island Trifolium tridentatum MO wf Common. Trifolium microcephalum Pursh..... *| *| *\Common, Trifolium microdon Be A * Northern. Trifolium fucatum Lindl... | 2"****** « ‘Common. Trifolium Peers TGS *| *) (Common. ct parvifiora Deat,....... |. “| "| “| "| |\Common. Medicago denticulata hahaa ete Me ee - *| “| * Common. ions, deepen 6 ROE oe Ga aE " (Common. = =, Hosackia grandifiora** Benth.,....../ 1. |’ * Adjacent mainl'd. I Sees eran et rea RE eo Le *R. insularis of Mr. Greene’s list, tFor the present this name is retained, it cannot however be considered more than a variety of one of the mainland species. | $L, umbellatus Greene, Bull. Cal. Acad. ii, 145. §7. Macrei of the writer’s Catalina list. ; | 7. eaile Greene is p bably a depauperate form of this species. No speci- the writer from Santa Cruz Island. ““Probably H.? occulta Greene, Bull. Cal. Acad. ii, 394; as it has been found ae _ on the island and agrees well enough with the description of that species a VoL. 1. | Flora of the Californian Islands. 135 DNR TM M &|o|2|o|s BIBIBIBIES S/S) 5 SPECIES. a Ea O g o/o/8}/2/8 Ss|aiels =) GPS) og rie he tote : - [lo Hosackia maritima Nutt............. ee *) *| *| (Southern. Piosdcmia srigosa Nutt... 2. oe eee As *| *| *| |Common. Hosackia parviflora Benth........0........ . Common. Hosackia Purshiana Benth................. *| *| j}Common. Hosackia subpinnata T. & G.... 2.2.0... ig Common. Hosackia brachycarpa Benth............... *| |Common. TL eke GL clea 6 ESN oa We 5 Rp Ma (Orn Ons Hosackia micrantha Nutt..... 2.2... .0.... *| |Southern. Hosaskia urgapnylat GYay. ... 25 ec... *| *) *\Southern. Astragalus didymocarpus Ais OG ALE SE Re = Common. Astragalus nigrescens Nutt.....0: 52.52.65. *| *| -|Common. Astragalus leucopsis T. & G. ...... 222.255: *) *|-*) * Southern. Astragalus Antiselli Gray.........003 65.6 *| |Southern. Astragalus Miguelensis§ Greene............ of ioe Southern. Asiragaws Nevin Gray... .. 2638 ee, . Astragalus trichopodus Gray. ..........+.... * | Adjacent mainl’d. Vee. Americana Mubl....:. ..2 262i ii Ee Common. Vicia exigua Nutt.............. uae Take : * * * Common; Lathyrus vestitus Nutt........... 666.6 660. * * |Southern. Prunus ilicifolia( Walp........000. 6606606. | *} *| *| |Common. which Mr. Greene described the leaves only. The making of species in difficult genera on such imperfect material can hardly be too strongly de-— precated. tSyrmatium dendroideum and §. patens Greene; the first a stout erect, the © second a lower and more pubescent form of this polymorphous species. tSyrmatium niveum Greene, Bull. Cal. Acad. ii, 148, is exactly this species. The writer found abundant plants which were mature. Syrmatium orni- thopus Greene is S. argophylla of Palmer’s Guadalupe collection. The ‘ovules are both developed instead of one aborting as in the ordinary form. It occurs on Catalina and San Clemente Islands. : §Mr. Greene in Pitt. i, 33, states that it is near his A. anemophilus of San — Quintin and identities the latter species with his Phaca vestita Benth. Bot. Sulph. but fotains the name anemophilus, there being an ‘‘Old World _ Astragalus vestitus.” In Pitt. i, 162, he gives a new namé Astragalus Mag- dalene to Bentham’s Phaca candidissima having discovered that there had been one of that name earlier described from Asia. In Pitt. ii, 24, he ac- knowledges that A. Miguelensis is identical with his earlier 4. anemophilus, and says ‘‘ Very likely Phaca candidissima will prove to be but another synonym of the : species.” Not wishing to add anything to this confusion the name given to this island plant is retained in the list. Be | [Including P. occidentalis of Lyon’s list, Bot. Gaz. es 333; Proc. Cal. Acad. ser. Qi ss 209; Zoe i, 111. 136 - flora of the Californian Islands. [ ZOE | | | i i] | | oan eel ete —$—______— gigleiee PIE/EIEIE) sare 2 bet bai bed eo SPECIEs. a ge Ss 8 @F/SlEis Sites Spirea discolor Pursh.................... | “| *| [Northern. Rubus ursinus Ch. & Schl... 10111 pop Mo) Sl Northern, Cercocarpus weevonne Mutt. 23.5% .003: | *| * |Common. Potentilla anserinaL...... Btinee toy pee Northern. Adenostoma fasciculatum BORN oar rae *! *| *! |Common. Alchemilla arvensis Scop...........' 11" *)| *) |Common. Rosa Californica Ch. & Schl..........0 01 *) “| *! |Common. Heteromeles arbutifolia Rem............... | *| *) *! *| /Common. Lyonothammus floribundust so EE CE | ; : var. asplenifolius (Greene)......... Ou ibn i Saxifraga Parryit Torr........,...°. 11." al 7 Southern. Saxifraga refera Hook............. °°.) 8 ee Northern. Tellima affinis NN aa oa ree oo *) |Common, Tellima Cymbalaria T. & RSS ere ae ee | = Southern. Heuchera pilosissima§ F.& M............. eg ery Northern. Ribes Menziesi] Pursh...........00000 11" | *| | |Common. Ribes sanguineum Pureh...... | if Common. Ribes viburnifolium NN ee *| |Southern, Villea angustifolia Nutt..... 11111" *| |Common. pees Manne Miers jf “| *| *| |Common. Cotyledon laxa B. & ean ae a | |Southern. Cotyledon cespitosa Haw........... *| *| |Common. Cotyledon lanceolata B. & H.....1. | °*' “| "| *| *| |Southern. Lythrum Californicum T. & G0 Bh Common. Zauschneria Californical| Presl........ || nd *| *! |Common. Epilobium coloratum Muhl....... 111771" | | *| Common. /ulobus Californicus Nutt...... reper A | | i Southern. *C. betulefolius of Mr. Greene’s list. tZoe i, 111. 397. Mr. Greene described this species from a single specimen. collected on Santa Rosa Island, afterward Several specimens from Santa Cruz Islands | _ were found and included in the type. They are more robust and somewhat impossible to say whether they have the bulbous starch-reseryoir of the mainland form or not. There are, however, traces of such expansions at ‘different places in the underground stem. The plant otherwise is the same. SH. mazima Greene, Bull. Cal. Acad. ii, 149 and 397. Proc. Cal. ee ee BL a af ‘YIncluding R. subvestitum of Mr. Greene's list. “WZ. villosa ana cana sige "VOB 1s] Flora of the Californian Islands. 137 | wh] WA] TA] wa! wa =|p|S|p|s BIBI BI B/E s|8|5 SPECIES. = BOO g Bei slsi8 @)>|N|&io : i TBS ee) (nothera biennis var. hirsutissima* Gray.... : Common, ’ @nothera cheiranthifoliat Hornem.......... hod Common. (inothera bistoria Nutt........0 006 *| *| * »! /Southern. Gnothera micrantha Hornem............-- *| |\Common. oipinera centata O82. 616i. eee a va ae Common. Godetia purpurea Watson.....+.........+-- 1 Northern. Godetia quadrivulnera Spach.............. *| *) * jCommon. > (roaena tenella Wats0n 20.5 .0 0.666 ee es * \Common. ode Boule Ls © Oo ess he Lee *| |Southern. Godetia epilobioides Watson...........-.+++ * *| |Common. Charkia elegans Doug... 6.6 ee ee os Common. Mentzelia gracilenta Sue ce eee pos eee *|Common. Mentzelia micrantha T. & G..............5. *| *| *| (Common. Echinocystis fabaceat Naud......... ...... * *) SS iGommon: Cereus Emoryi Engelm................4.-- “| */Southern. Opuntia Engelmanni var. littoralis Engelm...| *| *| *| *| |Southern. Opuntia prolifera Engelm............-++++- *| *\Southern. Mesembryanthemum equilaterale Haw...... i: ” Common. Mesembryanthemum crystallinum L.......-+ ™ *Y *) i Soutuern, Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum Haw........ *| *\Southern. Bowlesia lobata Ruiz & Pavon.........-...- *| */ Southern. Sanicula bipinnatifida Dougl..........-.++- *\Common. Sanicula laciniata H. & A..............5..-- “| *| |Common,~ Conium maculatum L.... 2... ee ee cece eee *. 4 |Common. Apiastrum angustifolium Nutt...........--- . * *) |\Common. Berula angustifolia§ Koch..... Re ier * < Common. Feniculum officinale Gaertn.. .....--...--.- * Common. Peucedanum caruifolium T. & G............ al is Northern. Daucus pusillus MiGRe rcs *| *) *) *! *!\Common. Caucalis microcarpa H. &-A..........-..45. *| |Common. Sambucus glauca Nutt........-....--.5 6-5 *| * *| 1Common. Symphoricarpos mollis Nutt...........-+++: 7." ;Common. *. HookeriT. & G. ti. nitida Greene, Pitt.i, 70. Proc. Cal. Acad.ser.2,i,210. The cauiits form on which this species was founded has since been collected along the railway between Monterey and Castroville. {Probably ZH. macrocarpa and EF. Guadalupensis of the lists from this island. 2. macrocarpa is supposed to differ from fabacea by having 16 instead of 8 seeds; the island plants were 4-8 seeded. The distinction — seems not to bea good one. On the mainland in the mountains back of San Diego they are usually 16-seeded but a specimen seen in the Cuyamaca Mountains contained 29. Even Ee. Watsonii, appre as — is most Cop cases Am iets comes of t this, lows the island, in ‘the Academy herbarium. Pe ae Flora of the Californian Islands. [ ZOE | Pw) wm gw! wn! PEEEE &|S/ 5 } SPEctzs. Bi a alo wm) S| Hs] oe ages EF O/FiN/i SI] o r |: [: eye! , |: Fe | 1 o| Lonicera hispidula POO es ei *) *! (Common er WRMEINCREE Otay ss * *! |Southern. Wee Parana Gy... occ. "| | *! |Common. Galium angustifolium Nutt... 127" | *| “| *! |Southern. Galium Californicum* ee Ae ers, ee Common, Galium Aparine L. var Paillonti.’.. 0.2... | “| *| *| *\Common. - Galium Catalinenset Sg Sere ee anemn | i Galium Nuttallii + Lou gee Re eee cag es | |Common Brickellia Californica cine de Ses pes * * (Common Grindelia glutinosa§ Dunal....... .. 11 |’ ad *| | |Common Grmdelo robusta Natt... | | *| | |Common ae Pentacheta ee. "| Adjacent mainl‘d Aplopappus ericoides Oe os merrkc ce. ss se Northern. Aplopappus squarrosus H. a ee ra ig Southern. Bigelovia veneta ee |) | *| |Southern. — Solidago Californica PO ee a |, ee Common. Corethrogyne Jilaginifolia Nutt. ...... 00. 7 ol Southern. Aster Chamissonis|| ca en x Common. Aster radulinus ildg fa ee Cees = es Northern. os Vannieie ts. = Common. Erigeron “Lcpagacad OL | aes i aa Re ae x fs Ba (Common, tees eee Ma Fhe oe ‘Common. Erigeron sanctarum cd, sate , |Adjacent mainl’d. Sree Comer Gta ae) a Common. Diplostephium canum** We is gf te Guadalupe Island Baccharis Pett OO. es Northern. *@. flaccidum Greene, Pitt, i, 34. Proc. Cal. Acad. ser. 2, i, 225, tG. buxifolium Greene, Bull. Cal. Acad. ii, 150. Zoe 1, 112, tG. Miguelense Greene, Pitt. i, 34. Proc, Cal. Aead. ser. 2,131,211; | §G@. latifolia Kell, lA. foliaceus of the writer’s Santa Rosa list. {Including Z. stenophyllus Nutt. of lists. ; “*Proc. Am. Acad. x, 76. Corethrogyne cana Greene, Bull. Cal. Acad. i," 223; Hazardia cana, detonsa and serrata Greene, Pitt i, 29, 30. Proc. Cal. Acad. ser. 2,i,111. The flowers in all the dried specimens appear purple, but the plant was not in bloom during the visit of the writer to Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands. The differences between the forms described as species ttIncluding B. consanguinea of Mr. Greene’s Santa Cruz list. , : VOL. t.j Flora of the Californian Islands. - 139 ' wn| wal Tl T| &||p|>|© PIBIBJE|F &|S|5 SPECIES. = BAO = elsle = = Ae cles [ele : 2|o dacenaris Dougiasit DO... ee *) *| *| |Common. Baccharis Plummere Gray.......-... 0.205. . Southern. Tie NG te PUMANE DO). 585s eh ee op ese s *| *| (Common. Pacnem boreane (li Guys eee ek ees *| |Southern. Micropus Californicus F. & M.............. o Common. Stylocline gnaphalioides Nutt............... “re (Common: Walago Arizonica Gray. ... 6. wees p erie e ce. *| *| |Southern. Vilago Californica Nutt... . . ec c. ce soe. id Common. Anaphalis margaritacea L...........---++++ *| ;Common. Gnaphalium decurrens Ives.............-+- a *\Common. Gnaphalium palustre Nutt........-..-+..+- *) |Common. Gnaphalium purpureum L.........06-.. 228s *| *) ‘) |Common. Gnaphalium ramosissimum Nutt..........-+ ” Common. Gnaphalium Sprengelii H. & A........----- =~." "i "| | Common, Ambrosia psilostachya DC...... 2... 0.00005 *| *| (Common. Franseria bipinnatifida Nutt...........---- : *| *| |Common. Franseria Chamissonis Less...........+...- ie Common. Xanthium Canadense Mill............-..... * Common. Encelia Californica Nutt............. 00.06. *| *| |Southern. Helianthua annuus Die... vee oa es * Common. Leptosyne gigantea* Kell.............-+-+5+ *| *| *| *| |Guadalupe Island Madia dissitifiora T. & G.. 2.1... eee ee ceee * Common. Midis AU MOl Soe Sse ae eee ae . *| |Common. Madia filipes Gray.... ..--- see ee eeee eee *| *| |Common. Hemizonia fasciculata T. & G........ 0-0 eee *| *| #| “| (Southern. Hemizonia Wrightiit Gray ...........-.-+-5+: *| |Southern. Hemizonia paniculata Gray...........0. 6 ees 7 Southern. FTP ONEG DEP OOURNT eas 8 oe ee te es *| */San Benito Island Layia glandulosa H. & A......... 6.6.0 e noes | *|\Common. Layia platyglossa Gray...........++--- eine te) (Gommen, Achyrachena mollis Schauer..........-..... *| *| |Common. mune carne Gray. 1k. ae . *| |Common. Venegasia carpesioides DC..........-..0 02+ sd es Southern. Baeria gracilie Gray ..... ..46:..600 eves eens *) *| *| |Common. Baeria Palmeri var. Clementina............ *| * *| * *\Southern. Eriophyllum Nevinii Gray.............+... oe Eriophyllum stechadifolium Lag.......-...- i ee Common. *According to Dr. Gray, Syn. FI. i, 2, 300, this species has been found | on the mountains near Santa Barbara. The authority for the locality he does not give, and so far as I am aware it has never otherwise been reported from the mainland. It is as he remarks apparently quite distinct from the closely related perennial, Z. maritima, from San Diego, Del Mar and the Coronados Islands. ieee & +Reported by Dr. Hasse. ee : {Reported also from Anacapa by Lorenzo G. Yates. ioe % ce _ men in Herb. Cal, Acad. from Folsom, Sacramento county, where it grows 140 : Flora of the Californian Islands. [ZOE ee ae ane gegee BPIBIEI BS) 5} 8) 2/8) 4! SPECTEs. = = al 9) = ele ies 5 Par ee rdtg Poee 2 Ble ie | at &/|o; Eriophyllum confertifiorum Gray....... ....| * *| *| |Common. Amblyopappus pusilius H. & A.......... 1 | *| “| *) *| |Southern. Chenactis tenuifolia Nutt............1. 11 d Southern, \ Pergre Bmore Torr... | | *| *! *(Southern. Achillea Millefolium L............. 1777" * "| *| *| */Common. mermeme tole ee oe *| |Common, Matricaria discoidea DC....... 2 | * Common. Artemisia Californica Less.......1..1 717" *) *! *| *) |Common. Artemisia vulgaris’ L. .......... “| *| *! |Common. Cotula coronopifolia L............... 0017" *| |Common. Lepidospartum squamaium Gray....... .... * Southern. comee Douglas DO)... ; * Common, Senecio Lyonit MO ee *| *|Southern. pee Mager R se Common. Cnicus occidentalist ig See ea ee een eens *| *| *! *| |Common. Silybum Marianum Gaertn.... || 111111" | *| *| j]Common. Centaurea MelitensisL .......1 1 “| *! *| *| |Common, Perezia microcephala NS ke * *) *) /Sonthern. Microseris meter DO. cS bp Ek a Common. Microseris linearifolia§ DC. ........... 1" *| *| *| 1Common. teroseris elegans Greene............. x Adjacent mainl’d. Stephanomeria cichoriacea hig MOE ee ae * Southern, Stephanomeria eeigua Nutt... ..... l= Common. Stephanomeria paniculata Mee ee *) |Northern. Stephanomeria virgata|| Benth........ _ Alea bot hg Common. Rafinesquia ahfornica Nutt. 2.) *| *| |Common, antingie Wiod son gp Be ae Ree ee ae = Common. Malacothrix Clevelandi ih su WE ae . Common. Malacothriz Ooulteri iii So es ee = Common, Malncothric incanaT. &G..... | |. bd i Be Coronados Isl’nds Malacothriz foliosa* * A i ‘ . "The same as A. Ludociviana of previous lists. re ' tProc. Nat. Mus. 1888, 531; Zoe, i, 114—San Quintin. +Cnicus lilacinus Greene Bull. Cal. Acad. ii, 404, [Calais pluriseta Greene, probably. Proc. Cal. Acad. ser. 2, i, 213, Zoe, i §Microseris anomala Watson. Zoe 1. c. “ a a (IS. tomentosa Greene, Bull. Cal. Acad. ii, 152, Answers well enough to the description of §, virgata in Syn, Fl, ii, 1,414, and is well matched by a speci- 38 feet high. (Dr, Gray considered S, elata Nutt. a synonym of S. virgata. — — _"M. indecora & squalida Greene. Some of the tall bran ching forms ap- _ Proach pretty nearly M. obtusa, meee ee ee VOL. I.] Flora of the Californian Islands. 141 wn} wo) a! on wo 2|2|e|o|s B/E/E/E|e SPECIES. 5 be = a 2 Sell sis 2)2)S =. : Tele >| oO Malacothrix insularis Greene ............4+ * Coronados Isl’nds Malacothrix saxatilis T. & G. ...... cece *| *| *! *| (Southern. Troximon grandiflorum Gray......... 65.65 st i Common. Troximon heterophyllum Greene...........+ = Common. Hieracium arguitum Nutt......6.....0-+5-- i Adjacent mainl’d. moncnue aaper Vill... se ee cess hain *) *| *) |Common. Bonchus Oleraceds Li... i.e eee eee ne i bea *|\Common. Sonchus tenerrimus L..... 22... 0ceees ceeeee *| |Southern. Specularia biflora Gray........66+. sesso *| *| |Common. Specularia perfoliata ADCO... 2. rceces ee eee! * Common. Vaccinium ovatum Pursh.............- +++: 2 Northern. Arctostaphylos bicolor Gray ...... 66+. ..0++: | *| \Southern. Arctostaphylos diversifolia* Parry........... * *| “| (Southern. Arctostaphylos pungenst HBK.............: *| *| *| |Adjacent mainl’d. Arctostaphylos tomentosa Dougl............ *) *) *) -|\Common. Doderutheon Mleadiak Lalcg 00.6 vs ce co cee *| *| *| j\Common, Anagallis arvensis L..... 0... cece eee cues *| |\Common. Samotus Valérandi Li... 2.6.) jee sev essays 4 Southern. Erythrea Douglasii Gray....-.-.-2. -+++-5- oS es Common. Erythrea venusta GYay...... eee eee eee ee | *| |\Common. Gilia atractyloides Steud...........---++06+ *| *| *| |\Common. Gilia androsacea Steud....... 0.0. eee veces ig Ss Common. : Gilia dianthoides Endl................+05+: *| *| |Southern. Gilia filifolia Nutt.........--- 200 veer ne ee . Southern. Gilia glutinosa Gray ..........6.0 cere eens *| \Common. Gilia micrantha Steud........ see eres bees . * Common, Gilia multicaulis Benth ...... 2.6.66 ceed eens *| *| (Common. Gila, Nevinti § Gray «o.oo sere eee es a ks ag erg Gilia viscidula Gray... 0.065 eee cee eee oe ‘| *| |\Common. Nemophila aurita Lindl............-.+.+++ *| *| .|Common. Nemophila parviflora Dougl.........------ J Common. Nemophila racemosa|| Nutt........-------- *| *| */Southern. Ellisia chrysanthemifolia Benth.........--- *) #1 *) *| (Common. Phacelia grandiflora Gray..........-++++++ *| (Southern. *Comarostaphylos diversifolia Greene; “A istoutagaalae Stanfordi of L. G. Yates’ list. +A. insularis Greene in Parry, Bull. Cal. Acad. 494. Found on Santa Rosa, © on Santa Catalina abundantly, and on the adjacent mainland. The char- acters relied upon as specific are not found to be constant. ak Including D. Hendersonii and Jeffreyi of the lists. _ §This species appears to unite with the Chilian G. laciniata on one side and with G. multicaulis on the other, and forms closely similar to those of the islands are found on the mountains back of Santa Barbara. WPhacelia sos ger of L. G. Yates’ list. 142 Flora of the Californian Islands. [ ZOE gigigiee B/E/E/E/P > 2)> SPECIEs. S Ba} © 2) Rio} | 2/8 gi/alisa =| B o/P |i Ni =) o ag ie eae, rode oS o | Phacelia distans* Benth................... *) *!*| *|.*|Common. Phacelia hispida Gray..................... *| |Common. Phacetia Iyont Gray... .2.....,.... Phacelia ramosissima Dou Miedo roe ge Common, Phacelia viscidat Torr.................... *| *) *| *| |Southern. Emmenanthe penduliflora Benth........____ *| “| |Common. Eriodictyon tomentosum Benth............. *| |Southern. Heliotropium Curassavicum L.............. . *! |Common. Amsinckia lycopsoides Lehm...........___. : *!| *| |Common. Amsinckia spectabilist F.& M............... *) |Common, Amsinckia intermedia F. & M............... *) *| *| *|Common. Krynitzkia ambigua Sa eee eee *| *\Common. Krynitzkia intermedia ne Sek RES EE ES *| |Southern. Krynitzkia Jonesii enn ARTE Ve Ry see: if Southern. Krynitzkia leiocarpa F. & M............. ied ed Se Northern. Krynitzkia micromeres cape Ee ee : “d Common. Krynitzkia microstachys Greene.........__.. * |Common. Krynitzkia ramosissima Greene.........____ *) (Southern. Plagiobothrys Cooperi cg te OR Bae i Southern. Plagiobothrys Arizonicus Greene.......___ *| |Southern. _Plagiobothrys canescens Benth..........__ = Common. Pectocarya penicillata A. DC........ ee *| *| |Common. Convolvulus arvensis L................... . Common. Convolvulus Californicus Le? Sey ee *| |Common, Convolvulus occidentalis§ a Oe ese *| *| *| *) */ Adjacent mainl’d. Convolvulus pentapetaloides L........ ||| in: Common, Convolvulus Soldanella L................ 1. *| (Common. Dichondra repens|| Forst...... Se epee - *| |Southern. Wee OPM Aye cr. * *| |Common. Cuscuta Californica ag’ SENSES oF cata *| |Common. Ouscuta subinclusa Dur. & gis ban Fens ie! Common. *P. scabrella Greene, Pitt. i, 35. Proc. Cal. Acad. ser. 2, i, 214. _ P. phyllomanica and P. floribunda are omitted from this list, the first being omitted by Gray in Syn. Fl. 2, i, 415, when dealing with the plants of Nevin and Lyon. Both these gentlemen have furnished me with specimens and all the notes in their power, and the conclusion drawn from them is that ' they do not agree sufficiently well with either of the Guadalupe species. The ‘lobing of the calyx appears to be hardly of specific value. : tAcoording to Mr. Groene, Pitt i, 01.. P..Parryi of his Banta Oras list is this species. a ‘ tA. intermedia of the writer’s Santa Catalina list. §C. macrostegius Greene. Zoe i, 85. — " oe ’ |D. argentea of the Santa Cruz list. voL. t.] Flora of the Californian Islands. 143 | ml we] mm mlm |o| S/S, e|S Bean i=") ; SPECIES. is rd slate a) O/H) S18 ‘B/5/8 Els i}: |t |a/s Solanum nigrum L. var.........- 002 eens | *| *) *| *| (Common. Solanum Xanti var. Wallacei Gray........- *| *| *| |Guadalupe Island Lycium Californicum Nutt.......---+++++++ | *| *\Southern. Lycium Richii*® Gray .........-0- 00 cere e ees | *| -|Southern. Datura meteloides DC...........05. 24 eee | *| *! |Southern. Nicotiana Clevelandi Gray..........-+++++: *| *| |Southern. Linaria Canadensis Dum........-...--+++: | *) *| *| |Common. Antirrhinum Nuttallianum Benth........-- | *) *| *) *) */Southern. Antirrhinum speciosumt Gray.....-.---++++| | *| *|\Guadalupe Island Antirrhinum strictum Gray........+-+-+5++5 _*| *| |Adjacent mainl’d. Scrophularia Californica Cham..........+-- *| |Common. Collinsia bicolor Benth............--- +++: | +} *|\Common. Pentstemon cordifolius Benth..... hae eee ee *| *| *! |Adjacent mainl’d. Mimulus cardinalis Dougl........-----++6+ | *| *| |Common. Mimulus brevipes Benth........-..+++++-+++ *| |Southern. Mimulus floribundus Dougl....... Re ne *| *| |Northern. Mimulus latifolius Gray.......-.-+++-+++++ . Guadalupe Island Mirnilus tatedat Ti hs oes ee wT) ST JOOmmon. Mimulus glutinosus§ Wendl......-----++--- *)| *| |Common. Castilleia affinis H. & A.......+--- essere - . Common. Castilleia foliolosa H. & A.......---+- 2-50 *| |Common. Castilleia hololeuca || Greene............+--- ick Ohne Wr ' Castilleia parviflora Bong.....-..+.-+-+++++: *| *| *| |Common. Orthocarpus purpurascens Benth..........- z *| |Northern. Orthocarpus densiflorus Benth.......-..--+- - Me Northern. Aphyllon tuberosum Gray ...-..--+0++ eee *) *) *) |Common, Aphylion fasciculatum Gray ...... +--+++++- el Common, Monardella lanceolata Gray..........++-+-- *| |Common. Micromeria Douglasii Benth............-. *| |Northern. Sphacele calycina var. Wallacei eek pee Omer cg a Southern. Salvia Columbarie Benth..............++++ *) *| *)| |Common. Audibertia nivea Benth.............+e+ ees i Southern. Audibertia Palmeri Gray ........---esee eee *| *! |Southern. Audibertia polystachya Benth ...........--- *| |Southern. Audibertia stachyoides Benth. ........----- od ks Common. *L. Hassei Greene, Pittonia, i, 222. Zoe i, 115. tZoe, i, 112. tM. nasutus of Mr. Greene’s list. §Diplacus arachnoideus & parviflorus Greene. \| West Am. Scientist, i, 111; Pitt. i, 38. This may possibly hold as a species, but if so only on-its pubescence. Its habit is that of (. foliolosa—no taller nor whiter than that species. The bracts are either cream-color or red, and the calyx nearly equally cleft before and behind. Proce. Cal. Acad. ser. 2, i, 215, 267; Zoe i, 113. ‘ 144 Flora of the Californian Islands. [ ZOE B12 PP 2 BIBIB/ Bis &|)8/5 SPECIES. 5 =| Keine) . se : Eriogonum nudum$ Dougl................. * *l #1 -*) “Common. Chorizanthe staticoides Benth......... |" “| “| *| |Southern. Lastarriwa Chilensis SORRY eros gis ore: *| |Common. Pterostegia drymarioides F. & Mois eee: *| *! *! *!Common. Amaranine albus DL ..... ete ” Common. Aphanisma blitoides|| Nutt.........5...° 00. * Southern, Chenopodium album L........1... 11" *! *! *! */Common. Chenopodium ambrosioides L.......... st ed Common. Chenopodium Californicum Watson..... ||. = *'*| *\Common, Chenopodium murale L..................0 * *| *| |Common. Atriplex Breweri Watson....... 1..." "’ eo Adjacent mainl’d. Atriplex Californica Moat i: is Sick Gee Common. Atriplex ad By! NS oe “| (Southern. *S. acuminata Greene. in the Botan bullata, itis not here necessary to discuss it, San Pedro. | EZ. rubescens Greene P ypeil oad Me ccd Cate ee See _ |\Collected by the _. house at San Pedro. __ : As Mr. Greene himself redu y of California as a synonym of S, Pitt., i, 38, 39. Proc. Cal. Acad. — writer in a clump of Lycium Californicum near the Light. ces this species to 8, a. vou t | Flora of the Californian Islands. 145 wn) wn] wn w| we plp|oe}ol oe PIBIBIBIE ls| |S SPECIES. Se alo g S/S alsle | P|N| io ris | [ete vfs =| o Airiplex decumbens Watson. -.........¢.-+- *| |Southern. ‘triples Teucophylia Dietr.. 0.50.05 Ais = *| *) *|Common. Atripier microcarpa Diet? .. 0.0.0 1 a, *) | */Southern. Salicornia ambigua Michx.................. + *) * "1 Common. eee Lorreyand Watson ines a toes as + 7) | (Common: Urtica holosericea Nutt............- reece *| *| |\Common. WPicCa UTES eis re Te eee *| *| |Common. Hesperocnide tenella Torrey.....:.. 0.2.5.5. *\Common. Parselaria aeorls POTS ei cet ie cea os *| *| *| *\Southern. THOVINS COMMUNE Di ei CN i, Southern. Bremocarpus setiyerus Benth............... *) *! |Common. Euphorbia dictyosperma F. & M............ *) |\Common. Huphorbia serpylliifolia Pers... .:.6.5...+.-% *| j|Common. _Houttuynia Californica B. & H............. : *) |Common. ‘Salix detigata Beep, i oe 6 Se ek “i * ACommon; Salix lasiolepis Benth........... ee eae Common. Sake lonjyone Muh. ceri ee ieee es % Common. Popes Wichocarpas.2 8s ged a SI OT *| *| *! |Common. Populus Fremontii var. Wislizeni............ , Southern. Owercus dorisolia N66... iiss ee if Common. Quercus chrysdlepis Liebm...... 5. ..5 0 050662 % Common. usreus Wine ADO i sy Common. Quercus oblongifoliat Torr.............0.0.8 *)| *| *| (Southern. SINEMOUS TOUUEE NOD. ees kun Phe CTCL 4 Common. Quercus dumoia Nutt 0 oo. oe i es *| *) *) |Common. Quercus tomentella Engelm.............-..- *| *| *| |Guadalupe Island « Pinus Torreyana ONIN as ¥ Southern. Pinus insignis var. binata Engelm.......... mt Ge Guadalupe Island Habenaria elegans Bol. vc. ..... cee 4 Northern. Sisyrinchium bellum Wats..........2..0-+5- oy Fakes Common. Allium hyalinum Curran....... 0.556. .0..55 3 Northern. Allium lacunosum Watson.............6555 al [s Common. Allium serratum} Watson...............05+ *! * Common. Bloomeria aurea Kell. ........-.+.-++ +++: *| “| *| (Southern. *Q. parvula Greene, Pitt. i, 40. —tQuercus Douglasii of the Catalina list, Q. Bapetntoans: Q. MacDonaldi and var. elegantula Greene, West Am. Oaks, Pl. xv, xvii, xxix, xxxiv, running _ into many forms and not pein tenn set from the i variable wanda of the mainland. {Stout and tall forms with dashets ia flowers as ‘aie as A. unjfolium rere the reticulation, however, exactly that of A. serratum. Some of the bulbs closely simulate corms, the outer of the fleshy tunics forming nearly the entire thickness; thus lessening the distance between the mections with _cormose and those with tunicated bulbs. 146 : Flora of the Californian Islands. [ ZOE non) nl wl 2/2 | >| S|= PIBi Bi BiB 3/8) 8|, SPECIES. = bd Oo} O) = Wlo Fs Sia | Ss 5 O/ in| jo gg SE S15 * . Cie : | oO Brodiea capitata* Benth.................. *| *! * #! *(Common. Brodiea minor Watsqn.................... *) Common. Chlorogalum pomeridianum Kunth ......__. *| |Northern. Lilium HumboldtiiR. & L......:.......... i aes Common, Calochortus albus SOME 65 ca. oUt rie ee22 se Common. Calochortus Catalinet Watson..........___. *| *| |Adjacent mainl’d. Calochortus Palmerit Watson..........___. *| /Southern. Zygadenus Fremonti Torr................ Mat Common, ypha Domingensis§ Rorhrb.............._. . Southern. sane htc agmtibagy, Jeg AO aaa EERE Canis sn Common, Phyllospadix Torreyi Watson............ | *| *| *| |Adjacent mainl’d. uzula comosa Meyer..................... ee Common. Juncus Balticus Deth...................... ey tb Cer wions Cerne Caron D353 esc 3h ‘| *| jCommon. agen gouge, doo AER aa | A Common. Juncns patens ce! Soh ee ee ee hs os Common. Juncus robustus Watson................._. | *! |Common. Scirpus pungens Vahl................-..... a Common. Scirpus riparius sac! talon, Oe ne eee ae . Common. Hleocharis palustris R. Br.............. | *| |Common. Carex angustata Boott................... 1 . Common. Carex Douglasii Boott............. 1.1.1" e Common. WER POUON BOO: . Northern. Phalaris Canariensis L................ 1111 . *| *| *|\Common. Phalaris intermedia Bosc............... = Common, Polypogon Monspeliensis Dest............ || *)*! *) *! |Common. Agrostis canina L.. SCPE POEL ea a ee *| |Northern. Agrosiserarata Trin...........:....... *| |Common. Agrostis Scouleri Trin eee StiSeyee te ye ” Northern. Agrostis verticillata Vill................11 7" , Common. Muhlenbergia debilis Trin... 22.) "117 - Southern. Mublenbergia gracilis Trin...) *! |Common., *Brodiea insularis Greene. Proc. Cal. Acad. Ber. 2:4, 917; tWhether this species is distinct from @, splendens or not, it is found ic. Kennedyi of Lyon’s list — the material for identification haviie been _ very poor and scanty. . : fh tePha bracteata Greene, Bull. Cal. Acad, ii, 413, Bull, Torr. Club, xv, 7, where the Rev. Thomas Morong separates 7’. Domingensis from 7. angusti- : 7 folia L. and identifies Mr. Greene’s Species with the former, YOu: 1. ] Flora of the Californian /slands. 147 mw] wa] w| wal go eife ee 2 BIBIBISsiE S| S| s SPECIES. = i ala S en) #18 i=] o|@ a = eS tejo}| Nie o * ie tect Baie ° 121 Stipa emivens OW 8 ee ee *| *| |Common. Stipa seugera eres! oo. er *| *| *\Common. Stina Andersoni VOSsey... .... 0.0.2. ecscres ss : Monterey. Brande Gromoder WBE oc eee ks Common. Piven fate rs oa i ee, i $ Common. Trisetum barbatum Steud............-.-6+5 2 Common. Monanthochle littoralis Engelm............ *| |Southern. Lamarckia aurea Moench..............-.... *) |Southern. Kobleria cristata Pere 0 ai.. ie ee os es shee Common. SM éited tinperfvedia Pi... sc pei es ce ti *| *| *\Common. Misichis maritima. Ral. ec. ii bel ios ss “Tb. {OOM IOI. POG. CHNUY Lic s isis i lias eee sss Lawes *| *) (Common. Pod dMoweun Vea 8 oir. a ee ok Northern. bbe enuilond Nuthiet o ise res Sy ees % Mainland. Stenochloa Californica Nutt................ *| |Guadalupe Island Festuca microstachys Nutt: 2.2.0... ses se Common. Henn: Myurns: Tad oe nese, *) *| *) *) (Common. emo tenedin? Wid: oo ee oa *| *| |Common. Prams CNdtUe Us. fc Cias aereeeee. *| *| |Northern. Bromus Hookerianust Thurb.............3. *) *) *! *\Common. PSPOVAUE FALCONE TS, ssi < Giitesn show sea ees yee *| |Common. Lepturus paniculatus Nutt................. *| |Common. Houam temulentim Lescol cece sa *| |Common. ‘Agropyrum repens Beauv................-- *) *) *| *| |Common. Hordeum murinum Uv. vie. i ee cess *) *) *| jCommon. Hordeum noddain Lin. ss ase Ba os *|\Common. Elymus condensatus Presl........ Poe ee! a *| *| |Common. Equisetum Telmateia Ehrb...............-. * Common. Polypodium Californicum Kaulf............ *) *| *| *\Common. . _ Polypodium Scouleri Hook & Grev.......... *| *| |Comnion. Gymnogramme triangularist Kaulf.......... *) *| *| *\Common. VAT, Wis0OkG BACON 250 St *| |Southern. Notholena Newberryi Eaton ..............- * Southern. Cheilanthes Californica Mett............... | *| |Common. Cheilanthes myriophylla§ Desf.............. al Common. Pellea andromedefolia Fée......--.-.--+++ *| *| *| |\Common. Pellea ornithopus Hook........... Laecwae *| *| \Common, Pteris aquilina L. oo. 6 ss y tee. ses josbee ae ¢ fel Common. Adiantum Capillus-Veneris L......-.- +--+ : Southern. _ Adiantum emarginatum Hook.. .........--- *| *| “| |Common. _* 2Poa steriantha of L. G. Yates’ list. tOeratochloa grandiflora of the San Clemente list. 2 /-tNotholena candida of ‘Mr. Greene’s list. : $0. Californica of Mr. Greene’s list. es. 148 Notices of Supposed New Birds. [ZOE wn! wa! wa] wal wo 2/S|/o/p)/5 BPIBIB | Big 8|/8|s a SPECIES. = la Q) = og By) o/|o® S/iaisle [25/5] Elo : I: |: 1: [BLE ie | >| oe Ge Se xs ae Adiantum pedatum™ L..................... bd Common. Woodwardia radicans Smith....._... ||. |" “| | |Common. Asplenium filix-feminat Bernh............. - | |Common. Aspidium munitum Kaulf............. *! | |Common.. Aspidium rigidum Swartz...........0 0111" “| *| *| |Common. Aspidium aculeatumt Swartz........... 11" a Northern. Selaginella rupestris stokes Cee *| *| |Common. *Mr. Greene in Bull. Cal. Acad. ii, 45, makes the curious statement that this, one of our common ferns, abundant even within a few miles of San Francisco is “rare in California.” tNo. 321 Aspidium — of Mr. Greene’s list. ° tNo specimens of this plant from the island appear to be extant, and in their absence a certain amount of doubt attaches to the island habitat, more especially on acconnt of the unusual variability of the island forms of rigidum. ‘ NOTICES OF SUPPOSED NEW BIRDS. BY WALTER E. BRYANT. A comparison of specimens of certain species of birds in my Possession, with some others from quite different localities, which have hitherto been supposed to possess the same species, leads me to call attention to these forms, inasmuch as they may be found to be entitled to subspecific recognition. In 1888, I obtained in Lower California specimens of horned larks which were undeterminable then, but were of such small size and otherwise remarkable that upon returning to the region in 1889 I made a special and_ successful effort to secure more material, but even with the series of ten specimens obtained was unable to satis- factorily determine the identity of the Magdalena Island (and ad- jacent region) form of Otocoris—the comparative material at hand _ being wholly insufficient, In preparing the catalogue of Lower Californian birds I reluctantly referred the horned larks to Otocoris alpestris chrysolema (Mexican horned lark). To the credit of Mr. L. Belding, I should say that he did not coincide with this opinion after examining the specimens and even urged the naming WoL. T.] Notices of Supposed New Birds. 149 of the new race, which I was loth to do under the circumstances. The bird has since been named by Mr. Chas. H. Townsend, from specimens collected later by himself in Lower California, Ofocor?s al- pestris pallida, and received recognition from Mr. Jonathan Dwight, Jr., in his excellent review of the genus Ofocoris. (Auk, vii, 154.) Being placed in a similar position in regard to other birds and feeling reasonably sure that some or all will have to be eventually separated, I would here call attention to them with the intention of fully determining their status as soon as sufficient material and litera- ture may be obtained. In some supplementary notes to Mr. L. Belding’s paper, “ The Small Thrushes of California,” I referred five examples of a dwarf ‘thrush taken in Monterey County to his new species, 7urdus seguot- ensis (Big Tree thrush), although then stating that they were not typical. (Proc. Cal. Acad. Sci., 2d ser., ii, 70.) A re-examination of the specimens leads me to believe that they may belong to an unrecognized race, unless the dwarf hermit thrush ( 7urdus aona- laschk@ ),is resident in California and has seasonal changes of plum- age not now known. The Monterey County birds in question are most like Zurdus seguoiensis but decidedly darker above than the type specimens, the markings of the breast are darker and there is more of the tawny tinge.on the breast. The wing is shorter, also the middle toe and claw. In looking over, in company with Mr. W. W. Price, the speci- mens of the verdin ( Auriparus), which I collected in Lower Cali- fornia, a marked difference was seen between them and Mr. Price’s specimens of Auripfarus from Texas, the latter being larger and decidedly darker above; moreover the peculiarities of the Texan verdins were remarkably constant in the small series which was ex- amined. The series of the smaller and much paler bird (upwards of a dozen specimens), represented Los Angeles and San Diego counties, Cal.; Tucson, Arizona, and several localities in Lower California. The lightest colored bird being from Los Angeles County and the darker ones from Lower California; those from Arizona seeming to be intermediate or nearer to those from San Diego County. Dr. Coues has mentioned (Birds of the Colorado Valley, 130), some variations which Auriparus assumes and which may be individ- ual, but the limited material which I have had at my disposal points 4 150 Dangerous Fung? [ ZOE to two well-defined races which may soon require to be separated, and one of them named without incurring the liability of impeach- ment for ‘‘hair-splitting.”’ The verdin was first described by Sundevall in 1850 as 4igithalus Haviceps from Mexico, and in 1851 Mr. Geo. N. Lawrence described the Texan bird as Conirostrum ornatum, which, assuming it to be identical with the Mexican type of Sundevall, would leave the pale western bird eligible to a new name, for which Auriparus flaviceps ornatus is appropriate. oie Ieee DANGEROUS FUNGI. BY H. W. HARKNESS. Having already several times called the attention of fruit growers to the prevalence of Peronospora viticola and the black-knot ( Plow- rightia [or Spheria] morbosa ) along the banks of our streams, I intend from time to time to continue the record of the localities _ where they are observed. P. viticola has now been observed nearly the whole length of Russian River, not constantly on all the vines, but quite common, and here and there one badly infected. The « black-knot” is very common at middle elevations in the Sierra on the choke cherry, ( Prunus demissa) and from some specimens which have been sent me apparently on the wild plum (Prunus subcordata. ) The disease makes knotty, minutely warty swellings of considerable extent, velvety-brown when young, but becoming shining black on the trunk and branches of the affected trees. Yosemite Valley is very badly infested, and specimens have reached me from Tehachapi, and recently from the vicinity of Cahto. It is hardly necessary to recall to the memory of those who have lived in the Eastern States the havoc wrought by this fungus in their cherry and plum orchards. “Plum pockets’’ ( Zxoascus pruni) are found frequently on our wild plum. They abound in Yosemite; about the base of Mt. Diablo; and have been brought to me from Sweetwater, El Dorado County; from Volcano, Amador County, and from our neighboring Tamal- pais. All the plums on an infected tree are usually changed to the puffy abortions in which this fungus appears. It so completely holds the plum trees of Tamalpais, that so far as I know no fruit has ever been collected there. eee Kone VOL. Ei] Nest of the California Bush Tit. I51 The holly-leaved wild plum (P. z/icifolia) seems never to be affected by either of these pests, and a like immunity appears to belong to the small ‘‘ bitter cherry’’ of the Sierra Nevada. The Botany of California, by the way, says this (P. emarginata) has black fruit. I would be pleased to have notes on the subject. A NEST OF THE CALIFORNIA BUSH TIT (Psaltriparus minimus californicus. ) BY CHAS. A. KEELER. There is no bird on the Pacific Coast that builds a more elaborate nest than the California bush tit. In proportion to the size of the bird it is truly an immense structure, and it is made of such fine materials that the labor of constructing it is very great. A nest which I col- lected near Berkeley in the spring of 1889 seems worthy of special notice. It was found in an oak ( Quercus agrifolia) at the height of about fifteen feet from the ground, and shielded from sight by a beautiful streamer of lichen which half covered it. In size it is a little above the average, its external length being about two hundred millimetres. The lower half of the structure is solid, thus making the internal length only about ninety-five millimetres. The nest is composed, as usual, of fine particles of moss, lichens, and very mi- nute twigs, bound together with spider webs, and is lined with soft feathers and willow catkins. In shape it presents no striking pecu- liarities, it being, as usual, a long, pendulous, slightly gourd-shaped structure, with a hole near the top barely large enough to insert a finger.. The novel feature of the structure is an appendage almost large enough to be considered a second nest attached to the main one around the entrance. It forms a large vestibule at the door- way, with a considerable mass of nesting material at its extremity, hanging beside the main nest in an apparently useless flap. I have examined many nests of this species, but never saw any other with this sort of an attachment. From the care with which it was constructed it is evident that it is not an accidental excresence, but ‘rather a deliberate deviation from, or an improvement on, the typical structure. Mr. L. Belding, who has seen the nest, suggests _ that it might have been intended as the roosting place of the male, and this seems to be the most natural explanation. The fact that this pocket has a partial lining would seem to confirm this theory. RECENT LITERATURE. The Florned Larks of North America. By JONATHAN Dwicut, Jr. Auk, vii, 138-158. Distributed throughout all favorable locali- ties in North America, the horned larks form a large and difficult group of birds, closely and intricately connected with one another, and yet presenting appreciable points of difference. Since Mr. Henshaw’s able review of the group. a large amount of new material has become available, thus throwing much additional light upon the subject, and it is very fortunate that the elaboration of this material consisting of over two thousand of these birds, fell to the lot of Mr. Dwight. Twenty-two varieties have been made of this one species. It certainly seems unfortunate that the number could not have been considerably reduced, but when we consider the plastic nature of the bird, which causes it to change so readily with its environment, we cannot but think that Mr. Dwight has been as conservative as circumstances would seem to allow. He is certainly prudent in not ascribing specific rank to Straudi without material from the inter- vening districts, although its isolated habitat and distinctive charac- ters would seem to point to its separation. An extremely interesting fact disclosed by his researches is that there is no spring moult in this species, the breeding plumage being the result of the wearing off of the ends of the feathers. Careful investigation will probably prove that this is true of many others of our passerine birds. In the distribution of races one circumstance was noted which ing at Carson, Nevada, indistinguishable from the Praticola of New stance seems difficult except that they have not yet become difter- entiated. Another case somewhat parallel, though much more easily explained, is the Occurrence of sérigata on the Santa Cruz Islands, California, the only point at which they have been taken south of Oregon. _ With the exception of strigata on these islands, but two forms are ascribed to California, chrysolema and rubea. The range of the ‘ Recent Literature. 153 former of these two has been extended northward on the coast to latitude 38°, it having previously been considered as restricted to the southern part of the State. Rudea has been left as before, as in- habiting the Sacramento and probably the San Joaquin valleys, but strigata, with the exception of the above mentioned islands, is not ascribed to northern California even in winter, as it is in Ridgway’s Manual. The article concludes with a table of measurements and a map showing the distribution of the different races. From the table we learn how small is the value of measurements in determining the va- rieties, there being far more difference in size between the sexes than between many of the varieties. It is to be hoped that through the instrumentality of the American Ornithologists’ Union other groups will be worked over in the same satisfactory manner. Cah. S: A Review of Some of the North American Ground Squirrels of the Genus Tamias. By J. A. ALLEN. Bull. Am. Mus. of Nat. Hist., vol. iii, pp. 45-116.—In these days of radical and hasty hair- splitting, it is really refreshing to find a naturalist who looks twice before creating new species which will soon help to crowd the list of synonyms. Probably no group of mammals offers so natural and misleading an opportunity for forming new species as does the genus Zamias; but Mr. Allen, in his admirable review of this group, _ has not jumped at his conclusions, but has carefully considered the subject from all its bearings. Owing to the extended range of this genus and the exceedingly close relationship existing between the species, a very large amount of material is necessary in order to draw any conclusions of value; and although Mr. Allen had over Six hundred and fifty specimens at his command, he found even this number insufficient. The extremely important, or, indeed, vital problem of how to distinguish specific or subspecific differences from mere individual _ variation was presented to him in its most difficult form, and received the careful attention it deserved. An examination of a series of skulls demonstrated the very important fact that it was “ impracti- cable to make much use of cranial characters as a basis for specific distinctions.’ This discovery is especially valuable, in view of the fact that there has been a tendency of late to base nice specific dis- 154 Recent Literature. [ ZOE tinctions very largely on the size and shape of the skull. A seasonal change in the pelage was discovered to take place, which is another factor tending to complicate the recognition of species and varieties. Owing to the close relationship existing between the species of the genus Zamzas, Mr. Allen concludes that they have been modified from some common stock in comparatively recent times. He says: ‘‘ Probably a more striking example of evolution by environment cannot be cited.” Of the twenty-four forms which he recognizes, it is possible that a few will, in the light of more ample material, be reduced from specific to subspecific rank, as, for example, Zamias amenus,; but that any of the forms here considered will ever prove to be mere individual variations is highly improbable. After a general review of the group, which occupies the first twenty-two pages, each species is taken up in detail, in which are given the synonymy, habitat, technical descriptions of the pelage in breeding season, in post-breeding season; and of the young; meas- urements, a list of the specimens examined, and remarks on the habits and characteristics of each species and on its relationship to allied forms. Thus the whole ground is covered, and all that is now known of our North American chipmunks is here to be found in convenient and systematic shape. ; Eight species and varieties are ascribed to California alone. This certainly seems like a very large number for so small an area, and is to be accounted for only by the extreme variation in climate and physical features of the different sections of the State. Some species, which might at first sight appear to be mere varieties, overlap in their range, and may easily be distinguished as distinct even when taken from the same locality, thus proving their specific rank. This is the case with merriami and speciosus, and also with Srater and amenus, although in the latter case the differences are not so great, and a larger series from neutral ground might show intergradation. Co ALR. __ The Ibis, ii, No. 7. On the Principal Modern Breeds of the Domestic Fowl, by W. B. Tegetmeier (with 20 illustrations.) On a new Finch from Midway Island, North Pacific, by Scott B. Wilson with colored plate of Telespiza cantans gen. et Sp. nov. _ The Auk, vii, No. 3. Descriptions of a New Species and three ie New Subspecies of Birds from Arizona, by Dr. Edgar x. Mearns. oe YORCI 7 — Recent Literature. ae 5 - funco ridgwayi, Spinus tristis pallidus, Coccothraustes vespertina montana Ridgway, and Melanerpes formicivorus aculeata. (The lat- ter being the small-billed race which Mr. W. W. Price once collected and sent to an Eastern authority, as representing a new form, but failed to secure a recognition of his views.) Observations on the Avifauna of Portions of Arizona, by Edgar A. Mearns, M. D. (con- cluded from vol. vii, p. 55.) Notices of 64 species and second description of the nest and eggs of the red-faced Warbler ( Car- dellina rubrifrons). Notes on Birds Observed in the Colorado Desert in Winter, by F. Stephens. Shows that Harpochynchus crissalis ranges as far west as Indio, San Diego county, and winters in the desert, as does also Pipilo aberti, Auriparus flaviceps, Po- lioptila plumbea, Oroscoptes montanus and myadestes townsend, the two latter as stragglers. First Report of the Secretary of Agriculture, 1889. Contains fourth annual Report of Ornithologist and Mammalogist, by C. Hart Merriam, M. D., Chief of Division, etc. Also, articles on the marsh hawk ( Circus hudsonius) and screech owl (megascops asio) with colored plates of both species. a On the Carpologic Structure and Development of the Collemacee and Allied Groups, with eight plates. By WiILLIAM C. STURGIS. From Proc. Am. Acad. Arts and Sciences, vol. xxv. The conclu- sions reached by Dr. Sturgis in this paper cannot be better stated than by quoting his own summary of results as follows: 1. My in- vestigations upon the Collemaceous genera Leptogium and Col- lema * * * are entirely confirmatory of the results arrived at by Stahl in his investigations upon those groups. There exists in the Collemacez at least two modifications of a sexual type of repro- duction, one monoclinic, of which Collema chalazanum Ach., is a typical example, the other diclinic, exemplified by Leptogium myo- chroum (Ehrh., Schaer.) Tuck., and Collema nigrescens (Huds.)Ach. 2. The genus Hydrothyria, represented by /. venosa Russ., cannot, as heretofore, be considered as typically Collemaceous, but is to be — regarded as transitional in its character, and related to the genera Peltigera ‘and Pannaria, between which it forms a more or less def- inite link. 3. In the groups of typically heteromeric lichens more _ nearly related structurally to the Collemaceze, as well asin the trans- itional forms represented ~ paccniee pad dc and oT ie 156 Recent Literature. [ ZOE _ there exists, so far as I have seen, no visible evidence of any sexual form of reproduction. The development of the fruit is a purely veg- etative process analogous to that seen in many Ascomycetous fungi. 4. In all such lichens, as far as my observation goes, there exists at no stage in the development of the fruit any differentiation of the hyphe into an ascogenous system and an enveloping system distinct from it. Both asci and paraphyses arise from one and the same system of hyphz, and with respect to their origin exhibit the closest mutual relationship, thus presenting a marked analogy to those Ascomycetous fungi in which the fruit arises as the result of a purely vegetative process of hyphal growth. Dr. Sturgis has found that sections made by hand are more satis- factory than with the microtome. With those lichens having a tough cortex the paraffine penetrates very slightly, if at all, while the gelatinous species are likely to be much distorted during the process of embedding. R. $. E. New fishes collected off the Coast of Alaska and the Adjacen Region southward. By TARLETON H. Bean. From Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. Vol. xiii, pp. 37-45. Issued July 1, 1890. The descrip- tion of seventeen new species and four new genera constitute this contribution. West American Oaks. By E. L. Greene. Part i, May, 1889; Part ii, June, 1890. 84 pp. 4to, with thirty-seven plates, the first twenty-four by the late Dr. Kellogg, the thirteen following much better ones by George Hanson, but all lacking in the details essen- tial to botanical drawings. In the first part the author reduces his Quercus parvula of Santa Cruz Islands to Q. Wis@izeni; finds an older name for QO. Breweri; makes two new species and one variety (Q. Engelmanni, O. Mac- Donaldi, and var. elegantula) from forms of OQ. oblongifolia® of *Mr. Greene identifies Q. Ransomi Kell. with Q. Douglassi, instead of putting it under Q. /odaéa as in the Botany of California. In this he is certainly correct, for not only did Dr. Kellogg so state in the note referred to, but in the annotated list of his species published in Bull. Cal. Acad, which was prepared in constant consultation with him, the statement is reiterated. Mr Greene has however made it sufficiently evident, both by text and drawing, that Dr. Kellogg did not distin- guish, if indeed they can always be discriminated, the northern Q. Douglasii from the more or less evergreen white oak of the southern part of the State. It is more than probable, judging from its locality (Tejon Pass south of Tehachapi) that VOL. I. | Recent Literature. 157 Bot. Cal.; names two new varieties (munita and polycarpa) of QO. dumosa; describes as new Q. turbinella from Lower California; re- instates Q. Gambellii Nutt.; maintains Q. vaccinifoliat Kell. the alpine form of Q. chrysolepis as ‘‘at least a fairly good sub- species, its small entire leaves and its young branches being wholly destitute of the fulvous-lepidote pubescence of Q. chrysolepis;’ and affirms with a good deal of positiveness that Q. Morehus Kell. found during the lifetime of Dr. Kellogg on evidence which satisfied him, to be a hybrid (Bull. Cal. Acad. i, 146), “‘is no hybrid but a clear species most related to Q. Wislizent.”’ In the second part the author substitutes Q. Palmeri Engelm. for Q. Dunnii Kell., because Dr. Engelmann described it first as a sub- species, and according to the author, “ It is the rule of botanists who do not recognize subspecies in nomenclature, to treat subspecific names as equivalent to specific.” While there is no doubt that the botanist Palmer, and not the entomologist Dunn, was the discoverer of the shrub, it is equally certain that Dr. Engelmann used “ subspecific’’ as equivalent to ‘‘variety’’ at least in most cases, and in this particular instance testifies (Bot. Cal., ii, 97) to such use of it himself. Of Q. tomentella the author says it has not been found on the islands of Santa Catalina in which statement he is in error, for it is enumerated in Lyon’s Catalina list, and the writer found it in abund- ance. Q. turbinella is reduced by implication to a form of Q- pungens Liebm. Var. polycarpa of QO. dumosa is similarly reduced; var. elegantula of MacDonaldi is considered to be a hybrid of yee Engelmanni and Q. dumosa; and it is admitted, let us hope finally, that QO. Morehus ‘‘must be of the nature of a hybrid.” Q. Ransomi is the earliest synonym of the Californian Q. od/ongifolia, and therefore antedates 0, Engelmanni, one of the types of which, pl. ix, fig. 3, as well as one of the specimens on which var. e/egantula of Q. MacDonald: was founded, were — collected at Tehachapi. ‘The striation of the acorns which Mr. Greene relies upon as diagnostic will not be found constant even in species like Q. Wistizeni where it is most pronounced. +Mr. Greene seems not to be aware that all of Dr. Kellogg’s new species of oaks excepting Q. Ransomi are represented in the herbarium of the California Academy of Sciences by colored drawings made by himself. @Q. vaccinifolia, Proc. Cal. Acad. i, 96, is described as ‘‘fuscous and stellate-pubescent beneath,” and again with “lower surface somewhat tan-colored,” and the painting fully agrees with the description. 158 Recent Literature. [ ZOE Nearly all the species reduced by Engelmann to forms of Q. undulata are restored, and a new one, Quercus venustula Greene, added; Quercus Jacobi is raised from the synonymy of QO. Garry- ana to its former rank; and Quercus Gilberti pl. xxxvii Greene, from an island in Puget Sound, is established on no better evidence than the sterile shoot of a ‘‘ low trailing shrub.’’ aah Dr. George Engelmann was a most painstaking and careful stu- dent of our oaks and other difficult genera, and most of his writings are the results of years of study and research. I resided many years in southern Colorado and at Dr. Engelmann’s request col- lected for him the many forms of the variable oak so abundant there, observed its habits and endeavored to answer his many ques- tions. At the time of his western trip, I had the pleasure of show- ing him a locality where a multitude of forms were assembled in a small area and as his own words describing it seem so appropriate they are here quoted from Trans. St. Louis Acad. of Sciences, vol. iii, 372, 1876. “‘A striking example of the deceptive polymorphism of these western oaks is fur- nished by the common Rocky Mountain scrub-oak. This interesting species grows _ on the foot-hills of the eastern slopes of the mountains of Colorado, sparingly near Denver, scarcely north of that city, but abundantly southward, about the Pike’s Peak region, and thence extends through New Mexico eastward into Texas, and westward through Utah and Arizona into southern California. Tho center of dis- tribution perhaps, at all events the classical locality of this species, are the mount- ains above Caiion City, in southern Colorado. In the valley and on the mountain slopes about this place the oak thickets abound, six to eight feet high, single trees occasionally four to six inches thick, rising up to twelve or fifteen feet, rarely higher. The leaves are three to four inches long, broadly obovate, deeply lobed, sometimes — pinnatifid, underneath stellate-pubescent; the broad lobes obtuse or retuse, often again two to three lobed. They bear middle-sized or small oval acorns, in more or less knobby hemispherical cups. Scattered copses of these broad-leaved oaks, often of a beautiful brownish-purple in September, accompany us to within a few hundred yards of the caiion, but here the character of these shrubs changes; the bushes are lower, the leaves smaller and in outline narrower, the lobes narrower _ and mostly undivided, but still obtuse. Now we near the precipice itself; from the ragged dizzy edge we here and there get a glimpse of the young Arkansas, whose clear, green waters toss and foam twelve or fifteen hundred feet under us, through the inaccessible gorge, rushing toward the plains. The oak bushes accompany us even here, but now they are only 4-6 feet high, with leaves two inches long, ovate- lanceolate in outline, no longer lobed, but coarsely dentate, the acute teeth termi- _ nating in a sharp point; the acorns are scarcely different from those noticed before. A few steps more, and we have reached the brink of the precipice itself; oak bushes here too, but only three or four feet high, with small (one inch long), oval, firm, almost — « VOL. I.]: Recent Literature. 159 cartilaginous, semi-persistent, spiny-toothed leaves, here and there with only very few teeth or quite entire; the acorns proportionately smaller, of the same short oval shape, or often elongated from an unusually small, scarcely knobby and some- times peduncled cup. We feel satisfied that we might have abundant material to characterize several distinct species, certainly four or five well-marked forms, and in- deed, they have been considered such. The first is Nuttall’s Quercus Gambellit (OQ. stellata var. Utahensis, DC. Prod.); the second is Q. alba var. Gunnisoni of Torrey; the third, with acutish lobes or coarse teeth, is Torrey’s old Q. undulata of Long’s Expedition, the first oak obtained from these mountains, and described about fifty years ago; the fourth, from the edge of the precipice itself, is what has often been mistaken for Torrey’s Q. Zmoryt, or what has been named Q. pungens Liebm., in part; with it occur entire-leaved forms, which seem to unite with this as a fifth form the Q. grisea Liebm. = . “3 In herbarium specimens they all appear distinct enough, but, looking around us, the very abund- ance of material must shake our confidence in our discrimination: within the com- pass of a few hundred yards we find not only the forms above distinguished, but numbers of others, which are neither the one nor the other, but which are inter- mediate between them, and clearly unite them all as forms of one single extremely polymorphous species. If one oak behaves thus, why not others? Thrown into a sea of doubt, what can guide us to a correct knowledge?” Now Mr. Greene raises these forms again to specific rank, and among them creates a new one. If this polymorphous oak is to be divided into species in this manner, many more equally as good can be made. The persistence of the leaves was carefully observed several years, and it certainly affords no good character for specific distinction of the forms of this oak. Each thicket has its own pe- culiarities of leaf, acorn, etc., and the different bushes have proba- bly an underground connection. Adjoining thickets or clumps hav- ing similar leaves and acorns vary much in the time at which the leaves fall, some lose them with the approach of cold weather, on some they dry and persist for different lengths of time, some drop them gradually through the winter, and on some they persist green till new ones appear in the spring. Loa Mle Contributions from the U. S. National Herbarium, No. 1, issued June 13, 1890. By GrorGE Vasey and J.N. Rosgz. The Botani- cal Division of the Agricultural Department makes in this publication a commencement towards utilizing the quantity of material accumu- lating from various sources in the National Herbarium. The plants treated of in this number are recent collections of the veteran natu- ralist Dr. Edward Palmer, whose notes on the growing appearance and uses of them add greatly to the interest of its pages. The work is a credit to the department, although the proof-reading is very im-— i 160 Proceedings of Societies. perfectly done, and when dealing with new species this is a matter of considerable importance. In the geography of western botany, _the work of the department differs notably from that of the Harvard Herbarium. This is especially apparent in generalizations, as upon the plants of Guadalupe Island, where the list of the twenty - nine species given as peculiar to the island embraces 7rifolium Palmeri, Flosackia ornithopus, Harpagonella Palmeri, Convolvulus occident- alis, Convolvulus macrostegius and Mimulus latifolius. PROCEEDINGS OF SOCIETIES. CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SciENCES. /uly 7, 1890. President Harkness in the chair. ee Mr. F. Gutzkow gave some interesting information regarding a diatomaceous earth from Sonoma County. This mineral, which is found in many places in California, consists chiefly of silica and water, and is of considerable economic importance. It has been used for building; as a polisher under the name of electro-silicon; in glass-making; and as an absorbent for nitro-glycerine in the manufacture of giant powder, etc. That obtained in California, has unfortunately been found unfit for the manufacture of giant powder and the presence of a small quantity of iron pre- vents its being used for making white glass. Mr. Gutzkow stated that he had devised a cheap and efficient method of eliminating the iron; thé method depends on the volatility of ferric chloride. C. H. Eigenmann exhibited specimens of salmon, salmon trout and trout, explain- ing that the individuals of a species differ so much according to the condition, the season, the bottom over which they live and the sex, that it is sometimes almost impossible for anyone but an ichthyologist to distinguish between species. This had caused the trouble between the Fish Commissioners and the deputies, about which so much was said a few months ago. A large number of specimens of Lake _ Tahoe trout were exhibited, Mr Eigenmann having just returned from Donner and Tahoe, bringing all the variations of that species which were to be had at this time. ; Much diversity of opinion exists among the Tahoe fishermen as to the number of _ species of trout found in that region, all seeming to think that thereare at least two ‘and some placing the number as high as six, namely, the big black trout, the red oe trout, the porgy (or pogy), the silver trout, the yellow-belly and the brook trout. __ With the possible exception of the first named, which Mr. Eigenmann did not see, — _ these ‘‘varieties ” were conclusively shown to represent a single species, Sa/mo . purpuratushenshawi, Ae ics ae i July 21, 1890. President Harkness in the chair. ee ene eee Mr. G. P Rixford exhi ounty, and carbon- _ _ objects of the associatio