VOL. II. | Drymaria in Baja California. 69 
found growing in the clean sand of the sea shore which seems to be 
the true D. crassifolia, and it is not the plant now generally dis- 
tributed under that name. A careful comparison of specimens be- 
longing to this form and the common form now known as D. crass?- 
folia convinces me that the latter for many years has been masque- 
rading under an alias and should be known as D. holosteoides. 
Mr. Bentham writes of D. crassifolia: ‘‘ This species is near D. 
holosteoides, but forms dense tufts covered with leaves and flowers ; 
the leaves are thicker and more glaucous, and the flowers larger, 
and on longer stalks.’’ This general summing up of the differences 
between these two nearly allied species shows just the differences 
between the two forms I have found. The one from the sea-shore 
near San José del Cabo grows in dense rounded clumps, has thicker 
and more glaucous leaves, and flowers on larger stalks and must be 
the D. crassifolia of Bentham’s description, but it is not the plant 
distributed under that name. Thedescription of D. holosteoides is 
very full in the Botany of the Sulphur and that of D. crassifolia is 
short, the species being distinguished in these descriptions mainly 
by comparison, and now having specimens of both before me there 
isno doubt as to the plants meant by Mr. Bentham. 
D. holosteoides is annual, low, usually prostrate-spreading, some- 
what glaucous, pubescent; leaves ovate, cuneate at base, thickish; 
pedicels scarcely equalling the leaves. 
D. crassifolia grows in thick rounded clumps, is more glaucous, 
entirely glabrous, has thicker leaves, and pedicels slightly longer. 
The margins of the petals are not so evidently scarious. It is_per- 
haps perennial. The flowers of both are nearly alike, those ot D. 
crassifolia have narrower petals and in this respect differ from the 
description. 
These species are certainly nearly related as Bentham writes, and 
the differences may be caused by exposure, soil, etc., but the grow- 
ing plants seem very distinct. If ever they should be proved to be 
not specifically distinct, priority of place should make the name of 
the species D. holosteotdes, but if they are considered to be two 
species, the one distributed should be known by that name and 
_ the thick, glaucous leaved one as D. crassifolia. 
Drymaria Fendleri Watson is a common species of the penin- 
‘sula. It agrees well enough with the New Mexican specimens for- 
merly classed with D. glandulosa, to which according to the de- 
P 
