VOL. 11. ] : Utah Plants. 245 
fruit. It was at first taken for C. dreviflorus, Gray Pl. Wright, by 
Watson. The characters relied upon as specific were the pubes- 
cence, size of flowers and fruit, and the shape of the leaves. Since 
I have never seen C. dreviflorus, and since Prof. Watson had not at 
that time yielded his C. znivicaius I was induced to lay too much 
stress upon those characters in the new species, which I called C 
Arizonicus last year, which is a better species than C. dreviflorus or 
C. intricatus. My observations this year show that no one of those 
characters is of any value whatever. At higher altitudes in all the 
mountains at the lower edge of the field of C. /edifolius there is 
always a transition to C. /edifolius, and at the lowest altitudes where 
the var. zzfricatus ceases (5,000 feet above the sea), every con- 
ceivable connecting form is found that by itself might be taken for 
C. Arizonicus and C. breviflorus, so far as my field of observations 
goes. Should there be any valid character left to keep up these 
species I will announce them hereafter, but I see none now. This 
will clear up the genus by reducing Arizonicus, breviflorus, and 
intricatus to the var. intricatus of ledifolius, and leave only the 
two species C. /edifolius and C, parvifolius in the United States, 
as recognized species. It will extend the range of C. /edifolius from 
Idaho and California to southern Nevada and eastward to the 
borders of Colorado and southward to northern Arizona and New 
Mexico, where it is represented exclusively by the var. zniricatus. | 
The range of the variety is from New Mexico to southwestern 
Nevada and north to Idaho, in dry and low situations among rocks. 
Since writing the above I have received from Mr. Colville, of the 
Department of Agriculture, a leaf from the type specimen of Cerco- 
carpus brevifiorus Gray, and wonder how it could ever have been 
confounded with C. dedifolius var. intricatus by any one who had 
ever seen it. The description of C. dreviflorus as given in Plante 
Wrightianz is not accurate as is shown by this specimen. C. drevz- 
florus is clearly only a variety of C. parvifolius, a starved form ex- 
actly»analogous to the var. ztricatus of C. ledifolius. I should 
not hesitate to reduce it as a variety of C. parvifolius and call it 
Sa ax parvifolius var. breviflorus Colville, but I do not feel at liberty 
to publish it as such, but simply mention it so as to show to 
2 whom the credit is due—to Mr. Colville—for placing it where it 
really belongs. What I have said above needs little change except 
to take C. breviflorus out of the synonymy of C. ledifolius and put 
"it into that of C. parvifolius. 
