66 Rhodora [APRIL 
die untere) 3-nervig." In view of all this, it does not appear justi- 
fiable to consider the name T. biflorum synonymous, by the Vienna 
Rules, with A. violaceum. Furthermore it is not necessary to do so, 
because, for us, the first name which can be taken up in the varietal 
rank, is, as we have shown, Triticum biflorum Brign. 8. Hornemanni 
Koch. ‘Transitional material to Agropyron tenerum Vasey is especially 
common from the Gaspé Peninsula. In fact, if this region alone were 
taken into account, one would be inclined not to make any distinction 
at all. 
A co-type of A. brevifolium Scribn.! needs a word of comment. It 
differs from the ordinary forms of A. violaceum only in having many 
sterile shoots; the length of the leaves is unimportant. The larger 
number of shoots hardly constitutes a character, so that the name 4. 
brevifolium may well be relegated to synonymy. 
The next variety which needs to be discussed is the one described in 
correct form under the genus ‘Triticum as T. caninum L. var. Gmelini 
Ledeb. Oddly enough, the correct combination has been actually 
used, though not technically made, for in the Bulletin of the Torrey 
Botanical Club,? Vasey speaks of Agropyrum caninum (L.) Beauv. var. 
Gmelini Ledeb., a combination not made by Ledebour, and so far as 
we are aware, not formally published by anyone. According to the 
Vienna Code, a combination is not considered made unless reference 
is given to a previously published name, which in this case was not 
done. 
The three last mentioned plants may best be treated as parallel varie- 
ties. ‘There exists a pubescent form of Triticum caninum var. Gmelini. 
The type of Agropyron Gmelini (Ledeb.) Scribn. & Sm. var. Pringlei 
Seribn. & Sm. in the Gray Herbarium, as well as most of the speci- 
mens so labelled, is evidently this form. No other constant difference 
from A. Gmelini has been detected. A specimen in the Gray Her- 
barium labelled A. Seribneri Vasey, which also does not differ essen- 
tially from our plant, is noted, on the sheet, by the word, “Type.” 
In fact, the affinity is recognized by Vasey, who says of it, “It is per- 
haps the A. caninum, var. Gmelini, Ld." As there may be some 
doubt about the identity of A. Scribneri, since the specimen labelled 
! U. 8. Dept. Agr. Div. Agrost. Bull. no. 11, 55 (July 20, 1898). 
? Flora Alt, i, 118 (1829); figured, Ic. Pl. Nov, imperf. cogn. Flor. Ross. iii, 16, t. 
248 (1831). 
3 x, 128 (Dec. 1883). 
