644 Piper: NEw AND NOTEWORTHY NORTHWESTERN PLANTS 
hardly as long as the corollas: calyx pubescent, the lobes lance- 
ovate, acute, 4 mm. long: corolla blue, 10 mm. long, the ampliate 
limb as long as the tube: anthers as long as the filaments. 
Dry soil, Stein’s Mt., eastern Oregon, 7,000 feet altitude, 18 
June 1901, Cusick, 2532. 
The species here proposed is quite different from any of those 
recently published. The pubescence of the plant here described 
is very much more marked than on any similar plant known to 
the writer. : 
¥ Lonicera sororia sp. nov. 
Shrub 5-1 m. high: bark pale: young shoots sparsely glan- 
dular: flowering branches with three or four pairs of leaves: 
leaves thin, green and nearly glabrous, except the ciliate margins, 
all short-petioled, 2~4 cm. long, the lower one or two pairs elliptic- 
oblong, the obtuse apex mucronate; upper two pairs obovate, 
cuneate at base, acute or acuminate, especially the uppermost 
pair: bud-scales triangular-ovate, acute, persisting on the stem at 
least two years: fruiting peduncles about 2 cm. long, sparsely 
stipitate-glandular : fruit red, as large as a pea, formed of the two 
completely united ovaries: seeds 3 mm. long, finely reticulated : 
_ flowers not seen. 
Wet forests, Cycan Mts., eastern Oregon, 14 August 1901, 
Cusick, 2759. 
This is closely related to L. conjugialis Kellogg, from whic 
obovate leaves would seem to separate it. 
h its 
ANTENNARIA PARVIFOLIA Nutt. 
The type of this species is in the herbarium of the Philadelphia 
Academy of Sciences. It is by no means a satisfactory specimen 
to identify. Two opinions have been expressed in regard to i; 
the first by Dr. P. A. Rydberg (Flora Montana, 412), who 7 
gards it as identical with A. rosea Eaton; the other by Professor 
E. L. Greene (Pittonia, 3: 280), who identifies it with 4. mucre- 
phylla Rydb. Mr. Elias Nelson, in his recent revision, Proc. u. 
S. Nat. Museum, 23: 708, accepts Professor Greene’s view, 
though he states in the introduction that he had not een the Le 
I am totally unable to agree with either of the above decisions, 
but would regard the plant as probably A. aprica Greene. ¥e 
M. L. Fernald has also examined the plant at my request and 
too thinks it A. aprica, : 
A, microphylla Rydb. seems to me a valid species. 
