246 Shear : Notes on Fournier's 



Paris this differs from B. proximns ScldecJitendalii in having a 

 large drooping panicle. There is some doubt in our mind as to 

 whether the spikelet we have is from the particular plant of 

 Bourgeau's that was taken by Fournier as his type. The form is 

 of doubtful varietal value but may stand until better known as 

 Bromus proximns genidniis n. comb. No. 171 E. Palmer, Du- 

 rango, June, 1896, belongs here. B. Schaffneri (Fourn.) Scribn. 

 & Merrill U. S. Dept. Agr. Div. Agrost. 24: 30. 1901 was 

 founded in part upon the specimen first cited. 



Bromus Hookeri var. e pubescens Fourn. /. c. 



This he regards a B. pubescens Muhl. which he wrongly inter- 

 preted, that plant belonging to the subgenus Zerna. According 

 to the sketches and spikelets from 14 17 and 1420 collected by 

 Virler at San Luis de Potosi this cannot be distinguished from 



P 



variety. 



Bromus Hookeri var. r Canadensis Fourn. /. c 



This plant he regarded as B. Canadensis Mx. We unfortu- 

 nately have no sketch or spikelets from any of the specimens re- 

 ferred to this variety. From the description we infer, however, 

 that it is at least varietally distinct from the other forms described, 

 but before giving it a name, we prefer to wait until we have had 

 an opportunity to examine authentic specimens of the plant. 



The other forms treated by Fournier are Bromus Hookeri var. 

 jj ciliatus, incorrectly regarded as Bromus ciliatus ; Bromus Hookeri 

 var. 6 pendulinus, regarded as synonymous with Bromus pend?i- 



without descriptions. 



/? 



M 



There are several species of the older authors described from 



so until the types, if extant, can be studied and redescribed, and 

 no permanent or satisfactory disposition of the Mexican material 

 can be made until these older specimens are understood. 



Washington, D. C. 



