70 .Coville ^\cw Plants from SoutJtem California, 



on the branches, 7 to 8 mm. high, hemispherical, with very 

 many flowers; involucral bracts narrowly linear, acuminate, 

 hirsute; ray flowers numerous, but with rays minute, pink, and 

 shorter than the disk ; pappus of ray and disk flowers alike, 

 consisting of several long, stout, closely barbellate bristles (4 

 mm. long), equalling the disk corollas, and a few intermediate 

 much shorter ones ; achenium compressed, short villous. 



This species resembles in general appearance no described 

 Erigeron. Its heads closely resemble those of E. supplex, but 

 that species has no ray flowers whatever. Its pubescence is 

 similar to that of E. concinnm. The specific name refers to the 

 bald appearance of the heads, due to the minuteness of the rays. 



Type specimen in the United States National Herbarium, 

 No. 870, Death Valley Expedition ; collected May 16, 1891, at 

 the foot of the Inyo Mountains, about four miles north of Keeler, 

 California, by Frederick V. Coville. 



Erysimum asperum perenne Watson, var. nov. 



Apparently perennial, the old stem-base horizontal or nearly 

 so ; stem erect, 25 to 50 cm. high ; radical leaves oblong to oblan- 

 ceolate, entire or very sparsely denticulate-dentate, tapering into 

 a long petiole, sparsely strigose (like the stem) with the pick- 

 shaped hairs of E. asperum; stem leaves narrowly oblanceolate ; 

 petals light yellow ; fruit wanting. 



Type specimen in the United States National Herbarium, No. 

 1487, Death Valley Expedition; collected August 5, 1891, be- 

 tween Mineral King and Farewell Gap, Sierra Nevada, Tulare 

 County, California, by Frederick V. Coville. 



Dr. Watson, in answer to my letter (forwarded to him with the 

 specimens) saying that this plant appeared distinct from E. aspe- 

 rum and similar to E. pumilum of Nuttall, determined the plant 

 questionably as a new variety of E. asperum, and sent the follow- 

 ing note : " This may be distinct, but it is impossible to define a 

 new species from this material. It has not the habit of 1 E. ptuni- 

 lumj which is a very dubic/us species. Its perennial character, as 

 your specimens show, is not always obvious, and our other high 

 mountain specimens from California and elsewhere do not help 

 to distinguish it from E. aspertnn" The plant differs conspicu- 

 ously from the ordinary Californian form of E. (i*i>rrinn in its 

 yellow instead of orange petals, perennial rootstock, smaller size, 

 less canescent herbage, and broader root-leaves, and, furthermore, 



