264 FIELD COLUMBIAN MUSEUM BOTANY, VOL. II. 



of the original descriptions and a photograph of the illustration 

 of the above species from the Revue Horticole. 



I am indebted, moreover, to Dr. Casimir DeCandolle who 

 has kindly made for me a critical comparison of my no. 209 with 

 Crusea calocephala DC. in the Prodromus herbarium. From 

 Dr. DeCandolle's letter I quote the following: "I have com- 

 pared the Crusea specimens you sent me with that of C. caloce- 

 phala in the Prodromus herbarium. The case of that species 

 is unfortunately not quite clear as you will see by the following: 

 C. calocephala DC. is represented in the herbarium by Mocino's 

 plate n. 497 (an original plate, by the way, and not a tracing), 

 together with Dunant's specimen from Peru. Now it happens 

 that these two documents do not seem to belong to the same 

 species, for the plate (of which I sent you yesterday a good 

 tracing, in a separate roller) shows penninerved leaves, whilst 

 in Dunant's specimen the leaves have the same nervation as in 

 your specimen. Now on the other hand Dunant's specimen 

 differs from yours ist by the shape of its involucral leaves 

 which are more attenuate at the base; 2d by its calyx being 

 densely pubescent from its base upwards, whilst in your specimens 

 it is much less pubescent and mostly on its upper part only. 

 Consequently I consider your specimens as specifically distinct 

 from both Mocino's plate and Dunant's specimen. 



Moreover I must also draw your attention to the fact that in 

 Mocino's plate, the corolla is coloured in red (which please 

 inscribe on the tracing when it reaches you) whilst your plant 

 seems to have blue flowers. As for C. rubra Cham. & Schlecht. 

 it is also certainly distinct from your plant, as it has much 

 shorter and strigose hairs and longer petioles." 



Both C. calocephala DC. and C. rubra Cham. & Schlecht. are 

 somewhat confused, and very little is known about C. violacea 

 Brongn. In fact the entire genus Crusea, as well as Spermacoce, 

 needs a careful revision, which, however, can only be done 

 satisfactorily after a critical comparison of the ample material 

 of our recent collections with types existing only in European 

 herbaria. 

 LOBELIA REGALIS Fernald, Proc. Am. Acad. xxxvi. 503 (1901). 



Excellent specimens of this species were collected at Ejutla, 

 State of Oaxaca, Mexico, altitude 1,300 m., 12 December, 1906, 

 C. Conzatti, no. 1638 (hb. Field Mus.). This collection records 

 another station for one of the most beautiful species of the genus, 

 and one which is well worthy of introducing into cultivation. 

 OAXACANIA MALVAEFOLIA Rob. & Greenm. Am. Journ. Sci. 1. 151 



(1895). 



This interesting monotype has been found at De Almoloyas 



a Sta. Catarina, Oaxaca, Mexico, at an altitude of 1,000 m., 

 26 December, 1906, C. Conzatti, no. 1654 (hb. Field Mus.). The 

 only other recorded locality for this species is that cited under 

 the original description, namely Tomellin Canon, Oaxaca, 

 where it was secured by Mr. C. G. Pringle in 1894. 



