70 Coville — yew Plants from Soutlicm California, 



on the branches, 7 to 8 nun. high, lieniis[)herical, with very 

 many liowers ; involucral "bracts narrowly Hnear, acuminate, 

 hirsute; ra}' flowers numerous, Ijut witli rays minute, pink, and 

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

 consisting of sev'eral 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 

 Erlgeron. Its heads closely resemble those of E. suj)2)lex, but 

 that species has no ray flowers whatever. Its pubescence is 

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

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



Type s{)ecimen 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 i^etiole, 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, Ijc- 

 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 Avith 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. a-speram, and sent the follow- 

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

 new species from this matei-ial. It has not the habit oVE. pumi- 

 lum,'' which is a very dubious 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. asperum.'''' The plant differs conspicu- 

 ously from the ordinary Califovnian form of E. asperuin in its 

 yellow instead of orange petals, i)orcnnial rootstock, smaller size, 

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



