MARIPOSA COUNTY AS A BOTANICAL DISTRICT. 



III. 



BY J. VV. CONGDON. 



Before proceeding- to discuss the plants of the coniferous belt, I 

 take this opportunity to make some corrections in my former lists. 



Since they were prepared, it has been my good fortune to visit 

 San Francisco and enjoy the opportunity there to study, as well as 

 I could in the brief time which other engagements permitted, the 

 large collections of the Academy of Sciences, principally, with re- 

 ference to the correction of errors in my determinations of our 

 many difficult species. 



In making this examination I was indebted to Mrs. Katherine 

 Brandegee, curator of the herbarium, for valuable suggestions and 

 assistance, which it gives me great pleasure to acknowledge. 



These corrections, as will be seen, consist partly in correcting mis- 

 takes in identifying the plants themselves, and partly in making the 

 nomenclature adopted conform to the latest and best authorities. 

 This applies principally to the Umbelliferse. Podosciadium Call- 

 fornicwn Gray of Bot. Cal. is Eulophus Califoniicus C. & R. 

 of Coulter and Rose's Revision of the Umbelliferae. Ferula disso- 

 luta Wats, is Leptotiznia disseda Nutt. Deweya Hariwegi Gray is 

 VelcEa Hartwegi C. & R. Siephanovieria panicidata Nutt. should 

 be 6". virgata Nutt. 



The plant referred to as Phacelia phyllomanica Gray is P. platyloba 

 Gray, and is also clearly the plant described by Mr. Greene under 

 the name of P. Arthia'i. Mr. Greene's character is taken from 

 a single plant, evidently a waif from the foothill region, where the 

 species is not rare. 



Mimiihis namis Hook. & Arn. of the list is clearly a mixture of 

 two and probably three species. The Mariposa plant is Mbmihis 

 subsecundus Gray, mingled with an apparently undescribed species 

 of the same general habit. 



In the coniferous belt, the place of these species is taken by an- 

 other which, judging from careful observations made since my 

 return, is probably the original Minmliis namis of Gray, but 

 whether Gray's plant or the present agrees with the 7ia7ins of Hooker 

 and Arnott I have no means of determining. 



