332 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [april 



County, Cushenberry^ Spr[ing], Mojave Desert, June 2, 1901, 5. B. Parish 

 (no. 4931; N., St.), and Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, April 1901, G. B. 

 Grant (no. 1156; M.; apparently the same as Parish's plant). Both need 

 further observation. 



In 1900 RowLEE described a S. exigua var. virens (Bull. Torr. 

 Bot. Club 27:255), for the type of which a specimen collected by 

 Rothrock in Arizona has to be taken. So far as can be discovered 

 from the specimens cited by the author, I believe that Rowlee 

 mixed several forms of different affinity, belonging partly to S. 

 melanopsis Bolanderiana (Bolander, no. 5031; Kellogg and Harford, 

 no. 922; W. G. Wright, Kernville [not Kernerville]), and partly to 

 S. sessilifolia leucodendroides {Alder son [not Anderson] no. 700). 

 The type of Rothrock, which is sheet no. 6122 in C, represents a 

 female specimen of which the flowers can hardly be distinguished 

 from those of 5. exigua. In the leaves it agrees well with a 

 male specimen of Orcutt's (San Diego County, in the southwestern 

 part of the Colorado Desert, Dos Cabesas, October 11, 1890, no. 

 2227; A., C), which number is also cited by Rowlee. Both may 

 be taken for a rather glabrescent variety of S. exigua, but the 

 leaves show under the lens a fine and thin silky pubescence and 

 cannot be called ''nearly glabrous," a character apparently taken 

 by Rowlee from the specimens of var. Bolanderiana. Rothrock' s 

 and Orcutfs specimens come very near the 2 specimens of Parish 

 and Grant with 2 glands in the female flowers. Besides these 

 there is Parish's no. 3194 (San Bernardino County, San Ber- 

 nardino Mountains, Big Morongo, alt. 900 m., June 15, 1894; m.; 

 M.) that hardly differs from Orcutfs plant, and also LeRoy Ahrams' 

 and McGregor's no. 406 (Los Angeles County, Liebre Mountains, 

 Oakgrove Canyon and Elizabeth Lake, June 20-23, 1908; f., fr.; 

 St.) seems to represent such a form the leaves of which become 

 rather greenish at maturity, but the lower surface is rather gla- 

 brescent in Rothrock' s specimens. This form somewhat simulates 

 var. Bolanderiana, and I cannot express at present a definite opinion 

 as to its real taxonomic value and true afi&nity. 



8 Rowlee spells the name Cashewberry, but I read it as given, and S. B. Parish 

 writes in a letter to Professor C. S. Sargent that this is the local way of spelhng the 

 name, while on the map of the Geological Survey it is spelled Cushenbury. 



