Rvdberg : Rocky Mountain flora 325 



almost equally floccose on both sides with loose, not dense tomen- 

 tum, sometimes slightly glandular; inflorescence large, corym- 

 bosely paniculate; heads somewhat conglomerate at the ends of 

 the branchlets; involucre hemispheric or nearly so, 6 mm. high, 

 only slightly tomentose at the base; bracts broadly ovate, acute, 

 light straw-colored or white; achenes glabrous; pappus straw- 

 colored. 



This species is intermediate between Gnaphalium microcepha- 

 lum and G. decurrens; perhaps more closely related to the latter, 

 of which it has the general habit and the larger nearly hemispher- 

 ical involucres, but the leaves are nearly as tomentose above as 

 beneath. They are slightly if at all glandular; the stem is not 

 at all so. The pubescence is that of G. microcephalum but the 

 inflorescence is more open and inclined to be flat-topped and both 

 the involucre and its bracts are much broader. 



Montana: Columbia Falls, Aug. n, 1894, R. S. Williams 

 (type, in herb. N. Y. Bot. Gard.); woods, Belton, Aug. 25, 1903, 

 Umbach 752. 



Nacrea A. Nels. 



I believe that this genus is based on the essentially staminate 

 plant of Anaphalis. There is a duplicate of the type of Nacrea 

 lanata in the herbarium of the New York Botanical Garden, but 

 the specimens are so young that the real structure of the flowers 

 can not be made out. It may be that Nelson had better developed 

 material on hand. The expressions "akenes (immature in these 

 specimens)" indicate, however, that he did not have developed 

 fruit. The so-called staminate flowers of Anaphalis are in reality 

 hermaphrodite flowers with sterile pistils. (See Bentham & 

 Hooker, Genera Plantarum.) The styles in them are undivided 

 and the achenes remain undeveloped. In the description of Nacrea 

 there is nothing said about the styles being undivided or 2-cleft. 

 In the herbarium of the New York Botanical Garden there are 

 two specimens collected in the Big Horn Mountains, one by T. A. 

 Williams in 1898, and the other by Dr. H. Hapeman in 1892, 

 which (especially the first mentioned) are so close in every respect 

 to the duplicate of the type of Nacrea lanata, that anybody would 

 take them for the same species. They are better developed and 

 belong without doubt to an Anaphalis. Whether they can be 

 separated specifically from A. subalpina is doubtful. 



