12 
As I have already stated I think the Homalobi should form the third 
Series. It is the lowest group in the genus and next of kin to 
Hosackia, Lathyrus and Vicia. 
His last group (Section 27) is the Triphylli, related to the 
Homalobi but higher than it, containing A. triphyllus and ser- 
icoleucus. I think it is an error to place the latter species with it 
for it belongs with the Homalobi along with A. simplicifolius. 
Gray makes a third Series containing A. nothoxys, an oxytro- 
pidoid form which I think belongs better with the Leptocarpi. He 
evidently had not as yet worked out the other oxytropidoid species 
A. Arizonicus and calycosus which I place among the Hamosi. 
WATSON’S REVISION, 
The next attempt at revising the genus is that of Watson in 
the Appendix of King’s Report. His is an amplification of Gray’s 
work as stated at its beginning. 
He corrects some of Gray’s errors, and makes a few of his 
own, but in the main it is an admirable revision of this excellent 
work. It is easy enough to criticise the work of earlier botanists 
who had little or no field experience and scanty and poor material, 
but very few of us would have done as well. 
He puts A. Coulteri (Arthu-schottii) where it belongs, with the 
Diphysi (Inflati) and also puts A. platytropis with it where it does not 
belong. He keeps all of Gray’s sections in Gray‘s order. 
He adds A, calycosus to the Chaetodontes, a natural error, but 
it belongs far removed in the Hamosi according to Gray’s order 
but in fact not so far removed in relationship. 
He puts A. Arizonicus with the Leptoc?rpi where it does not 
belong but keeps them in the Micranthi. To this group he adds a 
subsection of “anomalous species” containing A. Andersoni, malacus, 
Bolanderi, arrectus, atratus, obscurus and tener, another hodge-podge. 
A. malacus belongs near the Argophylli, A. Andersoni with the Hamosi, 
A. Belanderi and arrectus with the Reventi-arrecti, A. atratus and 
obscurus with the Atrati, A. tener with the Leptocarpi. 
He keeps A. humistratus among the Ocreati to which it is related 
but belongs better with the Homalobi. 
He keeps the Alpini and Sparsiflori together under Oroboidei 
and adds A. Breweri which helongs with the Didymocarpi: and A. 
Lindheimeri, distortus and glaber he puts here though better placed 
among the Leptocarpi and Hamosi. 
He adds the section Pterocarpi which is better placed among 
the Podo-sclerocarpi. 
He transfers A. Beckwithii from the Bisulcati to the Argophylli 
which is also an error. He makes no improvement on the Argophylli. 
He adds A. nudus (Serenoi) to the Pectinati, wisely, but does 
not add that to the Podo-sclerocarpi where it belongs. 
There is no improvement on the Scytocarpi. He puts A. pych- 
nostachyus here when it belongs along with A. Palmeri among the 
Inflati near A. Hornii. 
He puts A. cyrtoides (Gibbsii) in the Podo-sclerocarpi, but it 
is better placed next to A. collinus in the Collini. 
He puts A. porrectus among the Homalobi, a natural error, but 
-I think is better placed in the Collini. He puts A. Palmeri in the 
Homalobi, but it is better placed among the Inflati. 
The revision of the genus in the Pflanzen-familien is simply 
a copy of the work of Gray and Watson.  - ii 
