14 
He puts A. sparsiflorus here when it belongs in the Sparsiflori. 
He renames Gray’s Section Microlobi and calls it Rugocarpus. 
belongs in the Lotiflori along with Mohavensis. He puts A. humi- 
' In the Ocreati he puts A. accumbens (procumbens) when it 
stratus here when it is better placed in the Momalobi. 
The Galigformes he renames but puts A. atropubescens in it 
when it belongs in the Reventi-arrecti He puts A. Howelli and 
misellus here when they belong in the Hamosi. 
He makes a new section for A. asclepiadoides and calls it 
Asclepiadodes, ignoring the fact that I had previously suggested 
the name Pachyphyllus for the section, but the species is better 
placed in the Preussii. 
He creates a new section and calls it Eremiticus. This is 
another hodge-podge of species, It contains A. diphacus which be- 
longs in the Didymocarpi, A. tener which belongs in the Leptocarpi. 
A. obscurus which belongs in the Atrati. A. Panamintensis also be- 
longs in the Atrati. A. recurvus belongs in the Strigulosi. A. 
pachypus which belongs in the Sclerocarpi. A. sylvaticus which 
belongs in the Hamosi. A. tricarinatus which belongs in the Hamosi 
A. arrectus which belongs in the Reventi-arrecti. A. Brandegbi 
which belongs in the Strigulosi. A. drepanolobus which goes in the 
Hamosi. A. Bolanderi which belongs in the Reventi-arrecti, A. 
malacus which goes in the Malaci. A. Andersoni, Congdoni and 
Oreuttianus which go in the Hamosi, A. Rusbyi which belongs in 
the Strigulosi. A. Arizonicus which belongs in the Hamosi. A. 
leptocarpus, streptopus (acutirostis) Nuttallianus, Wrightii all of which 
belong in the Leptocarpi. A. albens which goes in the Hamosi. A. 
Dale» (vaccarum) which gocs in the Mieranthi. A. -Cobrensis 
which goes with the Strigulosi. A. hypoxylus, Pringlei,. Hartwegi 
and vaccarum which belong in the Micronthi, 
He again crestes a new name for an old section, the Didymo- 
carpi, calling it Dispermus, 
Under the Hynoglottidei which he renames Hypoglottidens he 
puts A. ventorum (Oreganus) and the terminalis which belongs in the 
Uliginosi. 
Under the Ulizinosi he puts A. ervoides which neither he nor 
anyone else knows anything about. He also places A. accidens here 
which belongs in the Reventi-arreeti. .. 
Under the Mollissimi he puts A. Layneæ which belongs with 
the Malaci. 
Under the Cheetodontes he follows Watson in keeping A. calyco- 
sus there but which belongs in the Hamosi, and which he would have 
placed in his Spiesiodes, if he had known anything about the species 
along with A. Arizonicus. 
Under the Lentiginosi he puts A. Bajensis (Hornii) which be- 
longs in the Inflati. 
He again makes a new name for an old section the Sarocapt 
by calling it Carnoscocarpus. 
At the end he has 27 unplaced specie 
The list shows no conception cf genetic relationship other than 
that indicated by his predecessors, and a continual blundering in 
the placing of new species, as well as a disregard for priority in the 
naming of sections, which is wholly unexcusable. 
GENERIC SEGREGATION. 
The conception of Astragalus as a genus began with Tourne- 
fort if not earlier. Since his time some sixty genera have been 
proposed as segregates from it. Tournefort himself separated Phaca 
undr the name of Astragaloides, and Linnzus in Linn Corolli. Gen. 
