468 Rydberg: Studies on the Rocky Mountain flora 



variabilis Brand are one and the same species. I included Hall & 

 Harbour 454 in the original description of P. collina, and I have no 

 reason for changing my opinion. There is no essential difference 

 between my diagnosis of P. collina and Brand's characterization of 

 P. variabilis, except that I described the leaves as "oblong or ovate " 

 and Brand gives them as "linear." The specimens in the Colum- 

 bia University herbarium of Hall & Harbour 454 have oblong leaves, 

 hence agreeing better with my description. Furthermore, P. 

 alyssoides {= P. collina), as I understand it, has been collected at 

 several places In both Utah and Wyoming, and why not also in 

 Colorado ? Professor A. Nelson in Coulter & Nelson's New Manual 

 has followed Dr. Brand's treatment of this group very closely. It 

 would have been much better for him to find out the real facts. 



Brand's description of P. Douglasii is not correct; he describes 

 the calyx as eglandulose-pilose, while the duplicate of the type in 

 the Columbia University herbarium is densely glandular. 



Phlox dasyphylla Brand is not better than P. variabilis, being 

 only a small-flowered and narrow-leaved form of P. multiflora, 

 not uncommon in Colorado and Wyoming. 



Phlox densa Brand is a low condensed from of P. austro- 

 montana, more like the type than Phlox austromontana prostrata 

 E. Nels., which Dr. Brand regards as a mere variety. The only 

 one of Dr. Brand's new species from the Rockies that I regard as 

 good is P. glabrata (E. Nels.) Brand (P. Hoodii glabrata E. Nels.). 



In describing Phlox aciileata* Prof. A. Nelson compares it with 

 the P. caespitosa group. The intercostal portion of the calyx is 

 replicate, however, which would associate it with P. Stansbmyi. 

 I can not distinguish it from P. viridis E. Nels. 



Dr. Brand's conception of Gilia congesta Hooker is entirely 

 wrong. He regards G. iberidifolia Benth. as the typical G. con- 

 gesta. A duplicate of Douglas's plant is found in the Columbia 

 University herbarium, and a closer study of the same shows that 

 it is the same as Jenney's plant from the Black Hills, which con- 

 stituted a part of G. spicata capitata A. Gray, and my number 886, 

 also from the Black Hills. These two specimens I included in my 

 G. cephaloidea. Unfortunately I did not designate a type and 

 some botanists might claim that Jenney's plant which was first 



*Bot. Gaz. 52: 270. 1911. 



